-------
EPA's MISSION:

To Protect Human Health
and the Environment

-------

-------
Message from
1 P  A r f It! P'  A
&•%„. .i .s.wi'i-s S'i.  j.  .k
                                                          I SI f T/7 f f IT
                                                          sOi'l i^vH./ J
                          September 2003
   I am pleased to present the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2003
Strategic Plan, which will guide the Agency's work over the next five years.
This St?'ategic Plan offers a new, more workable approach to our environmental
protection efforts in the near future. We have established five new long-term,
results-based goals to replace the ten goals of our previous plans. By focusing
on few outcome-oriented goals, we can achieve better environmental results;
provide greater flexibility in our internal operations to state, tribal, and federal
partners; and use taxpayer dollars more wisely and effectively.

   The events of the past two years have brought many changes in the way
we as citizens have corne to look upon our government and communities. Our
desire for improvements in the quality-of-Iife—cleaner and safer air, water, and
land, and the protection of natural resources—remains sustained and strong.
More Americans than ever before are traveling our country. They are enjoying
the scenic and recreational opportunities of our rivers, parks, and forests, along
with the attractions of our large cities and small towns, for which we are known
and understandably proud.

   Ensuring that our citizens live in a healthy, safe environment that supports
these and many other beneficial uses is a responsibility that we at  EPA welcome.
Our 2003-2008 Strategic Plan maps out our approach to protecting and enhancing
environmental quality and human health. We thank our partners  and stakeholders
for their continuing help toward achieving these goals. We are especially grateful
to the American public for its unwavering support of our efforts to safeguard an
environmental legacy that we and future generations can appreciate and enjoy.
                                        Marianne Lament Horinkc
                                        Acting Administrator

-------
Introduction ................................................ .2
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
 .10
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water ................................. .30

Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration	.56

Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems  ................... .76

Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship  ............. .108

Cross-Goal Strategies ....................................... .128
   Partnerships ............................................ .131
   Information ............................................ .134
   Innovation ............................................. .140
   Human Capital  ......................................... .146
   Science  ............................................... .153
   Homeland Security ...................................... .161
   Economic and Policy Analysis ............................. .165

Appendix 1: Social Costs and Benefits ......................... .173

Appendix 2: Program Evaluations ............................. .215

Appendix 3: Summary of Consultation Efforts ................... .227
Appendix 4: Coordination Between EPA and Other
Federal Agencies	
.233

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Ptan—Direction for the Future
                   Since its establishment in 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) arid
               our federal, state, tribal, and local government partners have made great progress toward mak-
               ing our air and water cleaner and safer and protecting and restoring our land. Our mission
               .Statement is clear: to protect human health and the environment.

                   Today, however, we are dealing with some environmental issues far more complex than
               those of 20 or 30 years ago. The environmental problems we face in 2003 arc more difficult to
               define, and possible solutions are more difficult to identify. Population growth, and the way
               resources are consumed to sustain this growth, are altering the Earth in unprecedented ways.
               Scientific advances and technological developments pose  new issues for human health and
               environmental protection. Today more than ever, we recognize the need to look toward the
               future to anticipate potential threats to human health and the environment, establish clear pri-
               orities, and prepare ourselves for addressing them.

                   Cur success will depend on a variety of critical factors:

                   •  First, we must set the right goals for protecting the environment and human health.
                      We believe that close collaboration and good communications with our federal, state,
                      and  tribal partners arc critical if we arc to set meaningful goals and develop the strate-
                      gies  and approaches that will achieve the intended environmental results.

                   «  We and our partners will need the best available scientific and economic information
                      to establish priorities and make decisions. Sound science and technology will help us
                      determine which problems pose important risks to our natural environment, human
                      health, and quality of life. Reliable  economic information will ensure oui ability to
                      make cost-efficient decisions,

                   •  We must also collect the environmental information we net-J to assess where we arc
                      and  where we need to go. Establishing a baseline of current conditions by identifying
                      and  monitoring a variety of environmental indicators can help us not only to set goals
                      arid  develop strategies, but also to assess our progress and evaluate our performance.

                   •  As we plan, the Agency must continue to explore new and  creative ways to achieve
                      our goals. We must look for innovative ways to address high-priority environmental
                      problems and make full use of technology, market-based incentives, and environmental
                      management systems.

                                                        II     *  Finally, our future success depends on
                                                        '||     our ability to develop and sustain a highly
                                                         •|     skilled, adaptable, results-oriented work-
                                                         ;!     force. We umst ensmc- iliac EPA will have a
                                                              workforce with the right mix of technical
                                                              expertise, experience, and leadership <:apa-
                                                         ;     bilitics to achieve our goals and carry <,ut
                                                         .1     our mission.

                                                        J         In planning our work for the next 5
                                                        ||     years and beyond, we have been mindful of

-------
 these challenges,: and we have befcn guided by several new initiatives and comrrtrunents. We
 are working hard across the Agency to focus our efforts on achieving measurable outcomes and
 the results that wilt be apparent in a safer, healthier environment; to create: stronger, more
 effective partnerships \vith states and tribes;       :       /     v         ::   i     :;    \
 to implement reforms called for undet the
 President's Management Agenda that will
 help us improve Our management and:
 performance; and to be more clearly ••"'.:'.'.'
...Accountable to the U.S. Corigress arid the  :
 American public for making progress toward
 our goals: These themes have shaped our   :
 strategic planning discussions over the past    '',
 months, and they are reflected in this        :
:::Strat2g!c Plan for 2003 to 2008;
!^^fi§jjjii^^jijjgjfjjfi
:jjjjjijij^^

    EPAs 2003 Strategic "Plan reflects anew, j L
 perspective On the Agency's work—a sharp-
 ened fqeus on achieving measurable
 environmental results. Our 1997 and 2000
 Scrdte^c Plans were based on10 strategic
 goals, including bOth Outcp'me-oriented
 gOals, such as Clean  Ait, and functional or
 support goals, sijch as Effective           /
 Management. In contrast, EPA has con-   /
 strutted its 2QG3 Strategic Plan around five     /"
 new goals that describe the results we are
 striving to achieve: Clean Air and Global
 Climate Change, Clean and Safe Water, Land Preservation and Restoration, Healthy
 Communities arid Ecosystems, and Compliance and Environmental Stewardship.  :

    Under its new Strategic Plan, the  Agency treats critical functions, si;:ch as sound science,
", quality environmental information, and innovation, not as goals in themselves, but as impor-
 tant means to an environmental end  These functions are part- arid-parcel of the strategies and
 approaches the Agency intends to use to achieve each of ft*'five goals, and they are discussed
 in general terms iii'the "Cross-Goal Strategies" chapter of this Strategic Plan.

    EPA leaders believe that taking this broader approach of establishing five goals ;foc used On
 environmental results and streamlining EPAs planning and budgeting structure will facilitate
 the Agency's ability  to promote multimedia, cross-program approaches to solving environmen-
 tal problems. Establishing goals  that are less rigorously aligned with Agency programs'or
 organizational units  will provide greater flexibility, both within the Agency and for state and
 tribal environmental programs. EPA regional offices, for example, working with v.neir state and
 tribal partners, will be better able to conduct regional strategic.planning activities: and address
: regional or: geographic priorities under the Agency's five• national goals.:   :.  :    ;\:: ^

-------
    Most of the advances in environmental protection that our Nation has realized over the
past 30 years would not have been possible without the participation and support of state, trib-
al, and local governments. EPA's partnerships with states, tribes, and local governments are
essential to achieving our human health and environmental protection goals. The Agency
believes that it is only through our combined efforts that we can achieve the objectives and
sub-objectives and meet the strategic targets set out in the pages that follow.

    Over the coming years we will continue to work closely with our state partners to strengthen
the National Environmental Performance Partnership System, a system established in 1995 to
reflect commitments made by states and EPA to work together for environmental protection.
Currently, we are collaborating with the Environmental Council of the States to improve
opportunities for joint state-EPA regional  office planning and priority-setting and to ensure
that the results of these strategic discussions meaningfully influence EPA's planning and budg-
eting. Together, we are also reviewing our use of Performance Partnership Agreements	the
negotiated agreements that define EPA and state responsibilities—to make them more useful
and definitive and to reduce transaction costs. In keeping with our sharpened focus on achiev-
ing results, EPA believes that these agreements can be used more effectively to set out clear
performance expectations for both states and EPA regional offices, to explain how we will work
together, and to describe how we will hold one another mutually accountable for accomplish-
ing our objectives and achieving measurable results.

    Just as we work in partnership with states, EPA is committed  to working with tribes in a
government-to-govemment relationship to improve environmental and human health protec-
tion throughout the Nation. The Agency  is particularly concerned about the poor state of the
environment often found in Indian country. As a result, the work  described in our Strategic Plan
that focuses on communities must also provide for safeguarding tribes and tribal  lands.
                            Ppr-n>r\]r;<-
                           Streamlining our goal structure to focus on the achievement of
                       environmental results is an important, far-reaching reform. But it is
                       not the only reform reflected m EPA's 2003 Strategic Plan. The
                       President's Management Agenda, issued in August 2001, proposed
                       three basic principles for reform: Government should be citizen-cen-
                       teied, results-oriented, and market-based.' EPA has kept these
                       prmciples in mind as it developed its Strategic Plan. In particular,
                       EPA's Strategic Plan reflects five government-wide initiatives presented
                       m the Piesident's Management Agenda: (]) strategic management of
                       human capital, (2) competitive sourcmg, (3)  expanded electronic
                       government, (4) improved financial performance, and (5) budget and
                       pei formance integration.

                           In developing plans for each of its five Environmental goals—
                       establishing objectives and;sub-objectives and developing the means
                       and strategies for achieving them—EPA has considered opportunities

-------
 ito advance these initiatives/ For example, tiie Agency has begun to careful!1/ consider the
 jiiniquc ski IK, talents, and leadership that our future workforce will need to achieve each of our
 :goals, and we aie woikmg to levise and .inplement a Human Capital Siratcgy (diseu-,sed in
 tnore detail in oui "CrojS-Goal Strategies") that is aligned wit i the Agency's planning and
 budgeting processes. In developing the strategies and approaches we will use to achieve our
 objectives, Agency staff have also been alert to opportunities tor using competitive sourcng
 reviews to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Agency operations, Ilirodgh its cro*s-
 goal strategy for mfoimation, the Agency is expanding its use < f electronic systems tor
 mfhrmrm^p. management and a numbd uf nuueMtb and information-
 sharing mechanisms to streamline and improve communications with
 its state and tubal partners and with the public. For example, the
 Agency vas recently chosen to be managing partner of an online rule-
 making m:iiaiive and is woiking fowaid moving current federal
 rule-making systems into a uniform onbne approach.

    In June 2003. EPA was recognised as the second Executive
 Branch agency (,alon<. with the Social Security Administration) to
 achieve a "green" ,talus latmg frou the Office of Management and
 Budget i,OMB) for improved financial pertoimance.  The Agency's
 record of supcriot  accomplishments includes clcai audit opim< ns on
 annual fina'icial stateLAents, cficcUve internal controls to prevent
 erroneous payments; and resolving all outstanding matenal weakness-
 es for the first time since the FcderJ Manager's Financial Integrity
 Act2 became law. Equally important to FPA's financial performance is
 the Age-icy's financia  management system, which piomotes integrat-
 ed information to provide tirrcly and reliable financial and
 performance data to ptogram managers, who use it to support day-to-
 clay decision-making
    EPA has long been a model foi integrating budget and perform-
 ance,  having linked its budget to its long-range Strategic Plan and
 Annual Performance PI in since fiscal year 1999. By integrating its
: planning and budgeting eff< >us and mpler.ientmg other system^
 changes, the Agency has been better able to evaluate its prograais, assess 'ts performance, and
 use the results to make budget and program improvement decisions. The Agency will continue
 to strengthen links between budgel ind iierfoimance thnmgh its new g.>al stmctuie.  In aJJi
 tiori, EPA is enhancing 'ts financial reportu g system, further integrating prosaam pe^ormance
 and cos; information and making it a% ailable to Agency managers and decision-rial  er, on a
"real-tune basis.
 Sim
    Key to our efforts to impiove EPAs financial performance aie the steps we are taking ti
 strengthen ocr management ot grants. To benefit from our partners' innovations and expertise,
 EPA awaids over one-half of its budgei annu illy 111 grants 1» state,  local, mJ i ubal agencie;,;
 educational institutions; aiid nonprofit organizations. O> er the past several years, we have been
 working with them to develop an eftectn c s/stem for grants management thar ensure-, we use
 federal funds responsibly to produce measurable ervnonmeiital results.

-------
                                                   EPA has developed its first long-term
                                               Grants Management Plan (available at
                                               http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/
                                               management.htm) to ensure that our grant
                                               programs meet the: highest management and
                                               fiduciary standards,.help us accomplish our
                                               strategic goals, and further our mission. By
                                               linking grants performance to achieving oui
                                               performance goals,, the actn itie« proposed in
                                               the Grants Management Plan will f> athei
                                               promote the Agency's effort to manage foi
                                               results. Our; Grants Management Plan  estab-
                                               lishes five goals: (1)  enhance fhe skills of
                                               EPA personnel involved in giants manage-
                                               ment;^ 2 ^promote competition in the
award of grants; (3) leverage technology to improve program performance; (4)  stieiigthen EPA
oversight of grants; and (5) support efforts to identify and; achieve environmental outcomes
We are committed to accomplishing these, goals, and we will be working with our partners in:::
the corning years to address the challenges involved in managing grants efficiently and effec-
tively. We will report on our progress to the U.S. Congress through EPA's Annual Report.
    The American public—taxpayers, communities, business and industry, environmental
groups—have invested billions of dollars to control pollution and improve the environment. EPA
believes that it is essential to -assess- our progress and review the results of those investments: .,

    To help assess the current state of the environment and to provide a baseline against which we
can measure future performance, the Agency has launched an "Environmental Indicators
Initiative," under which we will collect data and information about the quality of our environment
and develop an Agency-wide system for tracking and reporting on our progress. We are collaborat-
ing with our federal, state, and tribal partners to develop a set of measurements that can help us;
track environmental conditions over time. In: 2003,:;we presented this information  in our first Draft
Report on the Environment, which will give Americans a-better understanding of the condition of ;
our Nation's environment and human health and allowthe public to evaluate environmental ::.
programs and policies.3 The information we collected for the Draft Report on the Environment and
will collect for future updates will also be critical to the Agency's stiategic planning, helping us to
establish future goals and objectives, develop strategies, review our performance, and adiust our
policies and iapptoachts is necessary The- Agency's -work on environmental indicators and Draft
Report on the Environment aie ciitical step» in our more comprehensive effort to identify priorities,
focus resources on areas of greatest concern,.manage..our work effectn ely to achieve measurable  ; ;
results:, and report tegulaily on oui piogtvss to the American public. In the  coming months, we  ; ;
will be consulting w ith paitnei» and stakeholders on.hdw be»t to align and  integrate our environ- ;
mental indicators work with our strategic planning;    \ \    \   \\     :     :       ;•••:-;   ;  \\

-------
    This Strategic Plan sets out our goals for the next 5 years and describes how we intend to
achieve a cleaner, healthier environment for all Americans. The chapters that follow discuss
our five goals, each developed with input and advice from our partners and stakeholders; pres-
ent the objectives, sub-objectives, and strategic targets that support them; and describe the
means; and strategies we and our partners will employ to achieve them. In addition, in a
chapter on "cross-goal strategies," we present critical programs and approaches that guide our
work across all the goals and through which we will accomplish our objectives.

    jlnipreparing our Strategic Plan, we have been guided by  a commitment to the highest stan-
dards of management and to ensuring a strong, cost-effective system for protecting the
environment and human health. In carrying out these efforts, we will continue to work closely
with our governmental partners  and to communicate our progress as clearly and effectively as
possible to the American people whom we serve,                          	-....;;..-;;:•;;:.:-.
    U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2002. The President's Management Agenda: FY 2002. Washington,''DC:
    U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http:/ywww.whitehouse.gov/omb/biidget/'fy2002/:
    mgmt.pdf, Executive Office of the President, OMB Web Site. Date of access: September 15, 2003,  -'{"•      :

    Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982, available online at http://Vvvvvv.epa.gov/ocfo/integrity/infe3rity.htm.

    U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency, Office of Environmental Information, 2003, Draft Report on the
    Environment. -Washington,  DC: U.S/Governmeiit Printing Office. Available online at; http.^www.epa.gov/' ' '•
   ...indicators/roe/..EPA Environmental Indicators Initiative Web Site. Date of access: September 15, 2003.

-------
Are we making progress toward
our strategic goals? Have we
accomplished what we planned
and are we achieving the environ-
mental results we intend?
To plan strategically, to adjust our
approaches and activities to
improve results, and to be able to
report to the American people on
our progress, EPA must, routinely
assess its performance and accom-
plishments. The Government
Performance: and Results Act
(GPRA) requires agencies to
report to Congress each year on
their progress toward their strate-
gic goals. Under GPRA, agencies
set. annual performance goals and
establish measures to determine
how well they are achieving those
goals. Annual Performance Reports
summarizing these findings are  due
to Congress after the  end of every
fiscal year,
EPA's strategic "architecture"—the
goals, objectives, and sub-objec-
tives that we use to plan our work,
develop our budget, and account
for our resources—is also designed
to help us track our performance.
Each of our five long-range strate-
gic goals (Clean Air and Global
Climate Change, Clean and Safe
Water, Land Preservation and
Restoration, Healthy Communities
and Ecosystems, and Compliance
and Environmental Stewardship) is
broken  down into a number of
objectives that describe what we
intend to accomplish over 5 years
in order to attain our  larger goals,
in turn,  the objectives  are support-
ed by a series of sub-objectives,
which are focused on  more specif-
ic results the Agency intends to
achieve  during those 5 years.
EPA's 2003 Strategic Plan Intro-
duces another element to many of
the sub-objectives in the Agency's
architecture: strategic targets,
These 5-year targets will help us
chart our course more quantita-
tively arid track our progress from
different perspectives.  In most
cases, we will develop  our annual
performance goais and measures
to mirror each of our  strategic "tar-
gets, so  that we can measure our
progress each year toward these
targets and the sub-objectives that
"they support, in this way our
strategic targets help provide a
clear first link in the
sub-objectve-to-objective-to-goai
chain, demonstrating how the work
the Agency conducts during a
given year ultimately will help us
reach our five goais,
Taken in its entirety, EPA's strategic
architecture presents a multi-year
map for achieving our goals. It.
shows how accomplishments at
each level	-annual performance
goals,  strategic targets, sub-objec-
tives, and objectives—"add up" to
the next level and, ultimately
toward  a strategic goal of "Clean
Air" or  "Clean and Safe Water."
This structure also enables us to
measure our performance on an
annual basis  and to track our
progress over the long term. Most
importantly,  it allows  EPA to pres-
ent our partners, our stakeholders,
and the public with a coherent,
step-by-step plan for achieving our
goals,  accounting for our costs,
measuring and evaluating our per-
formance, and managing our work
to achieve environmental  and
human health protection results.
in addition to measuring our
progress toward the objectives
described in the Strategic Plan, we
are developing improved long-term
measures of our performance in
key program areas, We are build-
ing on work being conducted  in
ERA and elsewhere to continue
development of improved environ-
mental and human health
indicators, EPA's recent Draft
Report on the Environment1 and
the ecosystem indicator report
published by the Hjohn Heinz Hi
Center for Science, Economics, and
the Environment1 demonstrate the
challenges of developing scientifical-
ly sound indicators of the condition
of the environment and human
health, Nonetheless, the Agency
continues to commit itself to mak-
ing steady progress in better
tracking the outcomes of its work.
For instance, to better characterize

-------
the risks presented by air toxics.
we are developing measures that
go beyond tracking the tons of air
toxics reduced as a result of EPA
programs, A national air toxics
monitoring network—a part of this
effort—will track changes in arobi--
ent levels of a set. of high-risk toxics
over time. As  another example,
Agency cleanup programs are
developing ways to measure the
number of Sites ready for reuse
and the area of land now in use or
ready for reuse. Once in place,
such measures of effectiveness can
supplement or replace objectives,
sub-objectives, and targets  in future
EPA strategic plans.
Efficiency is another important
aspect of performance measure-
ment. Efficiency measures augment
effectiveness measures; they relate
program results to the resources
invested or time spent to achieve
those resuits. Efficiency measures
are embedded in the architecture
of this Strategic Plan. For exam pie,
one of the strategic targets under
Goal 4 is an efficiency measure
that will track the Agency's per-
chernica! costs  of reviewing new
chemicals prior to their entry Into
U.S. commerce. As a further com-
mitment to making efficiency
measures an Integra! tool in
Agency management and account-
ability, we wil include efficiency
measures in our Annual
Performance Plans. For instance,
under our enforcement program in
Goal 5. an efficiency measure will
track the pounds of pollutants
reduced against the time E'PA staff
spends In  enforcement activities,
We wii! continue to develop and
refine efficiency measures,  as well
as effectiveness measures, as we
work to improve measurement of
our performance over the Song
term,
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental information, 20C8. Draft Report on fire Environment, Washington,
    DC; U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at: http:/MvAv,epa.gcv/indicatars/roe/, EPA Envirenmentai indicators initiative
    Web Site. Date of access; September 15, 20C8.

    The H, John Heinz !!! Center for Science. Economics, and the Environment, September 2002, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
        suring fire Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States, New York Cambridge University Press,

-------

-------

-------
    Air quality in the United States has steadily
improved, according to EPA's annual summary of air
quality trends since the 1970s.' This trend toward
cleaner air has occurred even as our
economy lias increased by 161
percent in gross domestic product,           OH1E
miles traveled by cars and trucks nave
increased fry  149 percent, arid energy
consumption has increased by 42
percent. EPA continues to look for
                                                         Air  	\i
P,
:
indoor and outdoor air pollution
problems. which can cause breathing
difficulties, long-term damage to
respiratory and reprodwai^e systems.
cancer, and premature death.

    Air pollution also can affect' the
environment by reducing visibility;
damaging crops, forests, and build.-
ings: acidify ing lakes and streams:
and stimulating the growth of algae
in estuaries and the build-up, or
bioaccum.ulM.ion, of toxics  in fish, Bioaccu.mulation.
poses particular risks to Native  Americans and others
who subsist on plants., fish, and game. Certain ckernicals
emitted into die air diminish the protective ozone layer in
the upper atmosphere. Rapid development and urbaniza-
tion in other countries is creating  air fjoiiurion that
threatens not onb;  those, countries but also the United
    EPA is addressing this broad
range of problems strategically by
applying a variety of approaches and
appropriate tools. We have found
thai problems with broad national or
global impact	emissions from power
plants and other large sources, pollu-
tion from motor vehicles and fuels,
and stratospheric ozone depletion—
are best handled primarily at the
federal level, A national approach
allows for the use of traditional
regulatory tools where appropriate,
and enables us to implement fnnot'a-
tive, market-based techniques such
as emissions trading, banking, aver-
aging, and other national programs
          -Gas irttwwty
           < Enhance
                                    States, tribes, and. local agencies
                                can best address die regional and
              local 'problems that remain after federal measures have
              been fully applied, EPA. works closely with public' and
              private-sector partners and stakeholders 10 develop the
              took	such as monitoring, modeling, and emission
              inventories	diat allow states, tribes, and localities to
              address these more localized problems, Many of these

-------
                                                              Clean Air-	Objective 1,1. Henhhier OutAoor Air
roots employ innovative technics, such as
voluntary programs for retrofitting diesel
engines or community-based approaches to
toxics, that are well-suited to the local nature
of these problems.
 air to radiation. We will work with our local
 state, tribal, national, and international
 partners and stakeholders  to achieve results
 through a suite of innovative approaches
 and programs that encouras^e cost-effective
OBJECTIVE 1.11 HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR

THROUGH 2010, WORKING WITH PARTNERS, PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT BY ATTAINING AND MAINTAINING HEALTH-BASED AJR-QUALXTY
STANDARDS AND  REDUCING 'THE RISK FROM. TOXIC ASK  POLLU1WNT8-
Sub-objective Ll.l; More People Breathing
Cleaner Air, By 2010, working with partners,
improve air quality to healthy levels for 39
percent of the people who live in areas where
the air does not meet new national standards
for fine particles in 2001 and for 60 percent
who live in areas not meeting new national
standards for 8-hour ozone in 2001.23 While
some areas may not reach attainment of
these new standards because of air pollutant
concentrations that sometimes exceed the
allowable levels, air quality will improve for
an additional 27 percent of the people who
live in areas not meeting new standards for 8-
hour ozone in 2001. Maintain attainment
status  for the 123.7 million people who  had
healthy air for the criteria pollutants in  2001.
    •  By 2010, reduce stationary source
       emissions of sulfur dioxide by 6.7 mil-
       lion tons from the 2000 level of 11.2
       million tons, and by 2008, reduce
       stationary source emissions of nitro-
       gen oxides by 3 million tons from the
       2000 level of 5.1 million tons.

    •  By 2010, reduce mobile source emis-
       sions of nitrogen oxides by 3.4 mil-
       lion tons from the 2000 level of 11.8
       million tons; volatile organic com-
       pounds by 1-7 million tons from the
       2000 level of 7.7 million tons; and
       fine particles by 122,400 tons from
       the 2000 level of 510,550 tons.5
Sub-objective
LL2; Reduced
Risk from Toxic
Air Pollutants,
By 2010, working
with partners,
reduce air toxics
emissions and
implement area-
specific approaches
to reduce the risk
to public health
and the environ-
ment from toxic air
pollutants.
       2.7 million tons.6
       By 2007, through maximum achiev-
       able control technology (MACT)
       standards, reduce air toxics emissions
       from major stationary sources by 1.7
       million tons from the 1993 level of
       By 2010, through the President's
       Clear Skies legislation, reduce mercu
       ry emissions from electric-generating
       units by 22 tons from the 2000 level
       of 48 tons.7

-------
        By 2010, through federal standards,
        reduce air toxics emissions from
        mobile sources by 1.1 million tons
        from the 1996 level of 2.7 million
        tons."

        By 2010, all of the 260,000 diesel
        school buses manufactured between
        model years 1991 and 2000 will be
        retrofitted either with better emission
        controls or equipment allowing use of
        cleaner fuels, and all 130,000 buses
        manufactured before 1991 but still in
        use in 2003 will be replaced.9
MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR
ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE  1.1


    Our strategy for reducing outdoor air pol-
 lution combines national  and local measures,
 reflecting different  federal, state, tribal, and
 local government roles. EPA, states, and  local
 agencies work together to meet clean air
 goals cost-effectively by employing various
 regulatory, market-based, and voluntary
 approaches and programs. States are primarily
 responsible for improving air quality and
 meeting national ambient air quality stan-
 dards (NAAQS). States first develop
 emission inventories, operate and maintain
 air monitoring networks, and perform air
 quality modeling. Ihey then develop  state
 implementation plans (SIPs) that lay  out the
 mobile and stationary source control strate-
 gies they will employ to improve air quality
 and meet NAAQS.

    EPA assists states by providing technical
 guidance arid financial assistance, issuing reg-
 ulations, and implementing programs
 designed to reduce  pollution from the most
 widespread and significant sources of air pol-
 lution: mobile  sources, such as cars, trucks,
 buses, and construction equipment; and sta-
 tionary sources, such as power plants,  oil
 refineries, chemical plants, and dry cleaning
 operations. Interstate transport of pollu-
 tants—a problem no state can solve on its
own—makes a major contribution to air pol-
lution problems in the eastern United States.
To address this issue, EPA requires control of
upwind sources that contribute to downwind
problems in other states.

    EPA has a trust responsibility to protect
air quality in Indian country, but authorized
tribes may choose to develop and implement
their own  air quality programs. EPA and tribes
are working to increase the currently limited
information on air quality on tribal lands,
build tribal capacity to administer air pro-
grams in Indian country, and establish EPA
and state mechanisms to work effectively with
tribal governments on regulatory development
and regional and national policy issues.

    Over the next several years, we will focus
on implementing the fine particulate arid
8-hour ozone standards, reducing emissions
from electric-generating units through the
President's Clear Skies cap-and-trade legisla-
tion, and implementing EPA's air toxics
program using progressive, market-oriented
methods to gain improvements in air quality
most cost-effectively. We will continue to
work with multi-state planning groups to
develop strategies for reducing regional haze
and with individual states to develop imple-
mentation approaches to reduce emissions of
particulate matter (PM) and ozone precur-
sors. In addition, we will  work with states to
identify opportunities for better integrating
ozone and PM efforts, such as improving
emission inventories and comprehensive air
quality modeling approaches, controlling
sources of precursors common to both pollu-
tants, and coordinating control strategy
planning cycles.

-------
                                                                Clean Air-	Objective 1,1. Henhhier OutAoor Air
    To help states meet the clean outdoor air
objective, we will continue to develop federal
programs for mobile and stationary sources
aimed at achieving large, nationwide, cost-
effective reductions in emission of PM and its
contributors: sulfur dioxide (SO7), nitrogen
oxides  (NOX) and elemental and organic car-
bon; ozone-forming NOX; and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).

    The President's Clear Skies legislation is a
cornerstone of our strategy. Clear Skies sets
strict, mandatory emission caps on three air
pollutants from power generators—SO2, NOX,
and mercury. Clear Skies,  combined with other
control programs, will bring many counties
into attainment with EPA's new health-based
standards for ozone and fine particles. By 2020,
Clear Skies, EPA's proposed  rule to decrease
emissions from heavy-duty nonroad diesel
engines, and other existing state and federal
control programs, such as pollution controls
for cars, trucks, and industrial boilers, will
together bring all but 18 counties nationwide
(including only 8 counties in the East) into
attainment with the fine particle standards
and all but 27 counties nationwide (including
only 20 counties in the East) into attainment
with the ozone standards.  (In comparison, cur-
rent [1991-2001] data show that today 129
counties nationwide [114 in the East] exceed
the fine particle standard, and 290 counties
nationwide [268 in the East] exceed the new
ozone standard.)  In terms  of benefits, by 2010,
improvements in air quality under Clear Skies
will result in 7,900 fewer premature deaths and
$54 billion in health benefits nationwide each
year. By 2020, improvements in air quality will
result in 14,100  fewer premature deaths and
$110 billion in health benefits nationwide
each year.1"

    Supporting  our strategic goal of achieving
progressive, cost-effective improvements in
air quality, Clear Skies will not significantly
change  national electricity prices. Power gen-
erators will continue to rely on diverse
sources of fuel, including our abundant
domestic coal resources. As the President's
Clear Skies legislation moves forward in
Congress, we will continue to implement the
Acid Rain Program to reduce SO2 and NOX
emissions and will address  the interstate
transport of ozone and NCX through the NOX
Budget Trading Program under the NOX SIP
Call.

    EPA is now implementing national pro-
grams that will dramatically reduce future
emissions from a wide range of mobile
sources, including cars, minivans, sport utility
vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, recre-
ational vehicles, forklifts, generators, marine
engines, locomotives, and  lawn and garden
equipment. To enhance compliance with
recently promulgated heavy-duty vehicle
     state, national,  tribal, and
     international partners kelps
     as achieve the best results.
standards, for example, we are developing
rules for in-use emissions and on-board diag-
nostics. EPA estimates that, when fully
implemented, the heavy-duty vehicle stan-
dards will prevent 8,300 premature deaths,
more than 9,500 hospitalizations, and  1.5
million lost work days every year.11 We are
also developing a program to establish new
standards for non-road diesel engines,  includ-
ing sulfur requirements for non-road diesel
fuel, and we are planning to address emis-
sions from locomotives and marine engines.

    EPA  is addressing diesel exhaust from on-
road and non-road sectors riot only by
establishing new standards, but also through
voluntary programs to reduce emissions from
existing diesel engines in trucks, buses,  and
construction equipment. These programs will
greatly reduce emission of air toxics, as well as

-------
criteria pollutants and their precursors, and
meet our strategic goal of achieving air quality
cost-effectively. For instance, EPA will expand
its efforts to create voluntary diesel-retrofit
projects to reduce PM from older, high-pollut-
ing trucks and buses. We will concentrate on
areas with sensitive populations, and on rais-
ing public awareness of the problem of
children riding in older, high-emitting ciiesel
school buses. EPA will provide schools with
grants for retrofitting and replacing diesel
school buses and reducing idling. We will also
work with the trucking and railroad industries
to adopt pollution control and energy-saving
technologies. To address emissions from trucks
idling at truck stops and rest areas, EPA will
continue to develop agreements with truck
fleets, the truck-stop industry, manufacturers
of idle-control technologies, and state and
local governments to create incentives for
implementing idle-control technologies.

    We will continue to implement the refor-
mulated gasoline program, while working to
address issues associated with the use of oxy-
genates (e.g., methyl tertiary-butyl ether
[MlBE] and ethanol). With our partners,  we
will create a compliance program to ensure
that vehicles and engines are clean, and we
will help states incorporate on-board diagnos-
tic inspections into their vehicle inspection
and maintenance programs. We will also con-
tinue to help states and local agencies
implement the transportation conformity reg-
ulation, which ensures that federally funded
or approved highway and transit activities are
consistent with SIPs, and will propose and
finalize changes to the regulation to address
the revised ozone and PM standards. In addi-
tion, we will work to ensure the technical
integrity of mobile source controls in SIPs.
Finally, recognizing that efforts to reduce
emissions need to be accompanied by efforts
to reduce the effects of unmanaged growth
and development, EPA will work with state
and local governments, assisting them in
crafting comprehensive strategies that accom-
modate necessary growth and economic
development while minimizing adverse effects
on air quality and other quality-of-life factors.
    The Clean Air Act requires EPA to regu-
late emission of 188 toxic air pollutants,
including dioxin, asbestos, toluene, and such
metals as cadmium, mercury, chromium, and
lead compounds.1' To further reduce exposure
to air toxics, EPA will develop and issue feder-
al standards for major stationary sources
which, when implemented through state pro-
grams, will reduce toxic emissions by 1.7
million tons. In addition, we will conduct
national, regional, and community-based
efforts to reduce multimedia and cumulative
risks.  Characterizing emissions arid the risks
they pose on national and local scales, such as
in Indian country, will require significant
effort. We will need to update the science and
to keep the public informed about these issues.

    We will develop and refine tools, train-
ing, handbooks, and information to assist
our partners in characterizing risks from air
toxics, and we will work with them on strate-
gies for making local decisions to reduce
those risks. We are working with state and
local  agencies to design a  national toxics

-------
monitoring network, and we will compile and
analyze information from local assessments to
better characterize risk and assess priorities.
    EPA is committed to working with tribes
on a government-to-government basis to
develop the infrastructure and skills tribes
need to assess, understand, and control air
quality on their lands. We will increase air-
monitoring in Indian country, and, in consul-
tation with tribes, we will establish needed
federal regulatory authorities and help tribes
develop and manage their own  air programs
in a manner consistent with EPA Indian
Policy and tribal traditions and culture. We
plan to complete a policy determining when
Federal Implementation Plans are appropriate
for bringing Clean Air Act programs to
Indian country. We will support tribal air
programs by providing technical support,
assistance with data development, and train-
ing and outreach, and we will help tribes
participate in discussions of national policy
and operations and in regional planning and
coordination activities. Where tribes choose
not to develop their own programs, we will
implement air quality programs directly.

    As we develop and implement clean air
strategies, we will work with other federal
agencies to ensure a  coordinated approach.
Our federal partners include the Department
of Agriculture (in the areas of animal feeding
operations, agricultural burning, and con-
trolled burning), the Department of
Transportation (for transportation-related air
quality issues), the Department of Energy (for
electric utilities, electricity generation, and
energy efficiency issues), and the Department
of Interior (concerning visibility in national
parks and wilderness areas).

    EPA will also work to address sources of
air pollutants that lie outside our borders, but
pose risks to public health and air quality
within the United States. We will work with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, and other agencies
to improve our capability to detect, track, and
forecast the effects of air pollutants from inter-
national sources. We will continue our efforts
to address and reduce the risk from airborne
persistent and bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs)
transported across international boundaries.
By engaging with the international scientific
community, we hope to improve our under-
standing of international
flows and our tools for
analyzing and evaluating
response policies.
Working through bilater-
al agreements and
multilateral international
organizations (such as the
United Nations
Environment Programme
and the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation
arid Development), we
will promote capacity-
building, technology-
transfer, and other  strategies to reduce foreign
sources of pollution. EPA will also help repre-
sent the United States in existing multilateral
international agreements  (such as the
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary
Air Pollution and the United Nations
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants) to control sources of international-
ly transported pollutants and protect U.S.
interests. In North America, we will work
with Canada and Mexico within such existing
agreements as the U.S.-Mexico La Paz
Agreement (http://air.utep.edu/bca/jac/
agreement.html), the U.S.-Canada Air
Quality Agreement (http://www.epa.gov/
airmarkt/ usca/agreement.html), and the
North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation
(http://www.naaec.gc.ca/eng/agreement/
agreement__e.htm), to control the cross-border
flow of pollutants. We will also work with
Canada, Mexico, and key stakeholders to
identify and explore new approaches to man-
aging air quality along our common borders.

-------
OBJECTIVE 1.2: HEALTHIER INDOOR. AIR.
I-IEAITHIER INDOOR A-E IN HOMES, SCHOOLS, AND OFFICE BUILDINGS,
       By 2008, approximately 12.8
       million additional people will be
       living in homes with healthier indoor
       air. These include people living in
       homes with radon-resistant features,
       children not being exposed to envi-
       ronmental tobacco smoke, and asth-
       matics with reduced exposure to
       indoor asthma triggers.

       By 2008, approximately 7.8 million
       additional students and staff will
       experience improved air quality in
       their schools.

       By 2008, approximately 2 million
       additional office workers will experi-
       ence improved air quality in their
       workplaces.
    Air within homes, schools, and work-
places can be more polluted than outdoor air
in the largest arid most industrialized cities.14
And because people typically spend close to
90 percent of their time indoors,15 many may
have a greater exposure to indoor pollution
than to outdoor air pollution. Relative risk
reports issued by EPA,16 the Science Advisory
Board,17 and several states18 rank  indoor air
pollution among the top four environmental
risks. Moreover, people who may spend the
most time indoors, thus exposed  to indoor air
pollutants for long periods of time, are often
those who may be most susceptible to their
effects: the young, the elderly, and the chron-
ically ill, especially those suffering from
respiratory or cardiovascular disease.

    To address indoor air quality issues, EPA
develops and implements voluntary outreach
and partnership programs that inform and
educate the public about indoor air quality
and actions that can reduce potential risks in
homes, schools, and workplaces.  Through
these voluntary programs, EPA disseminates
information  and works with state, tribal, and
local governments; industry and professional
groups; and the  public to promote actions to
reduce exposures to possibly harmful  levels of
indoor air pollutants, including radon.

    Educational literature, multimedia
materials, media campaigns, hotlines, clear-
inghouse operations, and other outreach
efforts provide the public, our partners, and
the professional and research communities
with information about indoor air health
risks and actions that can reduce those risks.
We also transfer technology by providing

-------
                                                                         Clean An-—-1,2 Knaltiiisr Indoor Air-
detailed guidance on indoor-air-related build-
ing design, operation, and maintenance
practices to building owners, building man-
agers, ancl school facility managers and
easy-to-use tools to educators and school
facility managers. Our partners—including
health care providers who treat children with
asthma; school personnel who manage school
environments; county and local environmen-
tal health officials; and populations that
might be disproportionately affected by
indoor air pollution—have the expertise
and/or credibility that allow EPA to reach a
larger audience than we could on our own.
To support these voluntary approaches, we
will base our recommendations for reducing
potential exposure to indoor contaminants
on the most current science available.

    EPA will also provide tribes with appro-
priate tools and assistance to address indoor
air toxics, such as radon, environmental
tobacco smoke, PM. and biological issues.
such as mold contamination. We will work
             with other federal agencies to
             provide guidance and assis-
             tance on how to reduce the
             exposure levels of these con-
             taminants in all Indian
             communities.

                 EPA will broaden aware-
             ness and increase action by
             working with national as well
             as local community-based
             organizations to design and
             implement programs that
             address critical indoor air qual-
             ity problems, including radon,
             secondhand smoke, asthma,
             and mold contamination in
             homes, child care and school
             facilities, and other residential
             environments. Through our
             State Indoor Radon Grant
             Program, we will continue to
             help states that have not yet
             established the basic elements
of an effective radon assessment and mitiga-
tion program, and will support innovation
and expansion in states that already have
programs. Other indoor environment pro-
grams will focus on expanding national
awareness of asthma triggers through out-
reach to schools, child care centers, health
care providers, and the general public.

-------
OBJECTIVE 1.3: PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER

BY 20JO, THROUGH WORLDWIDE ACTION, OZONE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE STRA'KJSPHEM.
WILL HAVE STOPPED DSOEININC AND SIOWET BBCUN THE PROCESS OF EBCOVEBI, AND THE
RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH. FROM OVERKXPOSURI-TO ULTRAVIOLFr RADIATION, PARTICULARLY
AMONG SUSCEPTIBLE SUBPOFULA11ON8, SUCH AS CHILDREN, 'WILL B8 SEDUCED,
     •   By 2010, atmospheric concentrations
        of the ozone-depleting substances
        CFC-11 and CFG-12 will have
        peaked at no more than 300 and 570
        parts per trillion respectively, while
        production of these chemicals will be
        allowed only for very limited essen-
        tial uses.

     •   By 2010, all methyl bromide produc-
        tion and import, except for exemp-
        tions permitted by the Montreal
        Protocol, and 45 percent of all
        hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)
        production and import, will be
        phased out, further accelerating the
        recovery of the stratospheric ozone
        layer,

MEANS AND STRATEGIES ?OE
ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 1,3


     Scientific evidence amassed over the past
 25 years has shown that chlorofluorocarbons
 (CFCs) and HCFCs (refrigerants), halons
 (fire-extinguishing agents), methyl bromide (a
 pesticide), and other halogenated chemicals
 used around the world are depleting the
 stratospheric ozone layer. As a result, more
 harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation is reaching
 the Earth,19 increasing the risk of overexposure
 to radiation and consequent health effects,
 including skin cancer, cataracts, and other ill-
 nesses. More than a million new cases of skin
 cancer are diagnosed  each year/0 and more
 than half of all Americans develop cataracts
 by the time they are 80 years old.21

        As a signatory to the Montreal
 Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone
Layer (Montreal Protocol),22 the United
States is obligated to regulate and enforce its
terms domestically. In accordance with this
international treaty and related Clean Air
Act requirements,2' EPA will continue to
implement the domestic rule-making agenda
for the reduction and control of ozone-
depleting substances (ODS) and enforce rules
controlling their production, import, and
emission. This implementation includes com-
bining market-based regulatory approaches
with sector-specific technology guidelines
and facilitating the development and com-
mercialization of alternatives to methyl
bromide and HCFCs. We will strengthen
outreach efforts to ensure efficient and effec-
tive compliance, and continue to identify
ancl promote safer alternatives to curtail
ozone depletion. To help reduce internation-
al emissions, we will assist with the transfer
of technology to developing countries and
work with them to accelerate the phase-out
of ozone-depleting compounds. EPA esti-
mates that in the United States alone
between 1990 ancl 2165, the worldwide
phase-out of ODS will save 6.3 million lives
from fatal cases of skin cancer, avoid 299 mil-
lion cases of nonfatal skin cancers, and avoid
27.5  million cases of cataracts.24

   Because the ozone layer is not expected
to recover until the middle of this century at
the earliest,25 the public will continue to be
exposed to higher levels of UV radiation
than existed prior to the use and emission of
ODS.26 Recognizing this fact arid the public's
current sun-exposure practices, EPA will con-
tinue education and outreach efforts to
encourage behavioral changes as the primary
means of reducing UV-related health risks.

-------
                                                                        Clean Air~—GbjiicAwn 1 A Radiation
TiHKOUGB. 2008, WORKING 'WITH PARTNERS, MINIMIZE UNNECESSARY Rfi'BBASFS OP
HADIATIOM ANE? BE PEEPAREL? TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT SI-fOLTlD UNWANTED RELEASES OCCUR.
Sulvoibjeclive L4«l; Enhance Radiation
Protection, Through 2008, protect public
health and the environment from unwanted
releases of EPA-regiilated radioactive waste
and minimize impacts to public health from
radiation exposure. By 2008, increase the
total number of drums of radioactive waste
certified by EPA as properly disposed to
140,171 (420.5 million millicuries) from
47,171 (141.5 million millicuries) in 2003.
(The estimated total drums to be deposited at
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [W1PP] is
860,000 [2.6 billion millicuries] over the next
35 years.27)

                      EPA continues to meet the statutory
                  mandates for managing radiation waste and
                  controlling radioactive emissions and to fulfill
                  its responsibilities under Presidential decision
                  directives for radiological emergency pre-
                  paredness and response. These responsibilities
                  form the core of our strategy to protect the
                  public and the environment from unnecessary
                  exposure to radiation. EPA works with states,
                  tribes, and industry to develop innovative
           y
Sub-objective 1,4*2:
Maintain. Emergency
Response Readiness,
By 2008, ensure Agency-
readiness to inform the
public about and pro-
tect them from airborne
releases of radiation. By 2008, 80 percent of
EPA's 300-person Radiation Emergency
Response Team will meet scenario-based
response criteria, up from 50 percent in 2005
By 2008, EPA's National Radiation
Monitoring System will cover 70 percent of
the iJ.S. population. (2005 baseline:
37 percent of the U.S. population.)
ERA works with states, tribes, and industry to
devek)t) innovative  training, public information, and
        .4.                         u?' .!_          -j
programs  to minimize radiation exposures,
                  training, public information, and voluntary
                  programs to minimize these exposures.

                     One of EPA's major responsibilities related
                  to radiation is certifying that all radioactive
                  waste shipped by the Department of Energy
                  (DOE) to the WIPP is disposed of safely and
                  according to EPA's standards. We inspect
                  waste generator facilities and biennially evalu-
                               ate DOE's compliance with
                          ^   applicable environmental laws
                         .. "•    and regulations. Every 5 years,
                          '"ll   EPA must recertify that, the
                               WIPP will comply with EPA's
                               radioactive waste disposal regu-
                               lations.

                                   Mining and processing
                               naturally occurring radioactive
                               materials for use in medicine,

-------
power generation, consumer products, and
industry inevitably generate emissions and
waste. EPA provides guidance and training to
other federal and state agencies in preparing
for emergencies at U.S. nuclear plants, trans-
portation accidents  involving shipments of
radioactive materials,  and acts of nuclear ter-
rorism. The Agency sets protective limits on
radioactive emissions  for all media-	air,
water, and soil—and develops guidance for
cleaning up radioactively-contaminated
Superfund sites. We will ensure that the
Agency employs appropriate methods to
manage radioactive releases and exposures.
These include health-risk site assessments;
risk modeling, cleanup, and waste manage-
ment activities; voluntary programs to
minimize exposure to radiation in commer-
cial products and industrial applications;
national radiation monitoring; radiological
emergency response;  and provision of federal
guidance to our international, federal, state,
and local partners.

    EPA will continue to assist states in
retrieving and disposing of radioactive
sources that find their way into non-nuclear
facilities, particularly scrap yards, steel mills,
and municipal waste disposal facilities. We
will also continue to work with the
International Atomic Energy Agency and
other federal agencies to prevent metals and
finished products suspected of having
radioactive contamination from entering the
country. We will create partnerships with
states, local agencies, and tribes to locate and
secure lost, stolen, or abandoned radioactive
sources within the United States and to
develop voluntary programs with state and
local agencies and industry to investigate and
promote pollution prevention and opera-
tional practices and technologies that reduce
industrial radioactive releases.

    EPA also operates the Environmental
Radiation Ambient Monitoring System
{ERAMS), the only national environmental
radiation program that provides information
about the wide-scale spread of radioactive
material from nuclear or radiological inci-
dents. Over the next several years, EPA will
improve ERAMS by adding deployable moni-
toring instruments that can quickly be
shipped to affected areas, by conducting real-
time monitoring for contamination in air,
and by replacing old equipment with state-of-
the-art air samplers.

-------
THROUGH EPA'S VOLUNTAM CLIMATE PROTECTION PROGRAMS, CONTRIBUTE
45 MILLION METRIC TON'S OF CARBON EQUIVALENT (MMTCE) ANNUAEIY TO TEIB
PRESIDENT'S  18 PERCENT GREENHOUSE GAS (one) INTENSITY IMPROVEMENT GOAL BY
201 2< (AN ADDITIONAL 75 MMTCE TO RESULT FROM 11-IE SUSTAINED GROWTH. IN THE
CLIMATE PROGRAMS ABE REFLECTED IN 'THE ADMINISTRATION'S BUSINESS-AS-l^UAE
PROJECTION FOR GHG INTENSITY IMPROVEMENT."*}
    •  Through EPA's ENERGY STAR®
       program, prevent 27 MMTCE in the
       buildings sector in 2012, in addition
       to the 20 MMTCE prevented annu-
       ally in 2002.23

    •  Through EPA's industrial sector pro-
       grams, prevent 80 MMTCE in 2012,
       in addition to the 43 MMTCE pre-
       vented annually in  2002.30

    •  Through EPA's transportation pro-
       grams, prevent 1.3 MMTCE in 2012,
       in addition to the 2 MMTCE being
       prevented annually as of 2002.
MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR
ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE L3

    This objective will accomplish the por-
tion of the goal that addresses reducing GHG
intensity by enhancing partnerships with
businesses and other sectors. In 2002,
President Bush announced a U.S. climate
policy to reduce the GHG intensity of the
U.S. economy by 18 percent over the next
decade. EPA's strategy for helping to reduce
GHG intensity is to enhance its partnerships
with businesses and other sectors through
programs that deliver multiple  benefits in
addition to reducing GHG intensity	from
cleaner air to lower energy bills. At the core
of these efforts are voluntary government-
industry partnership programs designed to
capitalize on the opportunities that
consumers, businesses, and organizations
have for making sound investments in effi-
cient equipment, policies and practices, and
transportation choices.

    EPA manages a
number of volun-
tary climate efforts
to improve infor-
mation in the
marketplace and
more quickly
deploy technology
in the residential,
commercial, and
transportation sec-
tors of the
economy. The ENERGY STAR® partnership
(http://www.energystar.gov/) has been success-
ful in profitably avoiding GHG emissions.
EPA will continue Smart Way Transport
Partnership (http://www.epa.gov/smartway/)
efforts with the trucking and railroad indus-
tries to reduce GHGs voluntarily through
efficiency or energy-saving technologies and
to promote cleaner vehicles ancl the adoption
of pollution control and energy-saving tech-
nologies that reduce NOX and PM emissions.
EPA's Best Workplaces for Commuters pro-
gram (http://www.commuterchoice.gov/) will
also continue developing  innovative solutions
to commuting challenges  faced by U.S.
employers and employees  by promoting com-
muter benefits that reduce vehicle trips and
miles traveled. Other activities at EPA will
further advance fuel-efficient and clean auto-
motive technology, thus saving energy and
reducing GHG emissions.

-------
          EPA will continue to build on the success
       of the voluntary programs in the industrial
       sector, focusing on reducing carbon dioxide
       emissions and continuing successful initia-
       tives to reduce methane emissions and
Voluntary programs inform and
public and promote positive action.
       emissions of the high-global-warming-poten-
       tial gases. EPA's goals for these efforts are to
       cost-effectively return emissions of methane
       to 1990 levels or below by 2012; to cost-
       effectively limit emissions of the more potent
GHGs (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocar-
bons, and sulfur hexafluoride); and to
facilitate the use of clean energy technologies
and promote renewable energy.

                       EPA will continue
                   its efforts to provide
                   state and local govern-
                   ments with technical,
                   outreach, and education
                   services  about climate
                   change impacts, mitiga-
                   tion and adaptation
options, and related issues so that they may
more effectively and comprehensively address
their goals. Internationally, EPA will promote
the voluntary use of low- and  zero-GHG
technologies.
       THROUGH 2010, PROVIDE AN?:? APPLY SOUND BOUNCE. TO SUPPOKI' EPA*S GOAL OF CLEAN
       AIR. m CONDUCTING lEADE^G'BiXJE RESEARCH AND PEY'EEOPING A BETTER i-MJBRS'LANDiNG
       AND OlA&ACIIiEiZATION OF EN\!BONM8NTAL OUTCOMES UNDER GOAL L
       Suh-objeeiive L6/I: Provide Science i:o
       Sitpport Air Prograrsis, Through 2010,
       use the best available scientific information,
       models, methods, and analyses to support
       air-program-related guidance and policy deci-
       sions.

       Sjilvobjective 1,6.2: Conck-ei: Air PoHx-tiotn
       Research, Through 2010, provide methods,
       models, data, and assess-
       ment research associated
       with air pollutants. Focus
       criteria pollutant research
       on emissions, fate arid
       transport, exposures, mech-
       anisms of injury, and health
       effects to support the peri-
       odic revision and
       implementation of
       NAAQS and to develop
       information and tools for
understanding and characterizing environ-
mental outcomes associated with criteria
pollutants. Focus air toxics research on devel-
oping and improving air quality models and
source receptor tools; cost-effective pollution
prevention and other control options; ancl
scientific information and tools for under-
standing ancl characterizing environmental
outcomes associated with national, urban,
and residual air toxic risks.

-------
MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR
ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 1.6

    EPA's science and research efforts are
designed to provide the best information
available to support our policies and regula-
tions. First, we identify the research necessary
to develop the quality information and tools
we need for decision-making,  standard-set-
ting, arid implementation work. Once these
scientific tools are in use, we can identify
data gaps and determine our needs for further
research.

SCIENCE TO SUPPORT Am  PROGRAMS

    EPA  will continue to use  sound science
to determine the relative risks that air pollu-
tion poses to human health and the
environment; identify the best means to
detect, abate, and avoid environmental prob-
lems associated with air pollutants; and
evaluate the effectiveness of control programs
in reducing exposure to harmful levels of air
pollution. The Agency will base its efforts to
reduce environmental risks on the best avail-
able scientific information and will continue
to integrate critical scientific  assessment with
policy, regulatory, and nonregulatory activi-
ties.

    Science  activities related  to air quality
fall into three broad categories: (1) exposure
and risk assessment, (2) program develop-
ment and assessment, and (3) development
and assessment of technology.
    EPA conducts risk assessments on both
criteria and hazardous air pollutants to sup-
port our air toxics program and to assist in
estimating the risks associated with exposure
to criteria pollutants, such as fine particu-
lates. We also conduct radiation-risk
assessments to evaluate health risks from
radiation exposure; to determine appropriate
levels for cleaning up contaminated sites; and
to develop radia-
tion protection
and risk manage-
ment policy,
guidance, and
rules.
    Using mathe-
matical models.
EPA works with
states and tribes
to evaluate control options, control plans,
the impacts of alternative emission scenarios,
and the effect of federal rules. EPA's Acid
Rain Program uses deposition models to eval-
uate our allowance trading program arid to
support the National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program, which coordinates fed-
eral acid deposition research. In addition, we
use mathematical models, ambient monitor-
ing information, and other data to determine
the effectiveness of control strategies.
    Developing and assessing innovations in
environmental protection is another impor-
tant aspect of EPA's clean air program.
Through its clean automotive technology
program, EPA will continue to develop
advanced clean and fuel-efficient automo-
tive technology. We will  collaborate with
industry to transfer the unique EPA-paterit-
ed, highly efficient hybrid engine and
powertrain components,  originally devel-
oped for passenger cars, to meet the more
demanding size, performance, durability, and
towing requirements of sport utility and
urban delivery vehicles, without compromis-
ing performance, safety, or reductions in
emissions.

    EPA  is committed to  common-sense,
cost-effective solutions that result in cleaner
air. To control air toxics reasonably and effec-
tively, EPA will continue to evaluate control

-------
technologies to ensure that they are protec-
tive, cost-effective, and commercially viable.

    Effectively using partnerships is a key
aspect of our approach to sound science.
Under a joint effort on air quality forecasting,
for example, EPA and the U.S. Department
of Commerce's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are
combining their expertise in air quality,
atmospheric measurements, and modeling to
develop a consistent, national numerical air
quality model for short-term air quality fore-
casts for ozone and PM. We are contributing
our national collection, analysis, and distri-
bution of ambient air quality  (our AIRNow
program) and emissions data; air quality
modeling; and detailed research analysis of
air quality impacts on human health. NOAA
brings expertise in operational meteorological
modeling, air quality research, and product
development and distribution.
next 5 to 10 years arid describe targets the
Agency intends to meet to reduce scientific
uncertainties."

    In addition to the research we are con-
ducting to support our clean air objectives,
EPA has also developed a multi-year plan for
global change, which is discussed under Goal
4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems.
    EPA's research on PM represents the
largest portion of its clean air research pro-
gram. Guided by expert advice from the
National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences arid several other
organizations outside the Agency, EPA is
 addressing its PM research goals by using in-
 house laboratory resources and partnering
 with numerous academic institutions,
 including five PM research centers around
 the Nation.

     To achieve our objectives for healthier
 outdoor air, the PM research program pro-
 vides health and exposure  information
 needed to establish standards and develop
 tools, such as emissions measurement meth-
 ods, air quality models, and ambient
 measurement methods, that allow states,
 local agencies, and tribes to achieve
 NAAQS cost-effectively. From FY 2003 to
 FY 2007, research will focus on developing
 data and tools needed for implementation of
the current PM standard and for the next
required review of the standard. Because
there is a 5-year cycle for reviewing NAAQS,
future research will focus on the information
needed to determine whether standards
should be retained or revised arid to imple-
ment new or revised standards.
    To meet our objectives for clean outdoor
and indoor air, EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) has developed multi-
year plans for research on PM, tropospheric
ozone (and other criteria pollutants), and air
toxics that lay out long-term goals for the
    The tropospheric ozone research program
addresses not only ozone, but other criteria
pollutants such as SO2, nitrogen dioxide, car-
bon monoxide, and lead. Under this research
program, EPA will develop scientific criteria
documents that can be used to establish air

-------
quality standards that protect human health
and the environment. The research also
focuses on developing tools, such as improved
emissions estimates and modeling capability,
to help states, local agencies, and tribes meet
the air quality standards.
    Air toxics research is designed to answer
critical scientific questions that will result in
more certain risk assessments and more effec-
tive risk management practices for stationary
point, area, mobile, or indoor sources of air
toxics. This research  will help to reduce risks
from toxic air pollutants by improving infor-
mation on evaluating risks from air toxics
and methods for reducing those risks.
Currently, in-house laboratories and research
centers conduct most of this research. In the
future, EPA will consider using extramural
research grants  to complement its intramural
program.
EXTERNAL FACTORS
    State implementation of delegated air pro-
grams, state arid local implementation of
federal regulations, and state and local agen-
cies' implementation of their own air pollution
control regulations and programs are necessary
for achieving our objectives and sub-objectives
for clean air. However, many states are current-
ly facing reduced budgets and resource
constraints that might impede their ability to
carry out environmental protection programs.

    Lawsuits and court action might require
the Agency to adjust schedules and delay its
accomplishment of certain goals and objec-
tives.  Achievement of the clean air objectives
can also be affected by economic conditions
and development patterns in the United States
and the world and by choices made for energy
and transportation policies.
    Weather conditions and meteorological
 patterns have very important effects on air
 quality. For example, high temperatures and
 bright sunlight can increase the formation of
 ozone. Wind can carry air pollution from one
 area to another, while conditions of little or  no
 wind can cause air pollutants to remain in an
 area and build up to unhealthy levels. Tliese
 effects must be considered when developing
 and implementing plans and strategies to
 achieve and maintain clean air.

    Finally, Objective 1.1  and Sub-objectives
 1.1.1 arid 1.1.2 assume enactment and imple-
 mentation of the Clear Skies legislation
 proposed by the President in 2002. As this pro-
 posed legislation is still in the early stages of
 the legislative process, it is not possible to pre-
 dict at this time what action the U.S. Congress
 will take.

-------
1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 2002. Latest Findings on National Air Quaiil}1: 2001 Status and"
    Trends. EPA 454/K-02-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at
    http://www.epa.gov/air/aqtrndOi/, EPA Office of Air and Radiation Web Site. Date of access: September 8, 2003.
2.   Areas not meeting the new standards are EPA projections based on 1999-2001 air quality monitoring data, which
    is maintaineci in the Air Qualify Subsystem (AQS). AQS contains ambient air pollution data collected by EPA
    and state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies from thousands of monitoring stations. Information can
    be obtained from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Transfer Network, Air Quality System
    Web Site, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/sysoverview.htm. Date of access: September 8, 2003.
3.   In 2001, the number of people living in areas not meeting new standards was 110,839,831 for 8-hour ozone and
    65,119,817 lor participate matter (PM)^ ^  in 2010, the number or people living in areas meeting new standards
    is expected to be 66,339,377 for 8-hour ozone and 25,173,130 for PM2.5.
4.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation. July 2003. Clear Skies Act Fact Sheet 2003.
    Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.  Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/
    fact20Q3.html. Date of access: September 8, 2003.
5.   Baseline is from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.  September 2002. Final
    Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from Unregulated Nonroad Engines. EPA 420-R-02-022.
    Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.  Available online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/
    nonroad/2002/r02022.pdf. Date of access: September  8, 2003.
6.   Baseline is from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.  May 2001. 1993
    National Toxics Inventory; Baseline 1993 NTl Raw Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. July 2003. Clear Skies Act Fact Sheet 2003.
    Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.  Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/
    fact2003.html. Date of access: September 8, 2003.
8.   Baseline is from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.  J996 National Toxics
    Inventory. 1996 Inventory Documentation and Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
    Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/1996inventory.htrnl. Date of access:  September 8.  2003.
9.   Data on number of school buses manufactured taken  from: Monahan, Patricia. February 2002. Pollution Report
    Card: Grading America's School Bus Fleets, Cambridge, MA:  Union of Concerned Scientists.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation. July 2003. 2003 Technical Support Package
    for Clear Skies, Section E: 2003 Human Health and Environmental Benefits. Washington,  DC: U.S. Government
    Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/technical.html. Date of access: September
    8, 2003.
    An alternative methodology projects that by 2010, Clear Skies will prevent 4,700 premature deaths and deliver
    $10 billion in health benefits annually and, by 2020,  prevent 8,400 premature deaths and deliver $21 billion in
    public health benefits annually.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation. December 2000.  Regulatory
    Announcement: Heavy-Duty Engine and" Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements.
    EPA 420-F-00-057. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at
    http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/frm/f00057.pdf.  Date of access: September 8, 2003.
12. Clean Air Act, Title 1, Section 112. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caall2.txt, EPA Clean Air
    Act Web Site. Date of access: September 8,  2003.
13. The 1994 baseline is assumed to be zero for purposes  of tracking the results of EPA indoor air programs  because
    the number of Americans experiencing healthier indoor air prior to 1994 is unknown.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM.) Study:
    Summary and Analysis: Volume i. EPA 600-6-87-002a. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality, Volume 11: Assessment
    and Control of Indoor Air Pollution.  EPA 400-1-89-001C. Washington, DC:  U.S. Government Printing Office.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental
    Problems. EPA 230287025a. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

-------
                                                                                                             Ckan Air	Notes
17.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board. 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and
     Strategies for Environmental Protection. EPA-SAB-EC-90-021. Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing
     Office.
18.  Florida Center for Public Management. September 1995. Com/wring Florida's Environmental Risks: Risks to
     Florida and Floridians. Tallahassee. Available online at http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/FCER/final.pdf, Program for
     Environmental Policy and Planning Systems Web Site, Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State
     University.  Date of access: September 8, 2003.
     California Comparative Risk Project. May 1994- Toward the 21st Century; Planning /or the. Protection of
     California's Environment. Berkeley: California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
     Health Hazard Assessment. Available online at http://vvww.oehha.org/multimedia/comprisk.html. Date of
     access: September 8, 2003.
19.  United Nations Environment Programme. 2002. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Available online at
     http://www.unep.org/ozone/sap2002.shtml, UNEP, The Ozone Secretariat Web  Site. Date of access:  September
     8, 2003.
20.  American Cancer Society  Inc. 2003. Cancer Facts and Figures: 2003.  No.  5008.03. Available online at
     http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2003PWSecured.pdf. Date of access: September 8, 2003.
21.  Prevent Blindness America. 2003. Cataract Fact Sheet, FS32. Available online at
     http://www.preventblindness.org/resources/factsheets/CataractsFS32.PDF.  Date of access: September 8, 2003.
22.  United Nations Environment Programme. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,  as
     adjusted Beijing 1999.  Nairobi, Kenya. Available online at http://www.unep.org/ozone/montreal.shtml,  UNEP,
     The Ozone  Secretariat Web Site. Date of access: September 8, 2003.
23.  Clean Air Act, Title VI. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title6.html, EPA Clean Air Act Web
     Site. Date of access: September 8, 2003.
24.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office  of Air and Radiation. 1999. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean
     Air Act 1990-2010, EPA Report to Congress. EPA-410-R-99-001. Washington, DC:  U.S. Government Printing-
     office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/1990-2010/chapll30.pdf. Date of access: September
     8, 2003.
25.  United Nations Environment Programme. 2002. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Available online at
     http://www.unep.org/ozone/sap2002.shtml, UNEP, The Ozone Secretariat Web  Site. Date of access:  September
     8, 2003.
26.  UV irradiance has increased since the early  1980s by 6 to 14 percent at more than  10 sites distributed over
     mid- and  high latitudes of  both hemispheres. Information from: United Nations Environment Programme.
     2002.  Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Available  online at http://www.unep.org/ozone/sap2002.shtml,
     UNEP, The Ozone Secretariat Web Site. Date of access: September 8, 2003.
27.  U.S. Department of Energy. August 2002. Transuranic Waste Performance Management Plan. Carlsbad.  Available
     online at  http://www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us/, DOE, Carlsbad Field Office, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Web Site.
     Date of access: September  8, 2003.
28.  Overall. EPA's climate protection programs will prevent  185 MMTCE annually by 2012. up from 65 MMTCE
     in 2002. Of the additional 120 MMTCE that will be prevented annually by 2012, 75  MMTCE will result
     directly from the sustained growth in many of the climate programs and are reflected in the Administration's
     business-as-usual projection for GHG intensity improvement; 45 MMTCE will contribute to the attainment of
     the President's 18 percent GHG intensity improvement  goal. The strategic targets outline the path  for prevent-
     ing the 120 MMTCE by 2012.
29.  MMTCE  being prevented annually in 2002  is an estimate based on an analysis of actions that EPA's program
     partners have taken through the end of 2002.
30.  Target includes the Agency's work with state and local governments,  and state  and  local governments' work
     with industry to prevent GHG emissions.
31.  For more  detailed information on ORD's multi-year plans, see: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
     of Research and Development. Research Directions: Multi-Year Plans. Washington, DC. Available online at
     http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm. Date of access: September 8, 2003.

-------

-------

-------
    Over the 30 years since the enactment of the Clean
Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts, government, citi-
zens ,  and the private sector have worked together to
make dramatic progress in improving the quality of sur-
face waters and drinking water.

    Thirty years ago, many of the
Nation's drinking-water systems pro-
vided water to the tap with either very
limited treatment (usually disinfec-
tion) or no treatment at all. Drinking
water was too often the cause of
acute illnesses linked to microbiologi-
cal contaminants or of longer-term
health problems resulting from expo-
sure to low levels of toxic and other
contaminants. Today, drinking-water
systems monitor the quality of the
water they provide and treat water to ensure compliance
with standards covering a wide range of contaminants. In
addition, new efforts to prevent contaminants from
entering drinking-water sources are helping to keep drink-
ing water safe. We now regulate disposal of wastes to
ground waters that are potential sources of drinking
wafer.

    Thirty years ago, about two-thirds of the surface
waters assessed by states were not attaining basic water
quality goals and were considered polluted.1 Some of the
Nation's waters were open sewers posing health risks,
and many water bodies were so polluted that traditional
uses, such as swimming, fishing, and recreation, were
impossible. Today, the number of polluted waters has
              been dramatically reduced, and many
              clean waters are even healthier. A massive
              investment of federal, state, and local
              funds has resulted in a new generation of
              sewage treatment facilities able to provide
              "secondary" treatment or better. More
              than 50 categories of industry now comply
              with nationally consistent discharge regu-
              lations. In addition, sustained efforts to
              implement "best management practices"
              have helped reduce runoff of pollutants
              from diffuse, or "nonpoint." soiirces.

                  Cleaner, safer water has renewed
recreational, ecological, and economic interests in com.'
murvities across the Nation. The recreation, tourism, and
travel industry is one of the largest employers in the
Nation, and a significant portion of recreational spending
comes from swimming, boating, sport fishing, and hunt-
ing.2 Each year, more than 180 million people visit the
shore for recreation.3 In 2001, people spent a total of
$70 billion—$35.6 billion on. fishing, $20.6 billion on
hunting, and $J3.8 million on items used for both hunt-
ing and fishing. Wildlife watchers spent an additional
$38.4 billion on activities around the home and on trips.4

-------
The commercial fishing industry, which aho
depends on clean water and healthy wetlands,
contributed $28.6  billion to the economy in
7O'"l 3  5
Z'Jul -
    The dramatic restoration of some of the
Nation's most polluted waters has paid large
dividends in enhanced recreation.  healthier
fisheries, and stronger local economies. The
Cuyahoga River, which once caught fire, is
now busy with boats and harbor businesses
that generate substantial revenue for the city
of Cleveland.  Oregon's Willamette River has
been restored to provide swimming, fishing,
and water sports, Even Lake Erie, once in/a-
    Despite improvements in the quality of
water, serious water pollution and drinking^
water problems remain. Population growth
continues to generate higher levels of water
pollution and places greater demand on drink-
ing-water systems. To further our progress
toward clean waters and safer drinking water,
we must both maintain our commitment to
the core measures we have already established
and look for new ways, to improve water
quality and protect human health.
PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH BY SEDUCING EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINANTS IN CHINKING
WATER (INCLUDING PROTECTING SOURCE WATERS), IN FISH AND SHELLFISH, AND IN
RECREATIONAL WATERS*
Sab-objective 2.1.1: Water Sale To Drink.
By 2008. 95 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. (2002 Baseline: 93.6 percent of
population; note that year-to-year perform-
ance is expected to change over time as new
standards take effect.)
    (Note: Routine data analyses of the Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
have revealed a degree of nonreporting of viola-
tions of health-based drinking water standards
and of violations of regulatory monitoring and
reporting requirements.  As a result of these data
quality problems, the baseline statistic of national
compliance with health-based drinking water
standards  is likely Sower than reported.  In consul-
tations with states, the Agency is currently
engaged in statistical analysis to more accurately
quantify the impact of these data quality prob-
lems, and this has resulted in significant improve-
ments in data accuracy and completeness. Even
as these improvements are made, SDWIS serves
as the best source of national information on
 compliance with SDWA requirements and is a
 critical database for program management, die
 development of drinking water regulations, trends
 analyses, and public information.)
        By 2008, the percentage of the popu-
        lation served by community water-
        systems that receives drinking water
        that meets health-based standards
        will be:
            95 percent for those requirements
            with which systems need to com-
            ply as of December 2001. (2002
            Baseline: 93.6 percent of the
            population.7)
         —  80 percent for those requirements
            with a compliance date of
            January 2002 or later. (2002
            Baseline: percent of population
            to  be determined starting in
            January 2004 and revised as new
            standards take effect. Covered
            standards include: Stage 1 disin-

-------
       fectants and disinfection by-
       products/interim enhanced sur-
       face-water treatment
       rule/long-term enhanced surface-
       water treatment rule/arsenic;
       year-to-year performance is
       expected to change as new stan-
       dards take effect.)

                  *  By 2008, the per-
                  centage of community
                  water systems that
                  provide drinking
                  water that meets
                  health-based stan-
                  dards will be:

                  - 95 percent for
                  those requirements
                  with which systems
                  need to comply as of
                  December 2001.
                  (2002 Baseline: 91.6
                  percent of community
                  water systems,8)

   —  80 percent for those requirements
       with a compliance date of
       January 2002 or later. (2002
       Baseline: percent of community
       water systems to be determined
       starting in January 2004 and
       revised 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/arsenic;
       year-to-year performance is
       expected to change as new
       standards take effect.)

•  By 2008, 95 percent of the popula-
   tion served by community water
   systems in Indian country will
   receive drinking water that meets all
   applicable health-based drinking-
   water standards. (2002 Baseline: 91.1
       percent of the population served by
       systems. Year-to-year performance is
       expected to change as new standards
       take effect.9)

    •  By 2008, 50 percent of source water
       areas (both surface and ground
       water) for community water systems
       will achieve minimized risk to public
       health. (2002 Baseline: estimated to
       be 5 percent; "minimized risk"
       achieved by substantial implementa-
       tion,  as determined by the state, of
       source water protection actions in a
       source water protection strategy.10)

    •  By 2015, in coordination with other
       federal agencies, reduce by 50 per-
       cent the number of households on
       tribal lands lacking access to safe
       drinking water. (2000 Baseline:
       Indian Health Service data indicat-
       ing 31,000 homes  on tribal lands lack
       access to safe drinking water.11)

Sxib-obfective 2,1.2; It'hh arid Shellfish Sate
to Eat, By 2008, improve the quality of water
and sediments to allow increased consump-
tion offish and shellfish as measured by the
strategic targets described below.

Strategic Targets:
    •  By 2008, improve  the quality of
       water and sediments to allow
       increased consumption of safe fish in
       not less than 3 percent of the water
       miles/acres identified by states or
       tribes as having a fish consumption
       advisory in 2002. (2002 Baseline:
       485,205 river miles and 11,277,276
       lake acres were identified by states or
       tribes in 2002 as having fish with
       chemical contamination levels result-
       ing in an advisory of potential
       human health risk from consump-
       tion.12)

-------
    •  By 2008, 85 percent of the shellfish-
       growing acres monitored by states
       will be approved for use. (1995
       Baseline: 77 percent approved for use
       of 21.6 million acres monitored: 69
       percent approved and 8 percent con-
       ditionally approved.13)

Siib-objective 2.1,3; Water Safe for
Swimming. By 2008, restore water quality to
allow swimming in not less than 5 percent of
the stream miles and lake acres identified by
states in 2000 as having water quality unsafe
for swimming. (2000 Baseline: approximately
90,000 stream miles and 2.6 million Sake
acres reported by states as not meeting a pri-
mary contact recreational use in the 2000
reports under section 305 (b) of the Clean
Water Act.1'*)

Strategic Targets;
    «  By 2008, protect the quality of recre-
       ational waters nationwide so that the
       number of waterborne disease out-
       breaks attributable to swimming in,
       or other recreational contact with,
       the ocean, rivers, lakes, or streams
       will be reduced to not more than 8.
       measured as a 5-year average. (2002
       Baseline: an average of 9 recreational
       contact waterborne disease outbreaks
       reported per year by the Centers for
       Disease Control over the years 1994
       to 1998; adjusted by the Heinz
       Center to remove outbreaks associat-
       ed with waters other than natural
       surface waters  [such as pools or water
       parks].15)

    •  By 2008, coastal and Great Lakes
       beaches monitored by state beach
       safety programs will be open and safe
       for swimming in more than 96 per-
       cent of the days of the beach season.
       (2002 Baseline: monitored beaches
       open 94 percent of the days of the
       beach season.16)
   MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR
   ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 2,1

PROTECTING AND IMPROVING
DRINKING WATER

   Safe drinking water and clean surface
waters are critical to protecting human
health. More than 260 million Americans
rely on the safety of tap water provided by
water systems that comply with national
drinking-water standards.17 EPA's strategy for
ensuring safe drinking water over the next
several years includes four key elements:
    •  Developing or revising drinking-
       water standards
    •  Supporting states, tribes, arid water
       systems in implementing standards
    *  Promoting sustainable management
       of drinking-water infrastructure
    •  Protecting sources of drinking water
       from contamination.
    The Safe Drinking Water Act directs
EPA to establish national standards for con-
taminants in drinking water provided to
consumers by water systems. Over the past 30
years, EPA has established standards for some

-------
91 contaminants. Over the next several
years, EPA expects to establish additional
standards for microbial contaminants, disin
fectants, disinfection by-products,
and microbial
pathogens or other
contaminants found
in distribution sys-
tems.

    Through 2008,
EPA will continue
to assess the need for
new or revised
drinking-water stan-
dards. Based on
recommendations
from the National
Research Council,
the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council, and other stakeholders, the Agency
will continue to evaluate health effects data
and risks of exposure to contaminants; infor-
mation on technologies that prevent, detect,
and remove  contaminants; arid  compliance
costs. If there is adequate information, EPA
will determine whether a new risk-based
drinking-water standard is necessary, or
whether revision to an existing  standard is
warranted. Where the source of the contami-
nation is surface water, the Agency will also
consider applying the pollution  control
authorities of the  Clean Water Act, includ-
ing development of water quality criteria for
human health under  Section 304 of the Act.
These criteria, once adopted by states and
authorized tribes,  will form the basis for limits
on discharges of the contaminants to surface
waters and guide programs to reduce runoff.

Implement Drinkmg-Water Regulations
    EPA works closely with states, tribes, and
owners and operators of municipal water sys-
tems to  ensure the full and effective
implementation of drinking-water standards
and to support the highest possible rate of
compliance with those standards. Over the
next 5 years, EPA will provide guidance,
training, and technical assistance to states,
tribes, and systems; ensure proper certifica-
tion of water system operators; and promote
consumer awareness of the safety of drinking-
water supplies.

                          Small communi-
                       ty water systems are
                       more likely to have
                       difficulty complying
                       with drinking-water
                       standards. Consistent
                       with the Agency's
                       Small Systems
                       Strategy, EPA will
                       provide training and
                       assistance addressing
                       the use of cost-effec-
                       tive treatment tech-
                       nologies, proper
waste disposal, and compliance with standards
for high-priority contaminants, including
arsenic in drinking water and microbes, disin-
fectants, and disinfection by-products.

    High-quality information is needed to
support the effective implementation of
drinking-water standards. The Safe Drinking
Water Information System serves as the pri-
mary source of national information on
compliance with all Safe Drinking Water Act
requirements and is a critical database for pro-
gram management. EPA will work to ensure
that all applicable drinking-water regulatory
requirements are incorporated into this new
data system to help states and authorized
tribes manage their drinking-water programs.
EPA will also continue to work with states
and others to improve data completeness,
accuracy, timeliness, and consistency.
Support S
    Providing drinking water that meets safe
standards often requires an investment in the
construction or maintenance of infrastruc-
ture. The Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF) provides water systems with
low-interest loans to make infrastructure
improvements.

-------
    Even with financial assistance from the
DWSR.F, the Agency's September 2002
report on the infrastructure gap identifies a
multi-billion-dollar gap  in capital infrastruc-
ture financing over the next 20 years.18 Thus,
EPA will continue to provide infrastructure
grants to capitalize DWSRFs. EPA will also
work with states to ensure that funds are
effectively managed, and with water system
owners and operators to encourage them to
adopt sustainable management systems.

    In a related effort, EPA will work with
other federal agencies to develop a coordinat-
ed approach to improving access to safe
drinking water. The 2002 World Summit in
Johannesburg adopted the goal of reducing  the
number of people lacking access to safe drink--
ing water by 50 percent by 2015.19 EPA will
contribute to this work through its support  for
development of drinking-water facilities in
Indian country and Alaskan Native villages,
using set-aside funds from the DWSRF and
targeted grants. Other federal agencies, such as
the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the
Department of Agriculture (USDA), also play
key roles in addressing this problem. EPA will
work with these agencies to develop a coordi-
nated strategy by 200.5 and to begin
implementing the strategy in 2006. In addi-
tion, Mexico Border infrastructure projects,
described under Goal 4: Healthy
Communities and Ecosystems, will also
increase access to safe drinking water.

Prevent Contamination of Sources of
Drinking Water

    There is growing recognition that pro-
tecting the quality of sources of drinking
water, including surface water arid ground
water, can reduce violations of drinking-
water standards. EPA will support protection
of drinking-water sources through training
and technical assistance to states, tribes, and
communities that are taking voluntary
measures to prevent or reduce contamina-
tion of source water. The Agency will foster
coordination of contamination prevention
strategies across jurisdictions, and will also
work with states and tribes to use Clean
Water Act authorities to prevent contamina-
tion of waters that serve as public water
supplies and are at high risk.

    In a related effort, EPA will protect
ground water that is a source of drinking
water by ensuring safe underground injection
of waste materials. EPA will continue work-
ing with states and tribes to educate and
assist underground injection control well
operators; working with industry and stake-
holders to collect and evaluate data on
potential ground-water contamination  from
more than two dozen types of Class V (shal-
low) wells, including agricultural and
storm-water drainage wells and large-capacity
septic systems; and exploring best manage-
ment practices for protecting underground
sources of drinking water.

SafRgtmrding Water infrnvtructure

    EPA is also the federal organization
responsible for ensuring the safety of critical
water infrastructure in the event of terrorist
or other intentional acts. Over the next sev-
eral years, EPA will continue to provide

-------
technical support and financial assistance to
help drinking-water and wastewater utilities
assess their vulnerability to terrorist or other
intentional acts and develop or revise their
emergency response plans. The Public Health
                       Security and
                       Bioterrorism
                       Preparedness and
                       Response Act of
                       2002 (Bioterrorism
                       Act) requires com-
                       munity water
                       systems  supplying
                       drinking water to
                       more than 3,300
                       people (of which
                       there are about
                       9,000 nationwide)
                       to conduct vulnera-
                       bility assessments
and prepare emergency response plans by cer-
tain dates. Wastewater systems have also
been conducting vulnerability assessments
and developing emergency response plans
through technical assistance  provided by
EPA. While the deadlines in the Bioterrorism
Act and the statutory mandates are time-spe-
cific for vulnerability assessments and
emergency response plans, EPA and the
water infrastructure community agree that
these protective activities  are not "one time
only" endeavors, but represent an iterative
process based on new and  emerging informa-
tion, science, and technology.

    The Agency will spearhead and support
efforts to develop effective arid affordable
methods, technologies, equipment, and other
tools needed to protect drinking-water and
wastewater systems from attack. Another
aspect of maintaining a secure infrastructure
is ensuring that critical information reaches
the right people by the fastest means neces-
sary. The Agency will continue to support
the operation of a secure, Internet-based,
password-protected Information Sharing and
Analysis Center that provides data on threats
of attacks or actual alerts and notices to
drinking-water and wastewater utilities.
MAKING FISH AND SHELLFISH
SAFE TO "EAT

    Some toxic contaminants that enter-
water bodies can move up the food chain and
build up to levels that make fish unsafe to
eat. States and tribes report they have issued
fish consumption advisories for some 14 per-
cent of river miles and 28 percent of lake
acres.20 Shellfish also can accumulate disease-
causing microorganisms and toxic algae. In
1995, shellfishing was prohibited in  11 per-
cent of the approximately 25 million acres
that support shellfishing.21 EPA is working
with states, tribes, and other federal  agencies
to improve water and sediment quality so all
fish and shellfish are safe to eat and  to pro-
tect the public from consuming fish  and
shellfish that pose unacceptable health risks.

MfSkiJ More Fish Safe to Eat

    Most fish consumption advisories today
are issued because of unhealthy levels of
mercury in fish. Although small amounts
of mercury  are discharged to waters, most
mercury in fish originates from combustion
sources, such as coal-fired power plants and
incinerators, which release it into the air.
The mercury is then deposited by rainfall
onto land and  water, where it is concentrated
in water bodies and moves up the food chain
through fish to people. EPA is working to
reduce releases of mercury to the air through
controls on combustion sources. For example,
EPA expects that by 2010, federal market-
based and other air regulatory programs will
reduce electric-generating unit emissions of
mercury by 22  tons from their 2000  level of
48 tons (see Goal 1  of this Strategic Plan).

    Improving water and sediment quality is
another key element of the strategy for mak-
ing more fish safe to eat. Implementation of
Clean Water Act programs will improve water
quality by reducing discharges from storm-
water systems, combined sewer overflows, and
concentrated animal feeding operations, and
by reducing runoff from nonpoint sources.

-------
    These water quality programs rely on sound
scientific information concerning individual con-
taminants in fish. EPA recently issued a criteria
document under the Clean Water Act identify-
ing the safe levels of mercury in fish tissue and
will help states and tribes adopt the criteria into
water quality standards. EPA expects that states
and authorized tribes will adopt the new mercury
fish tissue criterion by 2008. In 2000, EPA
revised the methodology calculating "human
health criteria" for contaminants found in surface
waters. This new methodology reflects recent
research on the health effects of contaminants
and their potential in water to be concentrated
in the food chain and to pose a greater risk to
people who consume fish. EPA partly recalculat-
ed the criteria for 83 pollutants and will be revis-
ing these criteria and additional criteria more
completely over the next several years.

    EPA is also working to restore the quality
of aquatic sediment in critical water bodies,
with special emphasis on the Great Lakes. In
addition, EPA will use Superfund program
authorities to restore the quality of sediment.
To reduce the potential for future sediment
contamination, EPA is working to reduce the
use of polychlorinated bipheriyls (PCBs). a
major sediment contaminant, in electrical
equipment. (See Goal 4 of this  Strategic Plan.)

    Another key element of EPA's strategy
for making more fish safe to eat is expanding
the amount and type of information about
fish safety and making this information avail-
able to the public. EPA provides guidance
to states and tribes on monitoring and fish
sampling. EPA also provides funding and
technical training to help states and tribes
assess fish safety in more of their waters every
year. The Agency expects that  by 2008, the
percentage of rivers and lakes monitored to
determine the need for fish advisories will
continue to increase. EPA is also conducting
a nationwide survey of contamination in fish.

    A key public information tool is the
Internet-based National Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Consumption Advisories.22 This web-
site allows states and tribes to enter their advi-
sories and provides die public with information
about the location of advisories, the fish that
are affected, and the number of meals or
amount offish that a person can safely eat.
    The safety of shellfish is managed
through a partnership of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Commission (1SSC),
and coastal states. States monitor shellfishing
waters and can restrict harvesting if shellfish
taken from the waters are unsafe.

    Although a sound system for monitoring
the condition of shellfishing waters and lim-
iting public exposure to unsafe shellfish is in
place, shellfish harvesting is restricted in
many acres of otherwise productive shellfish-
ing waters. EPA is working with states, the
FDA, the ISSC, and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
to increase the percentage of shellfishing
acres where harvesting is permitted from the
estimated 1995 level
of 77 percent to 85
percent in 2008.

    Over the past
several years, the
ISSC, working with
states and federal
agencies, has devel-
oped a new
information system
that uses state mon-
itoring data to
pinpoint areas
where shellfishing
has been restricted.
This information system will enable EPA and
the states to more readily  identify possible
sources of pollutants restricting the use of
shellfishing waters. This information can also
be used to strengthen water pollution control
activities, including development of water-
shed plans, implementation of National
Estuary Program plans, issuance or reissuarice
of permits to point sources, enforcement of
existing permits, and implementation of con-
trols over diffuse sources of polluted runoff.

-------
MAKING WATERS SAFE FOR SWIMMING

    Recreational waters, especially beaches in
coastal areas and the Great Lakes, provide
outstanding recreational opportunities for
many Americans. Swimming in some recre-
ational waters, however, can pose a serious risk
of illness as a result of exposure to microbial
pathogens. Beach closures to protect the pub-
lic from harmful levels of pathogens can have
significant economic impacts. In some cases,
these pathogens can be traced to sewage treat-
ment plants, malfunctioning septic systems,
and discharges from storm-water systems and
animal feeding operations. EPA is implement-
ing a three-part strategy to protect the quality
of the Nation's recreational waters. The
Agency will  work to protect recreational water
generally, control combined sewer overflows
(CSOs), and protect the quality of public
beaches along the coasts and Great Lakes.
    The first element of the strategy is broad-
ly focused on all recreational waters. To
protect and restore these waters, EPA works
with state, tribal, and local governments to
implement the core programs of the Clean
Water Act. For example, development and
implementation of total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) will generally benefit recreational
waters that are impaired. The continuing
implementation of the discharge permit pro-
gram, urban storm-water controls, and
nonpoint pollution control programs will also
reduce pollution to recreational waters.
    Full implementation of controls for over-
flows from combined storm and sanitary-
sewers is another key step in protecting recre-
ational waters. These overflows release
untreated sewage containing high levels of
pathogens. CSOs, which occur in about 770
communities around the country, can have a
significant impact on the quality of recreation-
al waters. EPA, states, and local governments
are making steady progress toward reducing
overflows under the "CSO Policy."23 Most
communities with CSOs have now imple-
mented basic control measures. Some 34
percent of these communities have submitted
long-term plans for controlling overflows and
16 percent have begun implementation.2'1
Protect
               and Qreat Lakes Beaches
    The third element of the strategy to pro-
tect and restore recreational waters is focused
on public beaches along coastal areas and the
Great Lakes. Under the recently enacted
Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health (BEACH)  Act, EPA provides
grants to state, tribal, and local governments
for programs to monitor beach water quality
and notify the public when bacterial contam-
ination poses a risk to swimmers. EPA
expects that 100 percent of significant public
beaches will be managed under BEACH Act
programs by 2008.

    I he BEACH Act requires that coastal
and Great Lakes states adopt scientifically
sound water quality criteria for bacteria. EPA
expects that all 35 coastal and Great Lakes
states will have adopted such criteria for
beaches by 2008. As a result of a related effort,
Agency-approved analytic methods will be
available for pathogens of concern at beaches.

    Finally, EPA will continue to expand
public access to Internet-based beach infor-
mation on its website. Governments receiving
BEACH Act grants and communities
responding  to EPA's annual National Beach
Health Protection Survey will provide infor-
mation on water quality, beach monitoring
and advisory programs, and beach closures.

-------
                  *•**
                    /•*
                  !>«• -Ji/V •»
FROI'EC'r THE QUALITY OF RIVERS, LAKES, AN'O STREAMS ON A WATERSHED BASIS AND
PROTECT COASTAL AND OCEAN WATERS.
Sab-objective 2.2.1: Improve Water
Qualky ess a Watershed Basis, By 2008, use
both pollution prevention and restoration
approaches, so that:
—   In 600 of the Nation's watersheds, water
    quality standards are met iri at least 80
    percent of the assessed water segments
    (2002 Baseline: 453 watersheds of the
    total 2,262 U.S. Geological Survey
    [USGSj cataloguing unit scale watersheds
    across the Nation.1')

—   Iri 200 watersheds, all  assessed water seg-
    ments maintain their quality and at least
    20 percent of assessed  water segments
    show improvement above conditions as
    of 2002. {2002 Baseline: 0 USGS cata-
    loging unit scale watersheds.)

Strategic 'l&rgetst

    9   By 2012, fully attain water quality stan-
        dards in over 25 percent of chose water
        bodies identified in 2000 as not attain-
        ing standards, with an interim mile-
        stone of restoring 5 percent of these
        waters by 2006. (2002 Baseline:
        0 percent of the 255,408 miles and
        6,803,419 acres of waters on 1998/2000
        lists of impaired waters developed by
        states and approved by EPA under sec-
        tion 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act.26)

    *   By 2008, reduce levels of phosphorus
        contamination in rivers and streams
        so that phosphorus levels are below
        levels of concern established by
        USGS or levels adopted by a state or
        authorized tribe in a water quality
        standard in:

           55 percent of test sites for major
           rivers (1992-1998 Baseline: 50
           percent.27)
    38 percent of test sites for urban
    streams (1992-1998 Baseline: 33
    percent.28)

    30 percent of test sites for farm-
    land streams (1992-1998
    Baseline: 25 percent.23)
By 2008, improve water quality in
Indian country at not fewer than 90
monitoring stations in tribal waters
for which baseline data are available
(i.e., show at least a 10 percent
improvement for each of four key
parameters: total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, and
fecal coliform). (2002 Baseline: four
key parameters available at 900 sam-
pling stations in Indian country.)

By 2015, in coordination with other
federal partners, reduce by 50 percent
the number of households on tribal
lands lacking access to basic  sanita-
tion. (2000 Baseline: Indian Health
Service data indicating that  71,000
households on tribal lands lack access
to basic sanitation.30)

-------
Sub-objective 2,2.2: Improve Coastal &nd
Oeearj Waters. By 2008, prevent water pollu-
tion and protect coastal and ocean systems to
improve national and regional coastal aquatic
ecosystem health by at least 0.2 points on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report. (2002 Baseline: National
rating of "fair/poor" or 2.4, where the rating
is based on a 5-point system in which 1 is
poor and 5 is good, and is expressed as an
areally weighted mean of regional scores
using the National Coastal  Condition Report
indicators addressing water  clarity, dissolved
oxygen, coastal wetlands loss, eutrophic con-
ditions, sediment contamination, benthic
health, and fish tissue contamination.31)
Strut
       By 2008, maintain water clarity and
       dissolved oxygen in coastal waters at
       the national levels reported in the
       2002 National Coastal Condition
       Report. (2002 Baseline: 4.3 for water
       clarity; 4-5 for dissolved oxygen.)

       By 2008, improve ratings reported on
       the national "good/fair/poor" scale of
       the National Coastal Condition
       Report for:

       —   Coastal wetlands loss by at least
           0.2 points (2002 Baseline: 1.4.)

       -   Contamination of sediments in
           coastal waters by at least 0.2
           points (2002 Baseline: 1.3.)

       —   Benthic quality by at least 0.2
           points (2002 Baseline: 1.4.)
           Eutrophic conditions by at least
           0.2 points (2002 Baseline: 1.7.)

       By 2010, in cooperation with other
       nations, federal agencies, states, tribes,
       and local governments, reduce the
       rate of increase in the number of inva-
       sions by non-native invertebrate and
       algae species of marine and estuarine
       waters. (2000 Baseline: rate of increase
       approximately 1 percent per year.32)
    MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR
    ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 2,2

IMPROVING WATER QUALITY  ON A
WATERSHED BASIS

    To protect and improve water quality on
a watershed basis, EPA will focus its work
with states, interstate agencies, tribes, and
others on six key areas: (1) strengthening the
water quality standards program;  (2) improv-
ing water quality monitoring; (3) developing
effective watershed plans and TMDLs; (4)
implementing effective nonpoint pollution
control programs; (5) strengthening the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program; and (6)
effectively managing infrastructure assistance
programs.
    While EPA expects to work with states,
interstate agencies, and tribes in each of
these areas, progress toward water quality
improvements will largely depend on success
in integrating programs on a watershed basis;
engaging diverse stakeholders in solving
problems; and applying innovative ideas,
such as water quality trading, to deliver cost-
effective water pollution control.

-------
Strengthen the Water Qutdhy Standards
Program

    State and tribal water quality standards
provide the environmental baselines for
water quality programs. EPA provides scien-
tific information concerning contaminants in
the form of "water quality criteria" guidance
and identifies innovative approaches to sup-
port state and tribal
adoption of water quali-
ty standards  that
protect water for such
uses as swimming, pub-
lic water supply, and
fish and wildlife.
                                                 Finally, EPA will work with states and
                                             tribes to ensure the effective operation and
                                             administration of the standards program. For
                                             example, all states and authorized tribes are
                                             expected to review and revise their standards
                                             every 3 years, as required by the Clean Water
                                             Act. In addition, EPA will promptly review
                                             and approve or disapprove changes to stan-
                                             dards, as required by the Act.
                           Water  Quality monitoring and assessment
                           programs—the essential underpinning of all
                           aspects of the watershed approach	must he
    In July 2003, EPA
published the Water
Quality Standards and
Criteria Strategy.1'' Developed in cooperation
with states, tribes, and the public, the strate-
gy provides a foundation for EPA's work to
strengthen state and tribal water quality stan-
dards programs. Over the next 5 years, the
strategy calls for EPA to develop guidance for
implementing new arid existing water quality
criteria; develop a criteria methodology for
waterbody sedimentation; develop a revised
aquatic life criteria methodology; publish
additional nutrient criteria (for example, for
coastal waters arid wetlands)  and provide
implementation guidance; and promote
increased use of biological criteria and eco-
logical evaluation to support  assessment of
water conditions on a watershed scale.

    In addition, the strategy identifies some
key efforts to strengthen the program in the
coming years, including developing nutrient
standards, adopting biological criteria, and
assisting tribal governments in adopting
water quality standards. In a complementary
effort, EPA will review risk assessment-
methodologies applied to chemical pollutants
and pathogens in biosolids generated by
wastewater treatment plants and will assess
the need  for new or revised standards to pro-
tect public health and the environment.
                                             Improve Water Qutdhy Momtormg
                                                 Scientifically defensible data and infor-
                                             mation are essential tools in the Information
                                             Age. Water quality monitoring and assess-
                                             ment programs	the essential underpinning
                                             of all aspects of the watershed approach—
                                             must be strengthened and upgraded across
                                             the country.

                                                 Over the next 5 years, EPA will assist
                                             states and tribes in significantly improving
                                             information concerning the condition of the
                                             Nation's rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, and
                                             ground water (to the extent possible).
                                             Specifically, EPA will work with other federal
                                             agencies, states, and tribes to adopt compre-
                                             hensive monitoring strategies, addressing
                                             all the elements essential to an effective
                                             monitoring program, and statistically valid
                                             monitoring networks. EPA will also encourage
                                             them to develop biological monitoring pro-
                                             grams and will provide states with technical
                                             assistance to increase their submission of
                                             monitoring data to the STORET national
                                             water quality data repository. This monitoring
                                             work will be coordinated with assessments of
                                             fish tissue contamination, the condition of
                                             water at beaches, the condition of coastal
                                             waters, and the condition of ground water.

-------
Develop Effective Watershed Plans
and TMDLs

   EPA is working with states, interstate
agencies, and tribes to foster a "watershed
approach" as the guiding principle of clean
water programs. EPA is encouraging states to
develop watershed plans with a comprehen-
sive approach to assessing water quality,
defining problems, integrating management
of diverse pollution control, and financing
projects. States have successfully adopted
watershed approaches that use a "rotating
basin" approach as well  as other methods.
Where necessary, states  will upgrade their
continuing planning processes to ensure
development of a watershed approach. EPA is
also working with tribes to support develop-
ment of watershed approaches to protecting
tribal waters.

   EPA is supporting the development of
watershed plans in specific geographic areas.
In addition to continuing watershed protec-
tion programs as part of the National Estuary
Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the
Great Lakes Program, and the Gulf of
Mexico Program, EPA has provided grants for
watershed-based plans in recent years and is
beginning a new watershed grant program in
2003. EPA  expects to continue supporting
development of plans in key watersheds over
the next 5 years.
    In watersheds where water quality stan-
dards are not attained, states will be
developing TMDLs. Some impaired waters
are isolated segments that can be addressed
individually. The vast majority of impaired
waters, however, are clustered on a watershed
basis. EPA is encouraging states to develop
TMDLs for these waters on a watershed basis,
because watershed-based TMDLs are less
expensive to develop and create the opportu-
nity for innovations such as water quality
trading and watershed-based permitting.
Irading is a valuable tool that allows sources
of pollution to share responsibility for con-
trolling pollution within a watershed and to
achieve pollution reductions at the lowest
possible cost.

    While supporting  state watershed plans,
EPA will continue working with states to
develop TMDLs consistent with state TMDL
development schedules and court-ordered
deadlines. States and EPA have made signifi-
cant progress in the development and
approval of TMDLs and expect to maintain
the current pace of approximately 3,000
TMDLs per year.

Control Nonfjomf Source Pollution
    Watershed plans and TMDLs will focus
pollution control efforts for impaired waters
on a range of pollution sources, including
runoff from diffuse, or "nonpoint," sources.
EPA will also support  state, interstate agency,
tribal, and other federal agency efforts to
implement management practices that will
reduce levels of nonpoint source pollution in
both impaired waters arid in other waters,
including surface water and ground water,
nationwide.

    A critical step in this effort is for EPA to
forge strategic partnerships with a broad
range of agricultural interests at all levels.
EPA will work with USDA to ensure that
federal resources, including grants under sec-
tion 319 of the Clean Water Act and Farm
Bill funds, are managed in a coordinated way.
As part of this effort, EPA will work with

-------
states on developing and implementing
watershed-based plans, focused on watersheds
with impaired water quality caused by non-
point sources. These plans are a mechanism
to coordinate monitoring and planning on a
watershed basis arid will build a foundation
for effective implementation actions using
federal and other funding,  EPA will also work
cooperatively with USDA to develop volun-
tary nutrient management plans for small
animal feeding operations  (not covered by
regulations) and to implement riparian and
stream bank protection measures over the
next 5 years.

    In related efforts, EPA will collaborate
with state managers of Clean Water
Revolving Loan Funds to increase invest-
ments in projects to reduce nonpoint source
pollution. Properly managed on-site/decen-
tralized systems are an important part of the
Nation's wastewater infrastructure. EPA will
encourage state, tribal, and local govern-
ments to adopt  voluntary guidelines for the
effective management of these systems arid to
use Clean Water Revolving Loan Funds to
finance systems where appropriate.

Strengthen the  NPDES Permit Program
and hnple'iyient '^al'xmal Industrial
Regwlarion Strategy

    The NPDES requires point sources dis-
charging to water bodies to be permitted and
pretreatment programs to control discharges
from industrial facilities to the Nation's
sewage treatment plants. This program pro-
vides  a management framework for protecting
the Nation's waters through the control of
billions of pounds of pollutants. EPA has five
key strategic objectives for the program over
the next five years: (1) ensure effective man-
agement of the permit program, including
focusing on permits that have the greatest
benefit for water quality; (2) implement wet-
weather point source controls, including the
storm-water program; (3) implement the
newly developed program  for permits at large,
concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs); (4) advance program innovations,
such as watershed permitting and trading; and
(.5) develop national industrial regulations for
industries where the risk to water bodies sup-
ports a national regulation.

    In 2003, EPA is developing the
"Permitting for Environmental Results
Strategy'' to address concerns about the
backlog in issuing permits and the health of
state NPDES programs. The strategy focuses
limited resources on
the most critical
environmental
problems by target-
ing three key areas:
(1) developing and
strengthening sys-
tems to  ensure
program integrity;
(2) focusing EPA
and states on
achieving environ-
mental results; and
(3) fostering effi-
cient permitting operations. The need to
increase data quality and quantity, including
modernizing the Permits Compliance System
and integrating it with other environmental
databases, is common  to all three areas.
Beginning in FY 2004, EPA will assess
NPDES program integrity and track the
implementation of followup actions that
result from the assessments.

    EPA is working with states, tribes, and
other interested parties to strengthen the per-
mit program in several other areas that will
benefit water quality. The Agency recently
finalized new rules for discharges from
CAFOs and will work with states to ensure
that most CAFOs are  covered by permits by
2008. In addition, over the next 5 years, EPA
expects  that 100 percent of NPDES programs
will have issued general permits requiring
storm-water management programs for Phase
II (mid-sized) municipalities and requiring
storm-water pollution  prevention plans for
construction sites covered by Phase II of the

-------
storm-water program. Finally, EPA and states
will monitor the percentage of significant
industrial facilities that have control mecha-
nisms in place to implement applicable
pretreatment requirements prior to discharg-
ing to publicly owned treatment works.

   Most industrial facilities discharging
directly to water bodies or to
sewage treatment plants have
permit limits or pretreatment
controls based on national
regulations developed for the
class of industrial activity.
Regulations are now in place
for most major industrial
classes.  Over the next 5
years, EPA will complete
national regulations now
under development (includ-
ing, for example, meat and
poultry processing, construc-
tion and development sites,
aquaculture farms,  and cool-
ing-water intake structures).
In consultation with the public, EPA will
also establish program priorities based on
sound science and  demonstrated benefits,
including the potential for cost-effective risk
reduction. In addition to evaluation of regu-
latory options, EPA will consider other
approaches (including clarifying guidance,
environmental management systems, and
permit writer support).
    Much of the dramatic progress in improv-
ing water quality is directly attributable to
investment in wastewater infrastructure — the
pipes and facilities that treat the Nation's
sewage. But the job is far from over.
Communities are challenged to find the fiscal
resources to replace aging infrastructure, meet
growing infrastructure demands fueled by
population growth, and secure their infra-
structure against threats.

    Clean Water State Revolving Funds
(CWSRFs) provide Sow-interest loans to help
finance wastewater treatment facilities and
other water quality projects. These projects
are critical to continuing the gains in public
health and water quality made during the
past 30 years. As of early 2003, the federal
government had invested almost $20 billion
in CWSRFs.i4 The revolving nature of the
funds and substantial additions from states
              have magnified  that invest-
              ment, so that $42.4 billion has
              been available for loans.55
              Recognizing the substantial
              remaining need  for wastewater
              infrastructure, EPA expects to
              continue  to provide significant
              annual capitalization to
              CWSRFs for the foreseeable
              future. This continued federal
              investment in state revolving
              funds,  along with other tradi-
              tional sources of financing
              (including increased local
              revenues), will result in
              significant progress toward
              addressing the Nation's waste-
              water treatment needs.

   Over the next 5 years, EPA will work
with CWSRFs to meet several key objectives:

    •  Fund projects designed as part of an
       integrated watershed approach.

    •  Link projects to environmental
       results through the use of scientifical-
       ly sound water quality  and public
       health data.

    •  Support development of integrated
       priority lists addressing nonpoint
       pollution and estuaries protection
       projects, as well as wastewater
       projects.

    •  Maintain the CWSRF's excellent
       fiduciary condition.

   Another important  approach to closing
the gap between the need for clean water
projects and available funding  is to use sus-
tainable management systems to ensure that
infrastructure investments are  tailored to the
needs of the watershed and are well capital-

-------
ized and well maintained. Sustainable man-
agement systems prolong the lives of existing
systems and provide Americans with clean
water at lower cost. EPA will work to institu-
tionalize these systems and will also
encourage rate structures that lead to full cost
pricing and support water metering and other
conservation measures. As part of this effort,
EPA will continue to promote  environmental
management systems, especially for public
agencies, that focus on improved compliance,
environmental performance beyond compli-
ance, pollution prevention, arid sustainable
water infrastructure. Response  to date is very
positive, and  support for adoption of environ-
mental management systems in the public
sector is growing rapidly.

    In a related effort, EPA will work with
other federal  agencies to improve access to
basic sanitation. The 2002 World Summit in
Johannesburg adopted the goal of reducing
the number of people lacking access to safe
drinking water and basic sanitation by 50
percent by 2015.* EPA will contribute to this
work through its support for development of
sanitation facilities in Indian country and
Alaskan Native villages, using  funds set aside
from the CWSRF and targeted grants. Other
federal agencies, such as DOI and LJSDA,
also play key  roles in addressing this problem.
In addition, Mexico Border infrastructure
projects, described under Goal  4: Healthy
Communities and Ecosystems,  will improve
access to basic sanitation.

IMPROVING  COASTAL AND OCEAN
WATER QUALITY

    Coastal and ocean waters are environ-
mentally ancl economically valuable to the
Nation. Key programs focused on and critical
to improving coastal waters are:

    •  Assessing coastal conditions.

    •  Reducing vessel discharges.

    •  Controlling coastal rionpoint pollution.

    •  Managing dredged material.
    •  Managing non-indigenous invasive
       species.

    •  Supporting international marine
       pollution control.

    In addition, coordinating our efforts with
those of other federal agencies, states, tribes,
and public and private parties is essential.
Improving coastal waters will depend on suc-
cessful implementation of pollution controls
in inland watersheds (see Sub-objective
2.2.1). Progress in protecting and restoring
coastal waters is also directly tied to geo-
graphically focused projects,  such as the
Chesapeake  Bay  Program, the Gulf of Mexico
Program, and the National Estuary Program.
These programs are described under Goal 4:
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems.
    Progress in meeting these strategic targets
will be tracked through the National Coastal
Condition Report, created in 2002 as a coop-
erative project of EPA, NOAA, USDA, and
DOI. The report describes the ecological and
environmental condition of U.S. coastal
waters according to seven key parameters.
EPA and other federal agencies will review
changing conditions and periodically issue
updated assessments of the health of coastal
waters. In support of this work, EPA is devel-
oping indices for measuring the health of
coral reefs and guidance for protecting such
back-reef ecosystems as mangroves, seagrass
beds, and sandflats. EPA is also developing
guidance to assist states, tribes, and local gov-
ernments in anticipating and responding to
harmful algal blooms.
    To improve
the health of the
Nation's ocean
and coastal
waters, EPA will
focus on enhanc-
ing regulation of

-------
discharges of pollution from vessels. Key work
includes developing discharge standards for
cruise ships operating in Alaskan waters; coop-
erating with the Department of Defense to
develop discharge standards for certain armed
forces vessels; and assessing die effectiveness of
current regulations for marine sanitation
devices and promoting technological advance-
ment to reduce sewage discharges from vessels.
                       Nonpoint Source
                       Pollution Programs
                           Rapid popula-
                       tion growth in
                       coastal areas can
                       result in significant
                       increases in pollu-
                       tion from nonpoint
                       sources. For the past
                       10 years, EPA arid
                       NOAA have been
working with coastal and Great Lakes states
to improve and expand programs to reduce
nonpoint source pollution in the "coastal
zone" identified by states. Most states have
used federal grant funds to develop coastal
nonpoint programs, and EPA and NOAA are
working with the remaining states to com-
plete the program by providing continued
support and assistance. These nonpoint con-
trol programs, focused on the critical coastal
zone areas, will play an important role in
accomplishing the environmental improve-
ments sought for coastal waters by 2008.

Manage  Dredged Material

    Several hundred million cubic yards of
sediment are dredged from waterways, ports,
and harbors every year to maintain the
Nation's navigation system for commercial,
national defense, and recreational purposes.
All of this sediment must be disposed of safely.
EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) share responsibility for regulating how
and where the disposal of sediment occurs.
EPA and COE will focus additional resources
on improving how disposal of dredged material
is managed,  including evaluating disposal sites,
designating arid monitoring the sites, and
reviewing and concurring on the disposal per-
mits issued by COE.

    EPA is also working with its state part-
ners and other federal agencies, including
COE, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and  the
Coast Guard, to ensure that comprehensive
dredged material management plans, which
include provisions for the beneficial reuse of
dredged material, are developed and imple-
mented in major ports and  harbors.
    One of the greatest threats to U.S. waters
and ecosystems is the uncontrolled spread of
invasive species. Invasive species commonly
enter U.S. waters through the discharge of bal-
last water from ships. Although the majority of
these organisms never become established in a
new ecosystem, an increasing number of them
are harming the environment and local
economies and posing risks to human health.
EPA is assisting the U.S. Coast Guard in its
efforts to develop ballast water exchange
requirements and discharge standards and is
addressing this issue at the international level.
Sujxpomt
                    Marint; PoH-wtwsi Control
    EPA works closely with the Coast Guard,
NOAA, and the Department of State to
address environmental threats to U.S. waters
that require international cooperation.
Recognizing the effect of international ship-
ping on the quality of the U.S. waters, EPA is
heavily involved in the negotiation of inter-
national standards at the International
Maritime Organization. These standards are
the principal mechanism EPA is using to
address invasive aquatic species, tributyltin
and other harmful antifoulants, and marine
debris. Negotiations are currently underway
for a global treaty designed to prevent further
introductions of invasive aquatic species
through ballast water. EPA is also engaged in
cooperative efforts to reduce other sources of
pollution affecting the Gulf of Mexico, Great
Lakes, Arctic Ocean, Straits of Florida, and
the Wider Caribbean Basin.

-------
 OBIFCTIVF ">  1* FNHANrF S
 t.jf 1.^ S.xV/ .ft i V A.v *«*^Jtx txl ^t Jt. ijTA.i. ^ \*sX.s V,?
 PROVIDE AND APPLY A SOUND SCIENTIE ic FOUNDATION TO EPA'S GOAL OF CLEAN" AND
 SAFE WATER BY CONDUCTING LEADING-EDGE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPING A BETTER
 UNDERSTANDING AND CHARACTERIZATION" OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES UNDER
 GOAL 2.
Sxib-obfective 2,3.1; Apply the Best
Available Science, By 2008, apply the best
available science (e.g., tools, technologies,
and scientific information) to support
Agency regulations arid decision-making for
current and future environmental and human
health hazards related to reducing exposure
to contaminants in drinking water, fish and
shellfish, and recreational waters, and pro-
tecting aquatic ecosystems.

8ixb-o!)jective 2,3.2; Coridx-ci; "Leacliiig-Iidge
Research, By 2008, conduct leading-edge,
sound scientific research to support the pro-
tection of human health through the
reduction of human exposure to contami-
nants in drinking water, fish and shellfish,
and recreational waters and to support the
protection of aquatic ecosystems—specifical-
ly, the quality of rivers, lakes and streams,
and coastal and ocean waters.
MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR
ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 2,3


DRAWING ON CLEAN AND
SAFE WATER SCIENCE

    Meeting the goal of clean and safe water
requires that EPA effectively apply basic
research findings to the specific needs of
water programs. The Agency will draw on the
results of basic research to prove and refine
existing conclusions about drinking water
safety and water quality. Critical scientific
aspects of water program research include
development of analytic test methods to sup-
port programs' scientific integrity; laboratory
certification; and analysis of questions more
commonly thought of as "social science," such
as the costs and benefits of safe drinking
water and healthy aquatic ecosystems.
    EPA establishes
analytic test methods
that describe laborato-
ry procedures for
measuring contami-
nant levels in drinking
arid surface waters. In
some cases, EPA itself
develops methods; in
other cases, the
Agency approves alter-
native test procedures.
Approximately 550
EPA-approved analyti-
cal methods exist for
nearly 300 contami-
nants. These test
methods support the
development of drinking-water standards,
surface-water quality criteria and standards,
industrial discharge regulations, water moni-
toring, discharge permitting, pretreatment,
and compliance.

    EPA has several goals for improving the
analytic methods program over the next 5
years. These include reducing the backlog of
applications for approval of alternative test
procedures, many involving new technology;
developing new analytic methods that sup-
port increasingly more stringent levels of
protection for some contaminants; and mak-
ing  analytic methods readily available to the
public through a new Internet-based system.

-------
       Laboratory Certification

    To ensure a sound scientific basis for
determining whether a system has complied
with EPA's drinking-water standards, each
drinking-water regulation incorporates quali-
ty control and testing procedures for the
laboratories that analyze drinking-water sam-
ples for contaminants. EPA's Drinking Water
Laboratory Certification Program evaluates
whether Agency, state, and privately owned
laboratories are analyzing drinking-water
samples accurately using approved laboratory
methods and procedures, and whether they
are  properly implementing quality assurance
plans. Only certified laboratories may analyze
drinking-water samples.

    Over the next 5 years, EPA will work to
ensure that laboratories are appropriately
classified as "certified," "provisionally certi-
fied," "interim certified," or "riot certified." In
making certification decisions. EPA will con-
sider laboratory certification criteria, on-site
audits conducted at least once every 3 years,
and analysis of test samples.
    A related scientific effort is developing
improved methods to assess and value ecolog-
ical and recreational benefits that result from
improvements in water quality. EPA is sup-
porting studies of the monetary value of
cleaner water for aquatic life and other  eco-
logical and recreational benefits, such as
boating, and will use this information to
develop more precise estimates of the bene-
fits of water pollution control programs and
requirements. This economic work is dis-
cussed in greater detail in Appendix 1.

CONDUCTING CLEAN AND
SAFE WATER RESEARCH

    EPA's water research program enables
EPA to pursue its objectives for protecting
human health and water quality. The
Agency's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) has developed multi-
year plans for drinking water and water
quality that describe the research it will
conduct over the next 5 to  10 years.37

CorwlMci Research to Proit'ci Human &idt.h

    The Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996 direct EPA to conduct
research to strengthen the scientific founda-
tion for standards that limit public  exposure
to drinking-water contaminants. The
Amendments contain specific requirements
for research on waterborne pathogens, such
as Cryptosporidiurn  and Norwalk virus; disin-
fection by-products; arsenic; and other
harmful substances in drinking water. EPA is
also directed to conduct studies to identify
and characterize population groups, such as
children, that may be at greater risk from
exposure to contaminants in drinking water
than is the general population.

-------
    In response to these requirements, EPA
will conduct a multi-disciplinary research
program that address-
es exposure, health
effects, risk assess-
ment, and risk
management.
Research to support
water quality pro-
grams will also focus
on developing and
implementing ambi-
ent water quality
criteria to protect uses
of aquatic ecosystems,
including fishing and
recreation.
    The water quality research program sup-
ports the Agency and its partners in
developing and applying criteria for designat-
ed uses and in developing tools to diagnose
and assess impairment and restore and pro-
tect aquatic systems. While water quality
research addresses a wide spectrum
of aquatic ecosystem stressors, it pays particu-
lar attention to stressors that the Agency
most often cites as impairing water bodies:
embedded and suspended sediment, nutri-
ents, and pathogens and pathogen  indicators.

                         The products that
                      result from these
                      research efforts will be
                      useful to a variety of
                      water programs. For
                      example, information
                      on risk management
                      and restoration of
                      waters impaired by
                      sediment will be help-
                      ful to the TMDL
                      program, as well as to
                      voluntary watershed
                      protection initiatives,
                      in developing site-
                      specific management
                      alternatives. A report
                      to be developed
                      demonstrating the use
of time series analysis to identify nonpoint
source impacts can be used by the Agency's
nonpoint source, TMDL, and monitoring
programs to identify sources of water quality
impairment. And a report to be developed
describing factors ancl processes that control
the fate of nutrients in streams will assist the
Agency in determining in-strearn nutrient
thresholds and developing TMDLs.
    EPA's strategies for achieving clean and safe
water depend on substantial contributions and
investments by many public and private entities.

    States are primary partners in implement-
ing both clean water and safe drinking-water
programs. Many states, however, are facing
budget problems arid even deficits. EPA recog-
nizes that state budget shortfalls are an
external factor that may limit progress toward
clean and safe water goals.

    Consistent with the federal government's
unique trust responsibility to federally recog-
 nized tribes, EPA implements programs in
 Indian country, helps build tribal capacity to
 administer clean and safe water programs and
 works with authorized tribes as co-regulators.
 Tribal resource needs are great. Unlike states,
 many tribes are still developing programs to
 administer clean and safe water programs.
 Inadequate progress in developing these
 programs will limit progress toward clean
 water goals.

     Local governments play a critical role in
 implementing clean and safe water programs.
 Municipalities and other local entities have

-------
proven to be strong partners with states and
the federal government in the financing of
wastewater treatment and drinking-water sys-
tems, and continued partnership in financing
these systems is essential to meeting water
goals. Despite sometimes significant resource
limits, municipalities are also now taking on
additional responsibilities for addressing
storm water and CSOs. In the case of the
drinking-water program, effective local man-
agement of
drinking-water
systems, including
protection of
source waters, is
essential to main-
taining high rates
of compliance
with drinking-
water standards.
Ninety-five
percent of the
160,000 or more
public water sys-
tems responsible for meeting drinking-water
safety standards are small systems that often
struggle to provide safe drinking water.38
Continued consultation with local govern-
ments is critical to achieving clean and safe
water.

    Several key elements of the national
water program,  including nonpoint source
control, source water protection, and water-
shed management, require broad partnerships
among many federal, state, and local agen-
cies. Over the next several years, building
partnerships with the agricultural community
(such as USDA, state agricultural agencies,
and local conservation districts) is a top pri-
ority for meeting clean water goals. We must
also continue to provide water quality data
and technical assistance that can help USDA
target its runoff control programs.

    EPA relies on many other agencies  to pro-
vide monitoring data to measure progress
toward its goal of clean and safe water. States
lead the effort in water quality monitoring.
Other agencies provide critical information as
well, such as USGS, which maintains water
monitoring stations throughout the nation,
and NOAA, which provides information on
coastal waters. EPA also relies on COE to co-
administer the Section 404 program of the
Clean Water Act. In fact, COE acts as the
lead federal agency for permitting the dis-
charge of dredged or fill material and, as part
                          of its civil works
                          projects, address-
                          ing dredged
                          material manage-
                          ment and disposal
                          issues in U.S.
                          waters. In addi-
                          tion to the
                          domestic activities
                          that support the
                          2002 World
                          Summit goal, EPA
                          will continue
                          working interna-
tionally in support of the U.S. government
effort to help fulfill this goal. We will
continue to work with the U.S. Agency for
International Development, the U.S.
Department of State, and other interested
stakeholders to improve access to safe drink-
ing water and sanitation.

    Finally, all of the EPA's coastal and
oceans activities are carried out in partner-
ship with other federal agencies and, in some
cases, international, state, local and private
entities as well. EPA relies on its work with
the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard,
Alaska and other states, and a number of
cruise ship and environmental and non-
governmental  organizations regarding
regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to
managing wastewater discharges from vessels.
Meeting ocean and coastal goals will also
depend on the extent to which the growth in
coastal areas is directed in ways that mini-
mize effects on water quality.

-------
1.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's
    Waters. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 'Office.
2.  Travel Industry Association of America. 2002. Tourism. Works for America, llth Edition. Washington, DC:
     Travel Industry of America.
3.  Pew Oceans Commission. 2002. America's Living Oceans Charting a Course for Sea Change. Arlington, VA: Pew
    Oceans Commission.
4.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 200 i National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife -Associated Recreation,
    Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5.  National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Fisheries of the United State 200], Washington, DC: U.S. Government
    Printing Office.
6.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's
    Waters. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Accessing, Drinking
    Water Data in SDWIS/Fed (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version) Web Site,
    http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html.
8.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Accessing, Drinking
    Water Data in SDWiS/Fed (Sate Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version) Web Site,
    http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.htrnl.
9.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Accessing, Drinking
    Water Data in SDWIS/Fed (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version) Web Site,
    http://www.epa.gov/satewater/data/getdata.html.
10. Information collected from EPA regions and housed in an internal EPA database. For more information, con-
    tact the Drinking Water Protection Division, Prevention Branch, at  202 564-3797.
11. Indian Health Service. 2001. The Sanitation Facilities Construction Program of the Indian Health Service Public Law
    86-121 Annual Report for 200], Bethesda, MD: Indian Health Service Division of Sanitation Facilities
    Construction.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. National Listing of
    Fish and Wildlife Advisories Web Site. Washington, DC. Available online at http://mapl.epa.gov. Date of
    access: May I, 2003.
13. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1998. Classified Shellfish Growing Waters. In State
    of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
14. 2000 303(d) information (waters impaired for swimming) comes from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    States' Listing oj Impaired Waters as Required by Clean Water Act Section 303(di. Washington, DC. Available
    online at http://epa.gov/waters/. Date of access: June 2002.
15. The Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2002. The State of the Nations's Ecosystems:
    Measuring the  Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States. Washington, DC: Cambridge University-
    Press.
    Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention. 2002. Surveillance for Waterborne Diseases Outbreaks — United
    States, 1999 - 2000 Web Site. Atlanta, GA. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/
    mmwrhtml/ss5108al.htm, CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. National Health Protection Survey of Beaches.
    Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/. Date of access: May 23,  2003.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Accessing, Drinking
    Water Data in SDWIS/Fed (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version) Web Site,
    http://www.epa.gov/satewater/data/getdata.html.

-------
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water infrastructure Gap Analysis,
    Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

19. United Nations. 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Johannesburg, South Africa, 26
    August - 4 September, 2002. New York, NY: United Nations.

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and  Technology. National Listing of
    Fish and Wildlife Advisories. Washington, DC. Available online at http://mapl.epa.gov. Date of access: May 1.
    2003.

21. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1998.  Classified Shellfish Growing Waters. In State
    of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic, and Atmospheric Administration.

22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. National Listing of
    Fish and Wildlife Advisories. Washington, DC. Available online at http://mapl.epa.gov. Date of access: May 1,
    2003.

23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 'Tuesday, April 19, 1994- Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control
    Policy. Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 75, page 18788.

24. Data from a Report to Congress under development. Consolidated  Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001,
    Public  Law 106-554 requires that EPA submit a Report to Congress by December 2003, addressing the impacts
    caused by CSOs and SSOs. Data collected for this report as of November 2002,  indicate 842 CSO permits held
    by  772 communities with CSOs; 748 (88.8 percent) include requirements for the Nine Minimum Controls
    (NMC). 34 percent have submitted draft LT'CPs; 17 percent have begun implementation.

25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Accomplishments Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Government
    Printing Office

26. 2000 303(d) information (waters impaired for swimming) comes from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    States' Listing of Impaired Waters as Required by Glean Water Act Section 303(d). Washington, DC.  Available
    online at http://epa.gov/waters/.  Date of access: June  2002.

27.  The Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2002. The State of the Nations "s Ecosystems;
    Measuring the Lands. Waters,  and Living Resources of the United States. Washington, DC: Cambridge University
    Press.

28. The Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2002. The State of the Nations "s Ecosystems:
    Measuring the Lands, Waters,  and Living Resources of the United States. Washington, DC: Cambridge University-
    Press.

29. The Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2002. The State of the Nations's Ecosystems;
    Measuring the Lands, Waters,  and Living Resources of the United States. Washington, DC: Cambridge University
    Press.

30. Indian Health Service. 2001. The Sanitation Facilities  Construction Program of the Indian Health Service Public Law
    86-J2J Annual Report for 2001. Bethesda, MD:  Indian Health Service Division of Sanitation Facilities
    Construction.

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. National Coastal Condition Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
    Government Printing Olfice.

32. Ruiz, Gregory. 2000. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: Apparent patterns, processes,
    and biases. Annual Review of  Ecology and Systematics 31: 481-531.

33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. August 2003. Strategy for Water Quality Standards and
    Criteria: Setting Priorities  to Strengthen the Foundation for Protecting and Restoring the Nation's Waters. EPA-823-R-
    03-010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/
    waterscience/standards/strategy, EPA's Office of Water, Water Quality Standards.

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June, 2002. CWNiMS National  Report. CWSRF Funds Available for
    Projects,  Net Sources. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

-------
35.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June, 2002. CWNIMS National Report. CW.SRF Funds Available for
     Projects. Net Sources. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
36.  United Nations. 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable. Development: Johannesburg, South Africa, 26
     August - 4 September, 2002. New York: United Nations.
37.  For more detailed information on ORD's multi-year plans, see: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
     of Research and Development. Research Directions: Multi-Year Plans. Washington, DC. Available online at
     http://wwvv.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm.
38.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Accessing, Drinking
     Water Data in SDWIS/Fed (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version) Web Site,
     http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html.

-------
'4

-------

-------
    Left uncontrolled, hazardous and nonhazardous
wastes on the land can migrate to the air, ground water,
and .surface water, contaminating drinking-water
supplies,  causing acute illnesses or chronic diseases, and
threatening healthy ecosystems in
urban, rural, and suburban areas.
Hazardous substances can kill living
organisms in kikes and rivers, destroy
vegetation in contaminated areas,
cause major reproductive
complications in wildlife, and
otherwise, limit the ability oj an
ecosystem 10 survive.

    EPA will work to preserve and
restore the land using the most
effective waste management and
cleanup methods available. We use a
hierarchy of approaches  to protect the land: reducing
waste ai its source, recycling waste,  managing waste
effectively by preventing spills and releases of toxic
materials, and cleaning up contaminated proper ties. The
Agency is especially concerned about threats to our most
sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and
individuals with chronic  diseases.
    The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCEA, or
Superfund)' and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)2 provide the legal authority for
most of EP/'Ys work toward this goal.  The Agency and its
partners use Superfund authority to clean up
uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites and
             return the land, to productive use. Under
             RCRA, EPA works in partnership with
             states ana tribes to address risks associated
             with leaking underground storage tanks
             (USTs) and with the generation and
             management of hazardous and
             nonhazavdous wastes.
                 EPA also uses authorities provided
              under the Clean Air Act," Clean Water
              Act,' and Oil Pollution Act of 19905 to
              protect against spills and releases of
              hazardous materials. Controlling the
              many risks posed by accidental and
intentional releases oj harmful substances presents a
significant challenge to protecting the land.  EPA uses an
approach that integrates prevention, preparedness, and
response activities to minimize these risks. Spill-
prevention activities keep harmful substances from being
released, to the environment.. Improving EPAs readiness
to respond to emergencies through training, development
of clear authorities, and. provision of proper equipment
will ensure that we are  adequately prepared to minimize
contamination and harm to the environment when spills
do occur.

-------
BY 2008, REDUCE ADYEESE EPEECTS TO LAND BY REDUCING 'WASTE GENERATION'?
INCREASING RECYCLING, AND ENSURING RRGREH MANAGEMENT OF WASTE AND
PETEOEE1/M PRODUCTS AT EACrLITIES ;N WAYS THAT PREVENT RELEASES,
    'objective 3* LI; Reds;
.ce v
Generation and Increase Recycling, By
2008, reduce materials use through product
and process redesign, and increase materials
and energy recovery from wastes otherwise
requiring disposal.
    •  Each year through 2008, maintain
       the national average municipal solid
       waste generation rate at no more
       than 4.5 pounds per person per day.6

    •  By 2008, increase recycling of the
       total annual municipal solid waste
       produced to 35 percent from 31 per-
       cent in 2002.7

Sub-objective 3,1.2: Manage Hazardous
Wastes fsr:d Petrolexsxsx Products Properly *
By 2008, reduce releases to the environment
by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum
products properly.
       By the end of 2008, prevent releases
       from RCRA hazardous waste man-
       agement facilities by increasing the
       number of facilities with permits or
       other approved controls from 79 per-
       cent at the end of FY 2002 to 95
   percent.8 (Total universe is approxi-
   mately 2,750 facilities, but will be
   reassessed in FY 2006.9)

•  By 2008, update controls for prevent-
   ing releases at the 150 facilities that
   are due for permit renewal by the end
   of 2006. (By 2006, we will complete
   a system for tracking the number of
   facilities due
   for permit
   renewals.
   Currently, we
   estimate that,
   through 2008,
   a total of 450
   facilities will be
   due for permit
   renewal.)

•  By 2008, reduce hazardous waste
   combustion facility emissions of
   dioxins and furans by 90 percent and
   participate matter by 50 percent from
   1994 levels of 880 grams/year and
   9,500 tons/year, respectively.10
•  By 2008, increase the percentage
   of UST facilities that are in signifi-
   cant operational compliance'1  with
   both release detection and release
   prevention requirements by 4 percent
   compared to 2004, out of a total esti-
   mated universe of approximately
   263,000 facilities. (The baseline
   compliance rate will be determined
   in 2004, but is estimated to be
   approximately 60 percent.12)

•  Each year through 2008, minimize
   the number of confirmed releases at
   UST facilities to 10,000 or fewer.
   (Between FY7 1999 and FY 2002, con-
   firmed releases averaged 13,980.n)

-------
          MEANS AND STRATEGIES FO.R
                     - OipetWE 3,1
              EPA's strategy for reducing waste genera-
          tion and increasing recycling is based on (1)
          establishing and expanding partnerships with
          businesses,  industries, states, communities,
          and consumers; (2) stimulating infrastructure
          development, new technologies, and envi-
          ronmentally responsible behavior by product
          manufacturers, users, and disposers ("product
          stewardship"); and (3) helping businesses,
          government, institutions, and consumers by
          providing education, outreach, training, and
          technical assistance.
             Y
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
                     The Resource
                  Conservation Challenge
                  (RCC), the Agency's
                  primary vehicle for
                  implementing this multi-
                  component strategy,
                  represents a major nation-
                  al effort to find flexible
                  yet protective ways to
                  conserve our valuable
                  natural resources through
waste reduction, recycling, and energy recov-
ery.14 The RCC is designed to elicit a response
from all Americans, since we all have oppor-
tunities to reduce the waste we produce and
to increase recycling. Through the RCC, EPA
challenges Americans to make purchasing
and disposal decisions that
conserve our natural
resources, save energy,
reduce costs, and preserve
the environment for future
generations.

    Currently, we are work-
ing with our partners to
identify additional perform-
ance goals for the RCC that will supplement
our existing strategic targets. These goals will
reflect the expanded effort the Agency is
beginning in 2003 to decrease the use and
increase the recovery of materials and energy
by reducing and recycling municipal, indus-
trial, and hazardous wastes. As part of this
effort, EPA will review waste generation and
management practices to identify opportuni-
ties to reduce wastes, remove barriers to
recycling and recovery, and promote safe
beneficial uses. To further promote hazardous
waste recycling, we will analyze changes in
the amount of hazardous waste recycled and
the factors influencing these changes, includ-
ing non-regulatory factors. Our ultimate goal
is to move the Nation from a waste-oriented
to a life-cycle management way of thinking
about materials. (The Agency is also encour-
aging industry to minimize the generation of
priority-list chemicals in hazardous waste
streams, an effort presented in 5.2.2 under
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship.)
    EPA will establish and expand its part-
nerships with industry, states, and other
entities to reduce waste and develop and
deliver tools that can help businesses, manu-
facturers, and consumers. Nationally
recognized programs, such as Waste Wise,15
which uses voluntary partnerships to encour-
age waste prevention and recycling, will serve
as models for new alliances among federal,
state, and local governments and businesses
that capitalize on voluntary efforts to reduce
waste and increase recycling. EPA and the

-------
        Preserving Resources,
           Preventing Waste
Nation will continue to benefit from well-
established programs.

    Another example of an expanded part-
nership program is the Waste Wise Building
Challenge, which EPA  initiated in 2002.!6
This program will continue to promote
development of new tools, such as waste-
hauling contracts  that provide financial
incentives for haulers to identify and imple-
ment cost-effective, resource-efficient source
reduction and recovery.

    EPA  will also  continue to help our tribal
partners improve practices for managing
solid waste on Indian lands. EPA has direct
implementation responsibility for RCRA
hazardous waste and UST programs in
Indian country. Recognizing the unique
challenges encountered on tribal lands, EPA
will work with tribes  on a government-to-
govemmertt basis  that affirms the federal
government's vital trust responsibility to
572 tribal governments and recognizes the
importance of conserving natural resources
for cultural uses. We will conduct joint proj-
ects to upgrade tribal solid waste
management infrastructure, including plans,
codes, and ordinances; recycling programs;
and other alternatives to open dumping.
These efforts will  help to prevent open
dumping in Indian country in the  future and
allow cleanup of existing dumps, reducing
the risks  that such dumps pose to human
health and the environment.
     Another key strategy for reducing waste
 is fostering development of infrastructure
 that will make it easier for businesses and
 consumers to reduce the waste they gener-
 ate, acquire and use recycled materials,
 and purchase products containing recycled
 materials. EPA will continue to promote
 development of new and better recycling
 technologies and to explore ways to obtain
 energy or products from waste.

    Several initiatives already underway
demonstrate the potential of such efforts.
EPA has established voluntary product stew-
ardship partnerships with manufacturers,
retailers, and governmental and nongovern-
mental organizations to reduce  the impacts
that electronics and carpets can have on the
environment throughout their lives. In
January 2002, EPA, a carpet trade associa-
tion, major manufacturers, and a variety of

-------
state and regional government organizations
agreed to substantially reduce the amount
of used carpet going to landfills. They also
created a new industry-funded organization
to support the development of recycling
infrastructure arid to provide for government
procurement and market-development initia-
tives to support this undertaking,

    EPA will also promote development of
new and better recycling technologies and
will explore ways to obtain energy or prod-
ucts from waste.  For example, through
bioreactor technology, the collection of land-
fill gases containing methane offers promise
as a future source of energy. The Agency will
continue to support initiatives that revamp
technologies to reduce or eliminate the use of
virgin materials, recover energy to produce
power, and improve waste management.
                            EPA will
                        continue to work
                        with major retail-
                        ers, electronics
manufacturers, and the amusement and
motion picture industries to revitalize, create,
and display conservation, waste prevention,
and recycling messages. Communicated via
movie and video trailers, posters targeted to
schoolchildren, in-store displays and adver-
tisements, and print and broadcast public
service announcements, the messages will
encourage consumers, young people, and
underserved communities to make smarter,
more responsible environmental decisions.
The Agency and its partners will design activ-
ities that encourage students and teachers to
start innovative recycling programs and will
develop unique tools and projects to promote
waste reduction, recycling, and neighborhood
revitalization in Hispanic and African-
American communities and on Indian lands.
    Recognizing that some hazardous wastes
cannot yet be completely eliminated or recy-
cled, the RCRA program works to reduce the
risks of exposure to hazardous wastes by
maintaining a "cradle-to-grave" approach to
waste management.
    EPA's strategy for addressing hazardous
wastes that must be treated or stored is based
on achieving greater efficiencies at waste
management facilities through more focused
permitting processes and tightening standards
where appropriate. We will work with our
state, tribal, and local government partners
to ensure that hazardous waste management
facilities have approved controls in place and
continue to strive for safe waste management.

    EPA will work with authorized states	
specifically, those with a large number of
facilities lacking approved controls in
place—to help resolve issues and transfer suc-
cessful strategies from other states. We also
plan to study the universe of unpermitted
facilities and work with states to identify and
resolve issues that might be preventing key
categories of facilities  from obtaining permits
or putting other approved controls in place.
To achieve greater efficiencies at facilities
that treat or store hazardous waste, the
Agency will also promote innovative tech-
nologies that streamline permitting processes
and improve protection of human health and
the environment.
    EPA will continue to develop and issue
regulations regarding emission standards for
hazardous waste combustion facilities.
Implementation of these regulations is key to
reducing the emission of dioxins, furans, par-
ticulate matter, and acid gases. Within 2
years from the date when EPA issues new

-------
limits, facilities will conduct emission tests to
demonstrate reductions. Additional periodic
tests will ensure continued compliance with
the limits established for emissions.
    EPA recognizes that the size and diversity
of the regulated community puts state
authorities in the best position to regulate
USTs and to set priorities. RCRA Subtitle I
allows state LIST programs approved by EPA
to operate in lieu of the federal program.17
Except in Indian country, even states that
have not received formal state program
approval from EPA  are in most cases the pri-
mary implementing agencies and receive
annual grants from EPA.

    While the frequency and severity of
releases from US'I' systems have been greatly
reduced, EPA and its state partners have
observed that releases are still occurring.
Improved release prevention and tank man-
agement practices and effective compliance
assistance and enforcement activities can help
reduce the number of confirmed releases.

    In any given year, however, it is possible
that factors such as greater field presence and
discovery of older releases during site closures
will increase the number of confirmed releases
reported, potentially exceeding the Agency's
annual strategic target numbers. Despite such
apparent increases in releases, however,
human health and the environment are being
better protected than if the releases went
undetected or unreported. EPA will continue
to work with its state and tribal partners to
prevent and detect petroleum releases from
USTs by ensuring that compliance with
release detection requirements and with
release prevention requirements (e.g., spill,
overfill, and corrosion protection) is a nation-
al priority. While the vast majority of the
approximately 698,000 active USTs have the
equipment required  under the regulations, sig-
nificant work remains to ensure that UST
owners and operators maintain and operate
their systems properly." Therefore, in FY 2004,
the Agency will continue its evaluation of the
performance of new or upgraded UST systems
to better identify the causes of releases and to
determine how successful leak detection sys-
tems are in quickly identifying releases. The
Agency will also continue to identify opportu-
nities for improving UST system performance.

    To protect our Nation's ground water and
drinking water from petroleum releases, EPA
will continue to support state programs;
strengthen partnerships among stakeholders;
and provide technical assistance, compliance
assistance, and training to promote and enforce
US' I facilities' compliance. In addition, EPA
will continue its work to obtain states' commit-
ments to increase their inspection and
enforcement presence if state-specific goals are
not met. The Agency and states will use inno-
vative compliance approaches, along with
outreach and  education tools, to bring more
tanks into compliance. For example, multi-site
agreements can be effective in bringing a single
tank owner with multiple sites into compli-
ance. In Region 6, EPA successfully used a
multi-site agree-
ment to achieve
compliance at
approximately 2.5
UST facilities
owned by a single
company.

    The Agency
will also provide
guidance to foster
the use of new technology to enhance com-
pliance. For example, the presence of
methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE) in gaso-
line increases the importance of preventing
and rapidly detecting releases. Because releas-
es that contain MTBE often require
complicated ground-water cleanups, they are
generally more expensive and take longer to
address, affecting achievement of our  nation-
al cleanup goals.13 The Agency will focus its
efforts on  reducing UST releases and increas-
ing early detection of petroleum products,
including  MTBE, by further evaluating the
performance of compliant UST systems.

-------
OB1FOTIVF 1 2* RFSTORF I AND
Vj'-i-J'J Jt-vV^' -S- -i- « &> ,,?*,<Ł••* Jt\.5.^v.j Jt. \fs i\,x..'j' i^jTa.l x S—^
          eoNiitoL TBE MSSI TO HUMAN; .HEALTH AND ITHE ENVIRONMENT BY
MIT-GATING THE 5MPACT OP ACCIDENTAL OE INTENTIONAL RELEASES AND M CLEANING
UF AND RESTORING CONTAMINATED SITES OB PROPERTIES TO APPROPRIATE LEVEES,
Sxih-objecHve 3*2-'I;  Prepare for arid
Respond to Accidental and Intentional
Releases- By 2008, reduce and control the
risks posed by accidental and intentional
releases of harmful substances by improving
our Nation's capability to prepare for
and respond more effectively to these
emergencies.
                        •  Each year
                        through 2008,
                        improve the
                        Agency's emer-
                        gency preparedness
                        by achieving and
                        maintaining the
                        capability to
                        respond to simulta-
                        neous large-scale
                        emergencies and by
                        increasing response
                        readiness by 10
                        percent from a
                        baseline estab-
                        lished by the end
                        of 2003 using the
                        core emergency
                        response criteria.

       Each year through 2008, respond to
       350 hazardous substance releases and
       300 oil spills.

       Each year through 2008, minimize
       impacts of potential oil spills by
       inspecting or conducting  exercises or
       drills at 6 percent of approximately
       6,000 oil storage facilities required to
       have Facility Response Plans.
       (Between FY 1997 and FY 2002, 30
       percent of these facilities were
       inspected.20)

Suh-objeciJve 3.2.2; (.1e:m Up ;md .Reuse
Contaminated Land. By 2008, control the
risks to human health and the environment
at contaminated properties or sites through
cleanup, stabilization, or other action, and
make Sand available for reuse.
    «  By 2008, perform 88,000 health and
       environmentally based site assess-
       ments and make 41,700
       final-assessment decisions under
       Superfund, and assess 100 percent
       (approximately 1,714) RCRA base-
       line facilities.21 The universe of
       RCRA baseline facilities will be eval-
       uated and, if necessary, adjusted in
       FY 2004.
    •  By 2008, control all identified unac-
       ceptable human exposures from site
       contamination to at or below health-
       based levels for current land and/or
       ground-water use conditions at 95
       percent (approximately 1,628) of
       RCRA baseline facilities22 arid 84
       percent (1,259) of 1,494" Superfund
       human exposure sites (as of FY
       2002).

    •  By 2008, control the migration of
       contaminated ground water through
       engineered remedies or natural
       processes at 80 percent (approxi-
       mately 1,371) of RCRA baseline
       facilities24 and 65 percent (832) of
       1.2752' Superfund ground-water
       exposure sites (as of FY 2002).

-------
    •  By 2008, select final remedies
       (cleanup targets) at 30 percent
       (approximately 514) of RCRA base-
       line facilities26 and approximately 82
       percent (1,223) of 1,498" Superfund
       sites (as of FY 2002).
    *  By 2008, clean up and reduce the
       backlog of approximately 140,000
       leaking LIST sites by 50 percent, and
       complete construction of remedies at
       20 percent (approximately 343) of
       RCRA baseline facilities28 arid
       approximately 72 percent (1,086) of
       1,49829 Superfund sites (as of FY
       2002), (Construction completion is a
       benchmark used to show that all sig-
       nificant construction activity has
       been completed, even though addi-
       tional  remediation may be needed for
       all cleanup goals to be met.)

Sub-objective  3,23; Maximize Potentially
Responsible Party Participistion as:
Super-fund Bites- Through 2008, conserve
Superfund trust fund resources by ensuring
that potentially responsible parties conduct
or pay for Superfund cleanups whenever pos-
sible.31'
    MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR
    ACHIEVING OBPCTIVB 3,2
    EPA leads the country's activities to
reduce the risks posed by releases of harmful
substances and by contaminated land. The
most effective approach to controlling these
risks incorporates developing and implement-
ing prevention measures, 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.
    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. Under the
National Response System (NRS), EPA evalu-
ates and responds to thousands of releases
annually. The NRS is a multi-agency prepared-
ness and response mechanism that includes the
following key components: the National
Response Center; the National Response Team
       Each year
       through 2008,
       reach a settle-
       ment or take an
       enforcement
       action before the start of a remedial
       action at 90 percent of Superfund
       sites having viable, liable responsible
       parties other than  the federal govern-
       ment.

       Each year through  2008, address all
       Statute of Limitations cases for
       Superfund sites with unaddressed
       total past costs equal to or greater
       than $200.000.
(NRT), composed of 16 federal agencies; 13
Regional Response Teams; and federal On-
Scene Coordinators  (OSCs). These
organizations work with state and local officials
to develop and maintain contingency plans
that will enable the Nation to respond effec-
tively to hazardous substance and oil
emergencies. When  an incident occurs, these
groups  coordinate with the OSC in charge to
ensure  that all necessary resources, such as per-
sonnel  and equipment, are available and that
containment, cleanup, and disposal activities
proceed quickly, efficiently, and effectively.

-------
EPA's primary role in the NRS is to serve as
the federal OSC for spills and releases in the
inland zone. As a result of NRS efforts, the
Nation has successfully contained many major
oil spills and releases of hazardous substances,
minimizing the adverse impacts on human
health and the environment.

    EPA's emergency preparedness, preven-
tion, and response staff are vital to this work.
We will continue to develop technical per-
sonnel in the field, ensuring their readiness
and protecting their health and safety when
responding to releases of dangerous materials.
In addition, EPA will strengthen its  informa-
tion infrastructure by making information
management decisions Agency-wide and by
improving operations and the security, collec-
tion, and exchange of information.
    Preparedness on a national level is essen-
tial to ensure that emergency responders are
able to deal with multiple, large-scale emer-
gencies, including those that may involve
chemicals, oil, biological agents, or weapons
of mass destruction. Over the next several
years, EPA will enhance its core emergency
response program to respond quickly and
effectively to chemical, oil, biological, and
radiological releases and will improve coordi-
nation mechanisms to enable response to
simultaneous, large-scale national emergen-
cies, including homeland security incidents.
We will focus our efforts on Regional
Response Teams and coordination among
regions; health and safety issues, including
provision of clothing that protects and iden-
tifies responders, training, and exercise;
establishment of delegation and warrant
authorities; and response readiness, including
equipment, transportation, and outreach.
The criteria for excellence in the core emer-
gency response program will ensure a high
level of overall readiness throughout the
Agency and improve our ability to support
multi-regional responses.

    In addition to enhancing our readiness
capabilities. EPA will work to improve inter-
nal and external coordination and
communication mechanisms. For example, as
part of the National Incident Coordination
Team, EPA will continue to  improve  its poli-
cies, plans,  procedures, and decision-making
processes for coordinating responses to
national emergencies. Under the Continuity
of Operations/Continuity of Government
program, we will upgrade and test plans,
facilities, training, and equipment to ensure
that essential government business can con-
tinue during a catastrophic emergency. NRT
capabilities are being expanded to coordinate
interagency activities during large-scale
responses. EPA will coordinate its activities
with the Department of Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency Management
Administration (FEMA), Federal Bureau of
                       Investigation (FBI),
                       other federal agen-
                       cies, arid state and
                       local governments.
                       EPA will also con-
                       tinue to clarify its
                       roles and responsi-
                       bilities to ensure
                       that Agency security
                       programs are consis-
                       tent with the
                       national homeland
                       security strategy.

-------
    Each year, EPA personnel assess, respond
to, mitigate, and clean up thousands of
releases	whether accidental, deliberate, or
naturally occurring. These incidents range
from small spills at chemical or oil facilities
to national disasters, such as hurricanes,
earthquakes, terrorist events like the 2001
World Trade Center/Pentagon and anthrax
attacks, and the
2003 Columbia
shuttle tragedy.
    EPA will work
to improve its  capa-
bility to respond
effectively to inci-
dents that can
involve harmful
chemical, oil, bio-
logical, and
radiological substances. As part of its strategy
for improving effectiveness, the Agency will
explore improvements in response readiness
levels, including field and personal protection
equipment and response training and exercis-
es; review response data provided in the
"after-action" reports prepared by EPA emer-
gency responders following a release; and
examine "lessons learned" reports to identify
which activities work and which need  to be
improved. Application of this information
and other data will advance the Agency's
state-of-the-art emergency response opera-
tions.
                                              navigable waters and prevents detrimental
                                              effects on human health and the environ-
                                              ment should a spill occur.
    An important component of EPA's land
strategy is preventing potential oil spills and
being prepared for spills that do occur from
reaching  our Nation's waters. Under the Oil
Pollution Act,"'1 the Agency requires certain
facilities  (defined in 40 CFR 112.2) to devel-
op Facility Response Plans and to practice
implementing the plans by conducting drills
and exercises to be prepared in the event  of a
spill. Compliance with these requirements
reduces the number of oil spills that reach
    Leaching contaminants can foul drinking
water in underground aquifers used for wells
or surface waters used by public water
                        intakes.
                        Contaminated soil
                        can result in
                        human ingestion or
                        dermal absorption
                        of harmful sub-
                        stances.
                        Contamination can
                        also affect subsis-
                        tence resources,
                        including resources
                        subject to special
protections due to treaties between federal
and tribal governments. Furthermore,
because of the risks it poses, contaminated
land may not be available for use.

    EPA and its partners work to clean up
contaminated land to levels sufficient to con-
trol risks to human health and  the
environment and to return  the land to pro-
ductive use. The Agency's cleanup  activities,
some new and some well-established, include
removing contaminated soil, capping or con-
taining contamination  in place, pumping and
treating ground water, and bioremediation.

    EPA uses a variety of tools to accomplish
cleanups: permits, enforcement actions, con-
sent agreements, Federal Facilities
Agreements, and many other mechanisms.
As part of EPA's One Cleanup  Program
Initiative, programs at all levels of govern-
ment work  together to  ensure that
appropriate cleanup tools are used; that
resources, activities, and results are coordi-
nated with  partners and stakeholders and
communicated to the public effectively; and
that cleanups are protective and contribute

-------
to community revitalization.i21 his approach
reflects EPA's efforts to coordinate across all
of its cleanup programs, while maintaining
the flexibility needed to accommodate differ-
ences in program authorities and approaches.

    EPA fulfills its cleanup and waste man-
agement responsibilities on tribal lands by
acknowledging tribal sovereignty and recog-
nizing tribal governments as being the most
appropriate authorities for setting standards,
making policy decisions, and managing pro-
grams consistent with Agency standards and
regulations.

    Through strong policy, leadership, program
administration, and a dedicated workforce,
EPA's cleanup programs will merge sound
science, cutting-edge technology, quality
environmental information, and stakeholder
involvement to protect the Nation from the
harmful effects of contaminated property. To
accomplish its cleanup goals, the Agency will
continue to forge partnerships and develop
outreach and education strategies.
                            EPA and its
                        partners follow four-
                        key steps to accom-
                        plish cleanups and
                        control risks to
                        human health and
                        the environment:
assessment, stabilization, selection of appro-
priate remedies, and implementation of
remedies. We will continue to work with our
federal, state, tribal, and local government
partners at each step of the process to  identify
facilities and sites requiring attention and to
monitor changes in priorities, addressing new-
priority sites or removing previously identified
facilities that will be addressed through other
mechanisms. For example, EPA is collecting
tribal program baseline data for the Superfund
program and has modified the Superfund data
system to record sites of concern  to tribes,
along with those situated on Indian lands.
As they modify existing systems and
approaches and create new ones, cleanup pro-
grams will also continue to develop guidance
for accomplishing each of these steps.
    All cleanup programs assess preliminary
site information to identify potential expo-
sures and sites or facilities that require further
action. These assessments flag sites that will
require priority action to protect human
health and the environment and also direct
site owners and operators to the appropriate
authorities for followup. To establish a com-
mon base of information for all stakeholders,
EPA conducts site assessments with all part-
ners who share authority for the site.
    "Stabilization" refers to the initial actions
taken to control actual or potential exposure,
based on current land and ground-water use.
Site stabilization activities can include
installing hazardous waste containment reme-
dies (such as slurry walls or impermeable
caps)  and ground-water remedies (such as
pump-and-treat systems or permeable reac-
tive walls). Where appropriate, these actions
are taken immediately to protect populations
located within a reasonable distance from the
site from exposure to harmful contaminants.
    In selecting final remedies, the Agency
seeks to address all current and potential
sources of contamination that threaten
human health and the environment.
Remedies are selected based on many criteria,
including the protectiveriess they offer, envi-
ronmental media cleanup  objectives, their
short- and long-term effectiveness, imple-
mentation issues, and their acceptability to
state and tribal governments and the affected
community. In selecting remedies, EPA and
its partners also consider reasonably antici-
pated future land use.
    Implementation or construction of
the site remedy is the first step in the final

-------
remediation process. Following implementa-
tion, EPA encourages monitoring the site to
ensure that the cleanup adequately protects
human health and the  environment.

    EPA is also planning several projects to
help us characterize the results of various
cleanup programs. "Ihese projects are
intended to evaluate: (1) the placement of
Superfund sites into exposure reduction
categories based on cleanup progress, (2) the
degree to which ecological receptors are pro-
tected from hazardous substances through
cleanup activities, and  (.3) the economic
impact of cleanup activities.
  AXiMizi.NC; POTENTIALLY
RESPONSIBLE PARTY PARTICIPATION
AT SUPERFUND SITES
    Enforcement authorities play a critical
role in all Agency cleanup programs.
However, they have an additional and unique
role under the Superfund program: they are
used to leverage private-party resources to
conduct a majority of the cleanup actions
and to reimburse the federal government for
cleanups financed by the Trust Fund. EPA
will continue to pursue the following two
strategies for limiting the use of trust funds.
    Usable lancl is a valuable resource.
However, where contamination presents a
real or perceived threat to human health and
the environment, options for future land use
at that site may be limited. EPA's cleanup
programs have set a national goal of return-
ing formerly contaminated sites to long-term,
sustainable, and productive use. This goal
creates greater impetus for selecting and
implementing remedies that, in addition to
providing clear environmental benefits, will
support reasonably anticipated future land
use options and
provide greater
    The Superfund program's "Enforcement
First" strategy will allow EPA to focus limited
[rust Fund resources on sites where viable,
potentially responsible parties either do not
exist or lack the funds or capabilities needed
to conduct the cleanup. By taking enforce-
ment actions at sites where viable, liable
parties do exist, EPA will continue to lever-
age private-party dollars so that Trust Fund
money is used only when absolutely necessary
to clean up hazardous waste sites.
economic a
social benefits.

    We are evaluat-
ing our policies and
guidelines to deter-
mine where we can
refine our approach
to cleanups to facil-
itate beneficial site
reuse. We are also forming partnerships with
states, tribes, other federal agencies, local gov-
ernments, communities, landowners, lenders,
developers, and parties potentially responsible
for contamination that can help bring about
reuse of formerly contaminated sites.

    (Also see the discussion of EPA's
Brownfields Program under Goal 4: Healthy
Communities and Ecosystems.)
                           Cost recovery is
                        another way to
                        leverage private-
                        party resources
                        through enforce-
                        ment. Under
                        Superfund, EPA has
                        the authority to
                        compel private par-
                        ties to pay back
Trust Fund money spent to conduct cleanup
activities.'5 EPA will continue its efforts to
address 100 percent of the Statute of
Limitations cases  for Superfund sites with
unaddressed total past costs equal to or
greater than $200,000 and to report the value
of costs recovered.

-------
OBJECTIVE 33s ENHANCE  SCIENCE AND
THROUGH 2008* PROVIDE AND APPLY SOUND SCIENCE KIR PROTECTING AND
EBSTORING LAND BV CONDUCTING LEADING-BOGS RE8BAECB. AND OKV&LOEENG A
BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND CHARACTERIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OGTOCKfSS
UNDER GOAL 3,
Sub-objective 3,3.1: Provide Science to
Preserve arid Remediate Land. Through
2008, provide sound science and constantly
integrate smarter technical solutions and pro-
tection strategies that enhance our ability to
preserve land quality and remediate contami-
nated land for beneficial reuse.

Siib'objeciive 3,3*2; Conduct Research &>
Support Laud Activities, Through 2008,
conduct sound, leading-edge scientific
research to provide a foundation for preserving
land quality and remediating contaminated
land. Research will result in documented
methods, models, assessments, and risk
management options for program and regional
offices, facilitating their accurate evaluation
of effects on human health and the environ-
ment, understanding of exposure pathways,
and implementation of effective risk-manage-
ment options. Conduct research affecting
Indian country in partnership with tribes.
and controls. We will continue integrating
technological advances to enhance our site
investigation capabilities, implement cost-
effective remedies, and improve the operation
and maintenance of existing remedies. In
addition, we will continue to coordinate with
other agencies to identify and communicate
program research priorities.
    To achieve our objectives for land, EPA's
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
has developed multi-year plans for research
on contaminated sites and RCRA issues.
Each of these research plans outlines our
long-term goals for the next 5 to 10 years and
describes targets the Agency intends to meet
to reduce scientific uncertainties associated
with these topics.31
MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOE
Ac.B.W5M>6 OBJECTIVE 3-3
    EPA will continue to improve its capabili-
ty to assess environmental conditions and
determine the relative risks that contaminated
land poses to health and the environment.
The Agency will ensure that the environmen-
tal data it collects are of known, documented,
and acceptable quality by implementing
necessary field and lab procedures, practices,
    To support cleanup and reuse of contam-
inated lands, we will conduct research to
provide improved methods for site character-
ization, risk assessment and exposure
analysis, and mitigation approaches.
Through the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation Program, we will
demonstrate and verify cost-effective tech-
nologies for characterizing and remediating
contaminated sites. By providing site-specific
technical support to site managers, we will
enhance our communication of state-of-the-
art methods. In addition, we will provide
research results and advice to further apply

-------
sound science in regulatory and nonregulato-
ry efforts. More specifically, Agency research
on contaminated sites will:

    •   Aid in selecting protective, cost-
        effective remedies for contaminated
        sediment by improving risk and site
        characterization and increasing
        understanding of different remedial
        options.

    •   Provide decision-makers with
        performance and cost information
        on alternatives to pump-and-treat
        remedies for ground water arid tools
        for characterizing and assessing
        ground water.

    *   Provide tools and methods for assess-
        ing, remediating, and managing soil
        and land efficiently at contaminated
        sites.

    *   Provide scientific tools, methods,
        models, and technical support to
        characterize multimedia site contami-
        nation; assess, predict, and
        communicate risks; evaluate innova-
        tive remediation options; develop
        testing protocols and risk manage-
        ment strategies; and  identify the fate
        and effects of oil spills.
    EPA will provide a tested multimedia
modeling system, peer-reviewed technical
reports, and technical support to enable sci-
entifically sound, consistent decision-making
at RCRA sites and facilities. ORD is direct-
ing resources to assist in implementing RCC
and will evaluate waste-derived products to
ensure that materials that would otherwise
require waste disposal are not presenting
other environmental issues. To support our
goals for increasing materials recovery arid
recycling, ORD is also investing in research
on electronics waste recycling arid plans to
develop sampling guidance and risk screen-
ing, which we can provide to states arid other
stakeholders that are developing recycling
programs to handle this new waste stream.

    ORD is working on leaching issues and
treatment technologies to support our com-
mitment to evaluate the effectiveness of
leaching methods and hard-to-treat wastes.
To ensure that wastes are properly managed
and contained and enhance the performance
of landfill operations, we are evaluating
different liners and landfill covers.  ORD
bioreactor research is supporting such current
regulatory efforts as the  Research
Development and Demonstration rule for
landfills arid is producing products, such as a
recently developed monitoring approach,
that states can use in managing landfill sites.
Finally, by evaluating dioxiri/furan  emissions,
surrogates,  and continuous monitoring
systems, ORD's in-house and grants programs
also support our objective for reducing haz-
ardous waste facility combustion emissions of
clioxirts and furans.

-------
    EPA's ability to respond as the federal
OSC for releases of harmful substances in
the inland zone will be affected by several
external factors.  The NRS ensures that EPA
will respond when necessary, but relies heavi-
ly on the ability of responsible parties and
state, local, and tribal agencies to respond to
most emergencies. The need for EPA to
respond is a function of the quantity and
severity of spills that occur, as well as the
capacity of state, local, and tribal agencies to
address spills.

    EPA's ability to respond to homeland
security incidents may be affected by circum-
stances surrounding each event. For instance,
if travel or communication is severely
impeded, EPA's response may be delayed and
its efficiency compromised. Also, in the case
of a single large-scale incident, our Removal
Program resources will most likely be concen-
trated on that response, thus reducing our
ability to address other emergency releases. In
severe cases, EPA's current emergency
response workforce and resources may not be
sufficient to address a large number of simul-
taneous large-scale incidents.

    In addition, a number of external factors
could substantially affect  the Agency's ability
to achieve its objectives for cleanup and
prevention. These factors include Agency
reliance on private-party  response and state
and tribal partnerships, development of new
environmental technologies, work by other
federal agencies, and statutory barriers.
Achieving the release prevention objectives
and attaining our FY 2008 targets will
depend heavily on the participation of states
that have been authorized or approved to be
the primary implementors of these programs.

    Attaining our waste reduction and
recycling objectives will depend on the
participation of federal agencies, states,
tribes, local governments, industries, and the
general public in partnerships aimed at
reducing waste generation and increasing
recycling rates. EPA provides national leader-
ship in the areas of waste reduction and
                      recycling to facilitate
                      public ancl private
                      partnerships that can
                      provide the impetus
                      for government, busi-
                      nesses, and citizens
                      to join in the cam-
                      paign to significantly
                      reduce the amount of
                      waste generated and
                      ultimately sent for
                      disposal. However,
                      both domestic and
foreign economic stresses can adversely affect
markets for recovered materials.

    State programs are primarily responsible
for implementing the RCRA Hazardous
Waste and UST programs. Our ability to
achieve our goals for these programs depends
on the strength and funding levels of state
programs. Similarly, our success in meeting
compliance standards depends on extensive
training and a strong state presence. To
increase US I compliance, EPA will build
upon its commitment to provide states and
tribes with technical support and training.

-------
NOTKS
1.   42 U.S. Code 9601-9675
2.   42 U.S. Code 6901-6992k
3.   42 U.S. Code 7401-7671q
4.   33 U.S. Code 1251-1387
5.   33 U.S. Code 2701-2761
6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 2002. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States
     - 2000 Update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oftice. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/
     epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm. Last updated October 29, 2002.
7.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 2002. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States
     - 2000 Update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/
     epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm. Last updated October 29, 2002.
8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resource Conservation a.nd Recovery Act Information System
     (RCRAlnfo), Hazardous Waste Facility Permitting Accomplishments. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/
     epaoswer/hazwaste/permit/charts/charts.pdf, EPA Office of Solid Waste.  Last updated July 1, 2003.
9.   Approximately 2,750 hazardous waste management facilities are currently regulated under RCRA. EPA plans to
     reassess this "universe" in EY 2006. Facilities that started activities subject to hazardous waste permitting after
     October 1, 1997, will be included in the count; facilities that should not have been counted (such as those
     coded as "never regulated," "protective filers," or "state regulated") will be removed.
10.  Information derived from: Database of permit and compliance  demonstration test results. Database available at
     http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/comwsite/cmb-noda.htm. Data availability was also published
     in 67 Federal Register 44452 - 44460, July 2, 2002 and 65 Federal Register 39581, June 27, 2000.
11.  Determination of "significant operational compliance" begins in FY 2004. Previously, compliance depended on
     two determinations. Recently, an EPA/state workgroup adjusted the definition of significant operational com-
     pliance to increase consistent national reporting. Therefore, the current baseline of 60 percent compliance is
     uncertain, since FY 2004 is the  first reporting period.
12.  Memorandum from Sammy K. Ng, Acting Director, EPA 'Office of Underground .Storage Tanks to
     Underground Storage Tank Regional Program Managers. November 19, 1999. FY99 End oj Year Semi-Annual
     Activity Report.
     Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director,  EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground
     Storage Tank Regional Program Managers. November 16, 2000. FYOO End of Year Semi-Annual Activity Report.
     Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director,  EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground
     .Storage Tank Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10. January 29, 2002.  FY200J Semi-Annual (End of Year)
     Activity Report.
     Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director,  EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground
     Storage Tank Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10. December 23, 2002. FY2002 End-of-Year Activity
     Report.
13.  Memorandum from Sammy K. Ng, Acting Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to
     Underground Storage 'lank Regional Program Managers. November 19, 1999. FY99 End of Year Semi-Annua!
     Activity Report.
     Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director,  EPA Office of Underground Storage  tanks to Underground
     Storage Tank Regional Program Managers. November 16, 2000. FYOO End of Year Semi-Annual Activity Report.
     Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director,  EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground
     Storage Tank Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10. January 29. 2002.  FY200i Semi-Annua' (End of Year)
     Activity Report.
     Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA. Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground
     Storage Tank Regional Division  Directors, Regions 1-10. [December 23, 2002. FY 2002 End-of-Year Activity Report.

-------
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. Resource Conservation Challenge Web Site:
    http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/iridex.htrn. Washington, DC. Last updated August 20, 2003.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, WasteWise Program Web Site, About
    WasteWise Page: http://www.epa.gov/wastewise/about/index.htrn. Washington, DC. Last updated February 4,
    2003.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste, WasteWise Program Web Site, Building
    Challenge Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/wastewise/wrr/cbuild.htm. Washington, DC. Last updated September
    27, 2002.
17. 42 US. Code. 6901-6992k
18. Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground
    Storage lank Division Directors in EPA Regions  1-10. June 19, 2003. FY 2003 Semi-Annua! (Mid-Year) Activity
    Report.
19. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. 2000. A Survey of State. Experiences with MTBE
    Contamination at LUST Sites. Available online at http://www.neiwpcc.org/rntbemain.html.
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CERCLIS Database, Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments
    Plan Report. Version 8. (30 percent equals approximately 1,800 oil storage facilities.)
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Corrective
    Action/Facility Information Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/liazwaste/ca/facility.htm-#R.CRA.
    Washington,  DC. Last updated October 8, 2002.
    RCRA baseline facilities are RCRA facilities with corrective action obligations that EPA and the authorized
    states have identified as highest priority. In EY 2004', EPA and the authorized states will reevaluate and, if nec-
    essary, adjust the current list of 1,714 facilities.
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Corrective
    Action/Facility Information Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility .htm#RCRA.
    Washington, DC. Last updated October 8, 2002.
    RCRA baseline facilities are RCRA facilities with corrective action obligations that EPA and the authorized
    states have identified as highest priority, in EY 2004, EPA and the authorized states will reevaluate and, if nec-
    essary, adjust the current list of 1,714 facilities.
23. Analysis of information of final and deleted NPL sites, excluding four sites deleted and deferred to another
    authority, collected from CERCLIS database on October 16, 2002.
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Corrective
    Action/Facility Information Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility.htm#RCRA.
    Washington, DC. Last updated October 8, 2002.
    RCRA baseline facilities are RCRA facilities with corrective action obligations that EPA and the authorized
    states have identified as highest priority, in EY 2004, EPA and the authorized states will reevaluate and, if nec-
    essary, adjust the current list of 1,714 facilities.
25. Analysis of information from CERCLIS database  conducted by EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and
    Technology innovation /Planning Analysis and Resources Management staft, March 2001.
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Corrective
    Action/Facility Information Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility.htm#RCRA.
    Washington, DC. Last updated October 8, 2002.
    RCRA baseline facilities are RCRA facilities with corrective action obligations that EPA and the authorized
    states have identified as highest priority, in EY 2004, EPA and the authorized states will reevaluate and, if nec-
    essary, adjust the current list of 1,714 facilities.
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Superfund
    Accomplishment Figures. Summary Fiscal Year 2003 Web Site:
    http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/numbers.htm. Last updated April 7, 2003.

-------
28.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Corrective
     Action/Facility Information Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility .htm#RCRA.
     Washington, DC. Last updated October 8, 2002.
     RCRA baseline facilities are RCRA facilities with corrective action obligations that EPA and the authorized
     states have identified as highest priority, in EY 2004, EPA and the authorized states will reevaluate and, if nec-
     essary, adjust the current list of 1,714 facilities.
29.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Superfund
     Accomplishment Figures. Summary Fiscal Year 2003 Web Site:
     http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/numbers.htm. Washington, DC. Last updated April 7, 2003.
30.  The Superfund Program began when Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
     Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980.  The law created a revolving Trust Eund, which is also
     known as the Superfund. This large pot of money is used by EPA and other agencies to clean up hazardous
     waste sites. The Trust Fund is used  primarily when those companies or people responsible for the contamina-
     tion at Superfund sites cannot be found or cannot  perform the cleanup or pay for the cleanup work. To make
     sure that those responsible clean up or pay for the cleanup as much as possible, EPA's Superfund Enforcement
     program identifies the companies or people responsible for contamination at a site  and negotiates with them to
     do the cleanup, [f EPA pays for some or all of the cleanup at a site and then finds the people responsible, EPA
     can recover from them the  money it spent. The Fund was largely financed by a tax on crude oil and 42 com-
     mercially  used chemicals. The taxing authority expired December 31, 1995.
31.  33 U.S. Code 2701-2761
32.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. One Cleanup
     Program Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/oriecleanupprogram/index.htm.  Washington. DC. Last updated
     May 9, 2003.
33.  42 L'.S. Code 9601-9675, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
     (CERCLA), Sec. 107.
34.  For more  information on ORD's multi-year plans, visit: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
     Research  and Development. Research Directions, Multi-Year Plans Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm.
     Last updated August 26, 2003.

-------
S8833Ł??98!f8pSJ

-------

-------
    To protect, sustain, or restore the health of commu-
nities and ecosystems, EPA must bring together a variety
of programs,  tools, approaches, and resources; create
strong partnerships with federal, state, tribal, and local
government agencies; and enlist the
support oj many stakeholders.
Because Goal 4 is unique in its cross -
media, cross-Agency approach, build-
ing a cohesive, integrated strategy is
critical for achieving results.

    EPA must manage  environmental
risks to watersheds, communities,
homes, and workplaces  to protect
human health and the environmental
integrity of ecosystems.  The. Agency
will employ a mix of regulatory pro-
grams and alternative voluntary
approaches to achieve results efficiently
and in innovative, sustainable ways.
For example, preventing pollution at
the  source is the preferred strategy for
reducing risk  and environmental impact. However, where
programs to prevent pollution or ecosystem, damage are not
viable, EPA promotes waste minimization, avoidance of
impact oil habitat, and disposal and. remediation. In man-
aging risk, EPA will direct its efforts toward the greatest
threats in our communities, homes,  and workplaces,
including threats to sensitive populations, such as children,
the  elderly, and Native Americans.
    A key component of this goal is protecting human
health and the environment by identifying, assessing, and
reducing the risks presented by the thousands of chemicals
on which our society and economy have come to depend.
              '] hese include the pesticides used to meet
              national and global demands for food and
              the industrial and commercial chemicals
              found in products and throughout our
              homes and workplaces.

                 Some pest control methods used to
              ensure an  abundant and affordable food
              supply can cause unwanted environmental
              or health effects. Apart from, agriculture,
              effective pest control is also essential for
              homes, gardens, highways  and utility
              lines, hospitals,  and drinking-water treat-
              mem facilities. Pesticides are an important
              part of pest management in each of these
              settings. Licensing pesticides helps to
              ensure that they can be used safely  and
              beneficially while avoiding  unintended
harm to human health or environment. EPA must also
address the emerging challenges posed by a growing array
of biological organisms	naturally occurring and,
increasingly, genetically engineered.—that are. being used
in industrial and agricultural processes.

    Buiicif'ng a community's capability to make decisions
that affect the environment is at the heart of the comma-

-------
nity-centered work under this goal. EPA's
Brownfields Program encourages community
development through funding to inventory,
assess, and dean up the hundreds of thou-
sands of brownfields properties that have
been abandoned or unused due to previous
industrial, commercial, or other use. EPA's
efforts to share information and build com-
munity capacity  offer the public the  tools  it
needs in considering the many aspects  of
planned development or redevelopment.

   EPAs ecosystem protection programs
encompass a wide range of approaches that
address specific at-risk regional areas along
with  larger categories of threatened, systems,
such as estuaries  and. wetlands. Locally  gen-
erated pollution,  combined with pollution car-
ried by rivers and streams and through air
deposition, can collect in these closed and
semi-closed ecosystems, degrading them over
time.
   Large water bodies, such as the  Gulf of
Mexico, the Great Lakes, and Chesapeake
Bay, are surrounded by industrial and other
development and have been exposed to sub-
stantial pollution over many years at le.ve.ls
higher  than current  environmental standards
permit. As a result, the volume of pollu-
tants in these water bodies has exceeded
their natural ability  to restore balance.
Working with stakeholders, EPA has estab-
lished special programs to protect and restore
these unicjue resources by addressing their
vulnerabilities. At the Mexican Border, for
example, addressing local pollution and
infrastructure  are priorities for the Mexican
and the U.S. governments under the Border
20 J 2 agreement. Safe drinking water  is a
particular priority. Coastal estuaries and
wetlands are also vulnerable. As the popula-
tion in coastal regions grows, the challenges
to preserve and protect these important
ecosystems increase. Coastal areas are test-
ing grounds for combining innovative and
community-based approaches with national
guidelines and. inter-agency coordination to
achieve results.
    Children and the elderly face significant
and unique health threats from a range of
environmental exposures. Pound for pound,
children breathe more air, drink more water,
and eat more food than adults, and their
behavior patterns may increase their expo-
sure to potential toxics. Because their sys-
tems are still developing, children may be
more vulnerable to environmental risks,
including air pollution that ma;y exacerbate
asthma, lead-based paint in older homes,
microbes that may be resistant to treatment
in drinking water, and persistent chemicals
that may cause cancer or induce reproductive
or developmental changes.
    Due to the normal decrease in biological
capacity that accompanies the aging process,
even older Americans in good health may be
at increased risk from exposure to environ-
mental pollutants.  As people age. their bod-
ies are less able to  detoxify and eliminate
toxins. Native Americans represent another
segment of the population with a different
risk profile. Their traditional foods and ways
of life may lead to  higher levels of exposure
to certain toxics. EPA will focus on these
sensitive populations by increasing our
understanding of these issues, building infra-
structure and capacity, and providing  infor-
mation and tools needed, to assess and.
prevent adverse impacts.

-------
    All of EPAs activities will rely on the
latest and best scientific information. Sound
science must be the basis of standard-setting
and guide us in identifying and addressing
emerging issues, as well as updating and
advancing our understanding of long-stand-
ing human health and environmental chal-
lenges. Goal 4 includes a substantial amount
of the Agency's scientific research. In this
Strategic Plan, research directed toward
achievement of a particular environmental
outcome lias been included under die goal
with which it is associated.. However, EPA
conducts much of its research to learn more
about broad areas of human health and the
environment. The contribution of such
research can advance many of the Agency's
programs and might do so in unpredictable
ways. This research	-not directly linked to
any single environmental outcome—is
described- under Goal 4. To help us focus our
resources most effectively, EPA will also
continue directing research under Goal 4 to
improve its development and use of environ-
mental indicators.
^V3nfTfT*>J<^nrcT^8 T^ •* •*  ^XY-FS"*^ jfjf^x A T  /^ws^t A 'k.Tfff^ s  A ^^T"* Tr*'vf?Ł*
-------
       neurotoxic pesticides on foods eaten
       by children from their average 1994'
       1996 levels. (Baseline: 1.5 percent
       reduction as of 2006.)

    •  By 2006, reduce by 10 percent the
       reregistration decision time, from the
       initiation of public participation to
       the signed Reregistration Eligibility
       Decision, compared to the FY 2002
       baseline of 30 months,

    •  By 2008, reduce by 20 percent the
       inventories  of obsolete persistent
       organic pesticides  from the key
       source countries of Russia and
       Mexico1 (i.e., those pesticides with
       the greatest potential for contribut-
       ing to long-range environmental
       transport to the United States).
       (2003 baseline of over 21,000 tons
       for the Russian Federation; 2001
       baseline of 1,151 tons for Mexico.)

Sub-objective 4.1.2 License Pesticides
Meeting  Safety Standards, Through  2008,
protect human health, communities,  and
ecosystems from pests and disease by  ensuring
the availability of pesticides, including public
health pesticides and antimicrobial products,
that meet the latest safety standards.
        By 2008, at least 11 percent of acre
        treatments2 will use applications of
        reduced-risk pesticides. (Baseline: 3.6
        percent in 1998.)

        Each year through 2008, expedite the
        registration of four to six new active
        ingredients that meet the criteria for
        reduced-risk pesticides or
        organophosphate alternatives to
        make safer pest management tools
        available sooner. (Expedited registra-
        tion time is 24 months versus the
        standard 40 months.) (Baseline: In
        2002, four expedited registrations
        were clone for reduced-risk conven-
        tional active ingredients.)
       By 2008, reduce registration decision
       times by 10 percent for conventional
       new active ingredients and 5 percent
       for reduced-risk new active ingredi-
       ents from the 1995-2002 baseline of
       40 months for conventional new
       active ingredients and 24 months for
       reduced-risk conventional new active
       ingredients.
    •  Each year through 2008, ensure new
       pesticide registration actions (includ-
       ing new active ingredients, new uses)
       meet new health standards and are
       environmentally safe. (In 2002, there
       were registration actions for 26 active
       ingredients arid 720 new uses.)

    •  Each year through 2008, maintain
       the timeliness of Section 18 emer-
       gency exemption decisions. (2002
       baseline of 35 days.)

Sub-objective 4.1.3: Reduce Chemical and
Biologic:a.l Risks. Through  2008, prevent and
reduce chemical and biological organism risks
to humans, communities, and ecosystems.

-------
*  1 hrough 2008, eliminate or effective-
   ly manage risks associated with High
   Production Volume (HPV) chemicals
   identified as priority concerns
   through EPA's assessment of
   Screening Information Data Set and
   other information.3

•  Through 2008. complete risk assess-
   ments for at least 10 chemicals to
   which children may be exposed to
   enable effective management of iden-
   tified risks, (Baseline is 0 chemicals
   with completed risk assessments in
   FY 2003.)

•  Through 2008, increase the efficien-
   cy of EPA's efforts to eliminate or
   effectively manage risks associated
   with HPV chemicals arid chemicals
   to which children may be exposed by
   employing collaborative strategies
   with chemical producers and users
   and leveraging strategies with other
   governmental entities upon initial
   identification of such risks. Efficiency
   will be measured in terms of EPA's
   per-chemical review costs compared
   to 2005.

•  Each year through 2008, prevent
   the introduction of new chemicals
   or organisms into commerce that
   pose unreasonable risks to workers,
   consumers, or the environment,
   through review of Pre-Manufacture
   Notifications (PMNs), and disap-
   proval as necessary. (Baseline to be
   developed in FY 2004.4)
•  Through 2008, increase the efficien-
   cy of EPA's efforts to prevent the
   occurrence of new unreasonable
   human health and environmental
   risks associated with the entry of new-
   chemicals into U.S. commerce by
   training chemical developers to use
   EPA's risk screening tools early in
   research and development, so that
   the Agency receives at least 40 pre-
   screened PMNs per year. Efficiency
   will be measured in terms of EPA's
   per-chemical review costs compared
   to 2002. (Baseline to be developed in
   FY 2004 for number of PMNs.5)

•  Through 2008, reduce relative risks
   to chronic human  health associated
   with environmental releases of indus-
   trial chemicals in commerce by
   7 percent from 2001 levels, as meas-
   ured by EPA's Risk Screening
   Environmental Indicators model.6

•  By 2008, establish short-term expo-
   sure limits for 75 percent of the
   chemicals identified as highest priori-
   ty by the Acute Exposure Guideline
   Levels (AEGL) Program. (Baseline
   is 0 chemicals with AEGL values
   in 1996. There are approximately
   240 chemicals on the highest
   priority list.)

•   Through 2008, reduce the number of
   childhood lead poisoning cases to
   90,000, from approximately 400,000
   cases in 1999/2000.7

•  By 2008, the health risks associated
   with air pollution from leaded gaso-
   line use in numerous countries will
   be mitigated by eliminating the use
   of leaded gasoline worldwide.

-------
    •  Through 2008, reduce the potential
       for risks from leaks and spills by
       ensuring the safe disposal annually of
       9.000 large capacitors and 5,000
       transformers containing poly-chlori-
       nated biphenyls (PCBs). (Current
       information for the last .3 years for
       which data are available [1999-2001]
       indicates a downward trend in PCB
       disposal In 2001, there were 9,494
       large capacitors and 4,885 transform-
       ers safely disposed.h)

    •  By 2008, reduce by 20 percent the
       inventories of PCBs in Russia that
       have the greatest potential for con-
       tributing to  the Song-range environ-
       mental transport of these pollutants
       to the United States. {2000 baseline
       is 35,000 tons.9)

    •  By 2008, decrease releases of persist-
       ent bioaccurnulative toxic (PBT)
       chemicals by 15 percent and toxic
       chemicals (including dioxin) by
       10 percent as reported in the
       Toxic Release Inventory (TR1),
       compared to 2001 levels. (Baseline:
       462,635,529 pounds of PBT chemi-
       cals  and 5,744,530,557 pounds of all
       other toxic chemicals, including 328
       pounds of dioxin.)

Sub-objective 4-1.4: Reduce Risks at.
Facilities. Through 2008, protect human
health, communities, and ecosystems from
chemical risks and releases through facility
risk reduction efforts and building communi-
ty infrastructures.
    •  By 2.008, 30 percent of those facilities
       with hazardous chemicals, including
       Risk Management Plan facilities, will
       have reduced their risk of a major
       chemical accident out of a universe
       of approximately 15,000 facilities.
       (This includes reducing inventories
       of chemicals; reducing chemical acci-
       dents; improving
       chemical processes;
       replacing hazardous
       chemicals used in a
       process to a less
       hazardous chemi-
       cal; and reducing
       vulnerability zones
       surrounding the
       chemical facility.)

       By 2008, 50 per-
       cent of local com-
       munities or Local
       Emergency Planning Committees
       (LEPC) will have incorporated facili
       ty risk information into their emer-
       gency preparedness and community
       right-to-know programs out of a uni-
       verse of approximately 3,200 LEPCs.
   MEANS AND STRATEGIES
              G OBJECTIVE 4
    Chemicals, microorganisms, and pesti-
cides can pose risks to individuals, communi-
ties, and ecosystems. Under this objective,
EPA aims to prevent or significantly reduce
these risks by:

    •  Identifying and assessing potential
       risks from chemicals, pesticides, and
       microorganisms.

    *  Setting priorities for addressing these
       risks.

    •  Developing and implementing strate-
       gies aimed at preventing risks and
       managing those risks that cannot be
       prevented.

    •  Implementing regulatory measures,
       such as systematic review of pesti-
       cides and new chemicals, and devel-
       oping and implementing procedures
       for safe production, use, storage, and
       handling of chemicals, pesticides,
       and microorganisms.

-------
    *   Employing innovative voluntary
        measures, such as promoting the use
        of reduced-risk pesticides and chal-
        lenging companies to assess and
        reduce chemical risks and develop
        safer and less polluting new chemi-
        cals, processes, and technologies.

    •   Conducting outreach and training
        and establishing partnerships.

    •   Reducing or eliminating risks from
        potential chemical releases.

    In coordination with our state and tribal
co-regulators and co-implementors and with
the support of industry, environmental
groups, and other stakeholders, EPA will use
these approaches to address risks associated
with chemicals and pesticides. Improving
communities' ability to address local prob-
lems is a critical part of our efforts to reduce
risk.

REDUCING EXPOSURE TO  PESTICIDES

    Pesticides are essential for controlling
insects,  weeds, bacteria, and other pests on
farms and in homes, gardens, and hospitals. It
is estimated that
pesticides are used
on more than 1
million  farms and
in 90 million
households.10 These
products are regu-
lated and held to
safety standards
prescribed by the
Federal  Insecticide,
Fungicide,  and
Rodenticide Act.
    People can be exposed to pesticides
through their food. EPA is working to reduce
this exposure, particularly to the more toxic
pesticides. One of our priorities is to review
older pesticides in light of Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) safety standards. We
will complete pesticide reregistration eligibil-
ity decisions by 2008 (food use by 2006) and,
in tandem with that work, meet our FQPA
statutory goal of reassessing the 9,721 exist-
ing tolerances by August 2006.

     FQPA added cumulative, aggregate, and
other new risk assessment requirements for
reviewing pesticides and provided for EPA to
establish a program to review pesticides on a
15-year cycle." As the reregistration program
draws to  a close, this registration review pro-
gram will ensure that pesticides in the
marketplace continue to meet the most cur-
rent FQPA safety standards. The cyclical
registration review program will allow EPA
continually to apply new science and risk cri-
teria to ensure that risk evaluation and  risk
management information remain current.
Tliese changes will help to reduce the risks
posed by newly licensed pesticides in food and
the risks  of exposure that workers, farm fami-
lies, and  vulnerable populations may face.

   We will continue to improve our process-
es to reflect lessons learned, additional
information from scientific advances, more
sophisticated methods and tools, and identifi-
                        cation of new risks
                        or benefits. For
                        example, the use of
                        biotechnology to
                        improve crops' agri-
                        cultural qualities is
                        an accelerating
                        trend, which is pro-
                        ducing an array of
                        new arid unique
                        products, including
                        genetically engi-
                        neered plants ancl
                        microorganisms.
EPA will continue to work closely with
USDA and the Food and Drug
Administration to ensure the safety of the
food supply and to identify additional scien-
tific reviews or data that may be needed for
these products.

-------
    Pesticide and pest control issues extend
beyond the farm. Public health officials and
homeowners use pesticides to control a vari-
ety of pests, protect human health, and
benefit consumers. EPA registers antimicro-
bials used by public drinking-water treatment
facilities  and by food processing plants and
hospitals to disinfect surfaces. Effective
antimicrobials are of growing importance as
many serious disease-causing organisms
become resistant to antibiotic procedures. To
provide environmental, public health, and
economic benefits, we will continue to work
to make new pesticides available and to
address emergency health or pest damage
issues flexibly and efficiently.

    EPA  is also working to protect employers,
applicators,  handlers, and the public from the
potential dangers posed by pesticides by
implementing certification ancl training and
worker protection programs. The Agency-
conducts outreach and education on using
pesticides properly as well as implementing
risk mitigation measures spelled out during
the pesticide licensing process.

    Since pesticide use also affects ecosys-
tems, our reviews consider impacts to water
resources, soil, ancl wildlife to prevent unrea-
sonable harm. For example, EPA is
collaborating with FWS and the National
Marine Fisheries Service to improve our
efforts to protect endangered species. We will
be working to identify changes to existing
policies, regulations, and the regulatory
processes that will enhance protection of
endangered species with minimal impact  on
food producers arid pesticide users.

    Outreach, training, and partnerships will
play an integral role  in meeting our goals.
Providing information on alternatives for
pest control, translating materials into other
languages for nonnative speakers, and
emphasizing the  importance of following  pes-
ticide labels will help to reduce risks
associated with using pesticides in and
around the home. In addition, to comple-
ment ongoing outreach to reduce use of the
riskier pesticides, our TRI program will devel
op a voluntary program with pesticide
manufacturers, processors, and certain users.

    Finally, because
international
sources of pesticides
are also a concern,
the Agency will
work to promote a
better understand-
ing of the impact of
pollutants from
other countries and
regions on the
United States, and
the impact of U.S.
emissions on  other countries. We will reduce
pollution sources abroad through outreach,
pollution prevention, and capacity-building
measures, such as cost-effective and appropri-
ate technology transfer.
    EPA's strategy to prevent and reduce
risks posed by chemicals and microorganisms
consists of three primary approaches: (1) pre-
venting the introduction of chemicals and
organisms that pose unreasonable risks into
U.S. commerce; (2) effectively screening
the stock of chemicals already in use for
potential risk; and (3) developing and imple-
menting action plans to reduce the use of
and exposure to chemicals that have been
demonstrated to harm humans and the envi-
ronment. EPA intends to work with states
and tribes, other federal agencies, the private
sector, and international entities to imple-
ment this strategy and, in particular, to make
protecting children and the elderly a funda-
mental goal of public health and
environmental protection.

-------
    The  Ibxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) requires that EPA review all new
chemicals and organisms prior to their pro-
duction or import ancl be notified of
significant new uses for certain chemicals
that have already been reviewed.;Z EPA's
PMN review typically assesses 1,500 to 2,000
                        new chemicals and
                        organisms every
                        year, a rate expect-
                        ed to continue
                        through 2008.
                        While TSCA gives
                        EPA a 90-day
                        review period, new
                        criteria, such as
                        preventing the
                        introduction of
                        PRTs or consider-
ing the use of new chemicals as potential
weapons of terror, continue to emerge. An
expanded set of screening tools will increase
EPA's and industry's efficiency by using the
data that companies provide in their PMN
submissions to predict potential hazards,
exposures, and risks quickly and effectively.
Tools include the PBT Profiler and other
models that estimate the fate and concentra-
tions of chemicals released to the
environment, including  chemicals that may
be released from consumer products, and
models to estimate workplace exposures."
These tools will be critical for meeting the
zero-tolerance standard implicit in our 2008
strategic  target for these reviews.

    Such tools are also a critical component
of EPA's sustainable futures strategy to dis-
courage development of potentially risky new
chemicals at the earliest stages of product,
process, and service design. The Sustainable
Futures-P2 Framework initiative" provides
chemical manufacturers  with the same
screening tools that EPA uses to evaluate
potential risks to workers and the public and
possible impacts to the environment. Over
the next  several years, the Agency will pro-
vide these tools and training to companies,
enabling them to design and develop safer,
less risky chemicals. Under the current pilot
project, participating companies will be
offered expedited review of their qualifying
chemicals, which will allow manufacture to
begin 45 clays earlier. The intense interest
expressed thus far suggests that this will be a
powerful incentive for many companies to
conduct their own hazard/risk screening.
Effective use of these tools by companies that
submit PMNs should decrease the number of
problematic PMNs submitted to EPA.

    Organisms will continue to pose new
challenges to the review program. EPA has
reviewed a number of proposed microbial
products that posed risks to hurnaris and/or
the environment because of genes introduced
into the bacteria (for traits such as antibiotic
resistance and/or altered metabolic pathways)
or because of inherent pathogenicity associat-
ed with the parent microorganism. In 2002,
for example, the Agency issued a proposed
Significant New Use Rule covering at  least
eight  microorganisms that, if used improperly,
can be fatal to individuals with cystic fibrosis.
Newly developed risk evaluation procedures
will address exposure and hazard profiles for
an increasing number organisms we have
never before encountered.

    By 2008, EPA will make substantial
progress in screening, assessing, and reducing
risks posed by the 66,600 chemicals that were
in use prior to the enactment of TSCA.1"
Thousands of these chemicals are  still  used
today, and nearly 3,000 of them are HPV
chemicals, produced or imported into the
United States in quantities exceeding  1 mil-
lion pounds per year. More than 300
companies arid  101 consortia are voluntarily
providing data that EPA will make publicly
available and screen for potential  hazards and
risks. We will then identify and set priorities
for further assessment and determine whether
future action is  necessary to eliminate  or
effectively manage the risks identified. To
support these efforts, we will draw on data
already obtained through the TSCA
Inventory Update Rule, particularly on new
exposure-related data to be provided begin-
ning in 2005.

-------
    EPA is also working to complete detailed
risk assessments of at least 10 chemicals to
which children may be disproportionately
exposed. The Agency is using a new strategy
under which companies' assessments are sub-
mitted to an outside peer consultation panel
composed of national experts in chemical
risk assessment. In consultation with stake-
holders, EPA hacl determined that an inde-
pendent, scientifically rigorous review of the
assessments was essential to ensure a process
that could be recognized as impartial and of
significant technical merit and value. EPA
will also continue to identify and reduce the
risks associated with other chemicals and
classes of chemicals already in commerce.

    By 2008, the broader risk screening and
data assessment to be  conducted through
these efforts will provide a much better
knowledge base from which to assess and
reduce chemical risks. The chemical risk
information developed under this goal is crit-
ical to EPA's success in achieving its other
goals, providing the basis for virtually all
chemical risk assessments that support EPA's
air, water, and waste programs. The Agency
will work to increase the availability of useful
health and environmental information,
including information about toxic releases,
tools to increase access to and analysis of TRI
data, and incentives for source reduction by
facilities that report to TRI.
sonnel with information they need to take
necessary precautions and treat individuals
who may be on the scene.
    In the event of a chemical emergency,
protecting first responders or other on-site
personnel is critical. Many chemicals that
pose a potential threat emit toxic fumes, are
toxic when in contact with skin, or present
other direct effects. To increase the Nation's
preparedness, EPA, in collaboration with
other federal, private, and academic organiza-
tions, is increasing the pace for developing
AEGLs.16 These guidelines are short-term
exposure limits, representing three tiers of
health effect endpoints (i.e., discomfort, dis-
ability, and death) for five different exposure
durations. EPA will provide emergency per-
    In certain instances, risk-reduction efforts
are targeted at specific chemicals. Foremost
among these is the federal government's com-
mitment to eliminate the incidence of child-
hood lead poisoning. Since 1973, we have
reduced environmental lead levels by phasing
out leaded gasoline and addressing other-
sources of exposure. Since the 1990s, EPA
has focused on reducing children's exposure
to lead in paint and dust through a regulatory
framework, through federal interagency col-
laboration, and by educating parents and the
medical community about prevention.
    As a result of these efforts, in the United
States, children's blood-lead levels have
declined nearly 90 percent since the mid-
1970s, and the incidence of childhood lead
poisoning has declined from 900,000 cases in
the early 1990s to approximately 400,000
cases in 1999-2000.17 EPA will collaborate
with industry and other federal agencies on a
campaign to increase lead-safe work practices
in home renovation and remodeling and to
improve handling of lead paint on buildings
and structures through market-based incen-
tives and other innovative approaches.

-------
    On the international front, EPA is work-
ing to eliminate the use of leaded gasoline,
which is responsible for up to 95 percent of
airborne lead particles globally. We have suc-
ceeded in reducing the use of leaded gasoline
internationally from 1993 to 1997 by two-
thirds, from 249 million metric tons to 166
million metric tons.13 EPA has formed part-
nerships with international and regional
groups, such as the World Bank, the World
Health Organization, the Asian
Development Bank, the National Safety
Council, and the Alliance to End Childhood
Lead Poisoning. By leveraging resources from
other U.S. government agencies, including
the U.S. Agency for International
Development, the U.S. Department of State,
and the Centers for Disease Control, we have
established on-the-ground  technical assis-
tance projects in several parts of the world.
The Implementer's Guide to Lead Phase-Out,
an important technical-assistance tool,
outlines fundamental policy, technical, and
operational elements that will help countries
manage the transition to unleaded gasoline.|Q

    EPA is employing a multimedia, cross-
Agency strategy to focus on other high-risk
chemicals and classes of chemicals. For exam-
ple, we are working to prevent new PBTs
from entering commerce and to reduce risks
associated with PBTs	including mercury	
that are currently in use or have been used in
the past. New information to be developed
through the Dioxin Reassessment will sup-
port strategies for reducing exposure to this
dangerous class of chemicals.
Recommendations to be provided to EPA in
2003 and 2004 from a panel of national
experts on asbestos will assist the Agency in
designing strategies to address asbestos risks.
We will expand successful pilots to encourage
companies to retire from service large capaci-
tors and transformers containing PCBs to
meet ambitious new targets for safe  disposal
by 2008. Because these chemicals represent
various levels arid exposure pathways, data
sets are often uneven. Through 2008, there-
fore, EPA intends to examine possible
measurement opportunities to better track
the environmental and human health results
of our high-risk chemical programs.

    Long-range and transboundary atmos-
pheric transport and deposition of persistent
organic pollutants and other PBTs, such as
mercury, are a continuing threat to human
health and the ecosystems in North America.
These pollutants can be transported and
released far from their sources, enter the
ecosystem, arid bioaccumulate through the
food chain. EPA believes that to reduce the
recognized risks these pollutants pose to the
American public, we will need to address
their international sources. For example, we
can most immediately reduce the risks posed
by PCB emissions by cooperating with appro-
priate domestic and international partners to
reduce existing stockpiles of equipment that
generate these emissions and providing need-
ed technical assistance and capacity building.

REDUCING RISKS AT FACILITIES

    To reduce or eliminate the risks associat-
ed with chemical releases, EPA must first
identify and understand potential chemical
risks and releases. During 2003 and  2004,
EPA will review and analyze data it has
already collected, as well as the information
it will receive under the Agency's Risk
Management Plan program. This analysis will

-------
provide information on the geographic loca-
tions and facility types with the greatest
potential for chemical accidents and releases.
Additionally, EPA will identify areas where
susceptible and sensitive populations may be
at higher risk from chemical releases. EPA
will also use  information generated by other
Agency efforts, such as the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act and the  Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure program, to supplement data
on potential chemical risks and to develop
voluntary initiatives and activities aimed at
high-risk facilities and/or geographic areas.

    The majority of this work will be accom-
plished through our partnerships. EPA will
work with communities to provide chemical
risk information on local facilities. The
Agency will also assist states and communi-
ties in understanding how these chemical
risks could affect them and how to reduce
those risks and prepare to address and miti-
gate risks should a chemical release occur.
 OBJECTIVE 4.2; COMMUNITIE
  USTAIN;, CLEAN UP, AM> RESTORE
 TIIAT SXJFFORT TBBM,
Sub-objective 4-2.1: Sustain Community
Health. By 2008, 220 U.S. communities,
working with EPA, will adopt and begin to
implement environmental planning and
management processes for sustaining local
ecosystems and pursuing ecologically compat-
ible development (2002 baseline of 0
communities). On the international front,
EPA will work with selected trading partners
to address potential sources of environmental
degradation associated with trade-related
development. All trade agreements negotiat-
ed between 2003 and 2008 will contain
environmental protection provisions and
commitments to enforce environmental laws
and regulations effectively.

Sub-objective 4.2.2s Restore Community
Health. Through 2008, facilitate the
restoration of communities impacted by envi-
ronmental problems.  By 2008, increase by 50
percent the number of communities, working
with EPA, that have addressed disproportion-
ate environmental impacts and risks through
comprehensive, integrated planning and
environmental management, compared to
the 2002 baseline of 30 communities.
Sub-objective 4-2.3: Assess and Clean Up
Brownfields. By 2008, provide funding to
eligible grant recipients, arid, working with
our state and tribal partners, assess and pro-
mote the cleanup and reuse of 9,200
brownfields properties, leveraging 33,700 jobs
and $10.2  billion in cleanup/redevelopment
funding. (Second quarter FY 2003 baselines
are 4,300 properties assessed, 24,900 jobs
leveraged, and $5.0 billion leveraged.)

Sub-objective 4.2.4s Sustain and Restore
I J.S.-Mexico Border Ecosystems. In the
U.S.-Mexico border region, sustain and
restore community health and preserve the
ecological systems that support it.
       By 2012, assess significant shared and
       transboundary surface waters and
       achieve a majority of water quality
       standards currently being exceeded in
       those waters. (The baseline is the
       shared and transboundary surface
       waters as defined, identified,  and
       evaluated for the United  States in
       the Clean Water Act §305(b) reports
       and for Mexico by the Secretariat for

-------
        the Environment and Natural
        Resources.)

     •  By 2005, protect the health of 1.5
        million people in the Mexico border
        area by providing adequate water and
        wastewater sanitation systems funded
        through the  Border Environmental
        Infrastructure Fund. (Cumulative.)
        (1998 Baseline: 0 additional people
        provided with access to potable water
        and wastewater collection and treat-
        merit systems; estimated 2002
        baseline of 790,000 persons provided
        with access.)

MEANS AND SimTB&m& mm,
AeeffiviM* OBJECTIVE 4*2

    People often feel most closely connected
 to the environment in their communities,
 where they experience first-hand the benefits
 of safe drinking water, clean air, and healthy
 lakes, streams, and rivers that are safe for
 swimming and fishing. Decisions are made
 every day at the local level that affect air and
 water quality, habitat and biodiversity, and
 land use. For example, transportation and
 land-use planning, water supply and treat-
 ment,  and waste management are all primarily
 local activities, and community decisions can
 either systematically  advance clean air, clean
                        and safe water, and
                        restored and pre-
                        served land or can
                        incrementally chip
                        away at these goals.
                        Because healthy,
                        sustainable commu-
                        nities are the
                        components of a
                        healthy, sustainable
                        country, EPA is
                        committed to sus-
                        taining and
                        restoring communi-
                        ty health and the
                        ecological systems
                        that support it.
    EPA will work in partnership with states
and tribes, local governments, community
groups, and other stakeholders to protect and
sustain healthy communities and local natu-
ral resources. The Agency will work to
restore the health of communities that are
vulnerable to environmental impacts—for
example, by addressing environmental justice
issues and cleaning up and redeveloping
brownfield sites. EPA will also develop
stronger partnerships in communities, such as
those along the U.S.-Mexico border, that can
influence neighboring jurisdictions.
    One of the most important strategies for
achieving healthy communities and ecosys-
tems is protecting and sustaining natural
resources that are at risk. EPA will use four
approaches to facilitate community-based
protection of local natural resources.

    First, EPA recognizes its important role
in supporting local resource protection by
serving as a primary source of information
about new community assessment and plan-
ning tools, the latest research, and examples
of what other communities are doing to
address similar issues. To better inform local
decision-making. EPA will continue to
improve methods for information exchange
and access to environmental data and infor-
mation at the community  level.

    Second, we will strive  to build local
capacity by developing and distributing tools
that integrate media-specific information;
supporting multimedia planning; and
developing training for local agencies and
community groups on how to use data,
information, arid tools effectively in environ-
mental assessment and planning  and how to
work collaboratively and cooperatively with
a range of stakeholders. EPA will continue to
identify and provide opportunities for public
participation in environmental decision-
making.

-------
    Third, the Agency recognizes that
real-world, on-the-ground successes often
galvanize neighboring communities into
adopting integrated, comprehensive
approaches to environmental management.
Therefore, EPA will continue to facilitate
local successes by providing technical and
financial assistance directly to communities
and by helping them coordinate environmen-
tal management processes and develop
strategic partnerships. As a result of ongoing
Administration efforts to negotiate interna-
tional free trade agreements, our assistance to
communities also extends to specific trading
partners. In this context, EPA will undertake
the environmental reviews and technical
assistance necessary to promote ecologically
compatible development.

    Finally, EPA will work to ensure that
national policies and programs support,
rather than hinder, comprehensive, integrat-
ed local resource management. To this end,
EPA will review new policies and regulations
to ensure that programs are compatible and
promote overall environmental improve-
ment. I he Agency will work to integrate
existing programs to optimize their impacts
and make them more compatible with local
processes. In addition, EPA will partner with
other federal agencies and national standard-
setting organizations to create incentives for
and remove barriers to smart growth and
integrated environmental management.
    "Environmental justice" is the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people, regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income, with respect to the devel-
opment, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
EPA works to integrate environmental justice
into all aspects of the Agency's programs and
to promote constructive engagement and
collaborative problem-solving among all
stakeholders, especially in communities that
have been disproportionately exposed to
environmental hazards and risks.

    EPA will continue to manage the
Environmental Justice Community Small
Grants program, which provides seed money
to assist community-based organizations that
are working to develop solutions to local
environmental issues and to learn more about
exposure to environmental hazards and risks
and, consequently, protect their families and
their communities.
    The National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council was created specifically to
provide an Agency forum for communities
disproportionately impacted by hazardous
risks. The council's six subcommittees
(Air/Water, Enforcement, Health/Research,
Indigenous People, International, and
Waste/Facility Siting) will continue to
address the implications of multiple sources
of environmental degradation on the health
of communities and to develop recommenda-
tions for the Agency.

    EPA will also continue to chair the
Interagency Working Group (1WG) on
Environmental Justice, which is composed of
11 federal departments and agencies, as well
as White House offices. The 1WG will col-
laborate with all levels of government and
with the private sector to address the envi-
ronmental, health, economic, and social
challenges facing our communities. One tool

-------
will be demonstration and revitalization proj-
ects that focus attention on diverse urban
and rural communities.

    Training is essential to foster the integra-
tion of environmental justice into federal
programs, policies, and activities. EPA's
Fundamentals Workshop on Environmental
Justice aids in training Agency employees
and external stakeholders. By 2005, the
Agency will acid modules that promote con-
sideration of environmental justice issues in
permitting under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, and
the Clean Air Act. In addition,  EPA will be
expanding a 2002 pilot that emphasized
training and multi-stakeholder partnering to
increase Agency and community capacity to
address issues through alternative dispute res-
olution.
    Brownfields
are defined (with
certain exclu-
sions) as real
properties, where
expansion, rede-
velopment, or
reuse may be
complicated bv
             '
the presence or
      ,  i
potential presence
of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
Brownfields include abandoned industrial
and commercial properties, drug labs, mine-
scarred land, and sites contaminated with
petroleum or petroleum products. EPA will
continue to provide for the assessment and
cleanup of these properties, leverage redevel-
opment opportunities, preserve green space,
clarify liability,  and offer job training.

     The Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act, signed into
law in 2002, expands federal grants for assess-
ment, cleanup, and job training. To
encourage revitalization and reuse of brown-
field sites, the law limits the legal liability
related to brownfield properties. In addition,
the law provides for establishing and enhanc-
ing state and tribal  response programs, which
play a critical role in successfully cleaning up
and revitalizing brownfields.20

    Brownfields grants will continue to pro-
vide several types of support to communities.
Brownfield assessment grants provide funding
to inventory, characterize,  assess, and conduct
planning arid community involvement activi-
ties related to brownfields.  Brownfield
revolving-loan fund grantees can capitalize a
revolving loan and make subgrants to carry-
out cleanup activities. Cleanup grants, newly
authorized by the Brownfields Law, will fund
                         cleanup activities
                         by grant recipi-
                         ents. Expanded
                         authorities within
                         the new law also
                         address the poten-
                         tial for limited
                         funding for insti-
                         tutional controls,
                         insurance, and
                         health monitor-
                         ing. EPA will
                         provide limited
                         funding for grants
                         that provide tech-
                         nical assistance,
                         training, and
                         research to brown-
field communities. We will also provide
funding to create local environmental job
training programs, ensuring that the economic
benefits derived from brownfield revitalization
efforts remain in the community.

     EPA will continue to work in partner-
ship with state cleanup programs to address
brownfield properties. We will provide states
and tribes with tools, information, and
funding they can use to develop response

-------
programs for sites contaminated with
hazardous wastes and petroleum. The
Agency will continue to encourage the
empowerment of state, tribal, and local
officials to oversee brownfield activities
and the implementation of local solutions
to local problems.
    EPA is working along the U.S.-Mexico
border to reduce transboundary threats to
human and ecosystem health in North
America. The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012
Program, a joint effort between the U.S.
and Mexican governments, will work with
the 10 border states and with border com-
munities to improve the region's
environmental health.21

    Border communities face unique
challenges in addressing environmental prob-
lems and coordinating efforts. To promote
coordination, a number of regional work-
groups and policy forums will collaborate
with local communities to set priorities and
plan and implement projects. These groups
will also assist in establishing objectives,
defining indicators, and measuring progress.
The United States and Mexico will work to
improve water quality along their border
through a range of pollution control sanita-
tion projects; our goal is to restore the quality
of at least half of the currently impaired sig-
nificant shared  and transboundary surface
waters by 2012.

    Inadequate water and sewage treatment
cause border residents to suffer disproportion-
ately from hepatitis A and other waterborne
diseases. Increasing the number of connec-
tions to safe drinking-water systems and the
number of homes with access to basic sanita-
tion will reduce health risks to residents. Our
planned assessment of transboundary surface
waters will facilitate the development of
environmental data essential for effective
water management. To achieve Border 2012's
goal of increasing by 25 percent the number
of homes with access to safe drinking water
and wastewater treatment systems, we are
working with Mexican officials to determine
the number of homes currently lacking access
to these basic sanitation services.

    In addition to water issues, EPA will
focus on the environmental and human
health risks posed by pesticides. By training
migrant farm workers and others who rou-
tinely handle pesticides, we will reduce both
the long-term chronic health effects of pesti-
cide exposure as well as the incidence of
acute pesticide poisoning.

-------
S lib-objective 4-3.1: Protect: and Restore
Ecosystems. Facilitate the ecosystem-scale
protection arid restoration of natural areas.
    •  By 2008, improve the overall aquatic
       system health of the 28 estuaries that
       are part of the National Estuary
       Program (NEP) compared to 2006, as
       measured using the National Coastal
       Condition Report and NEP  indica-
       tors. (Baseline to be determined in
       2006.)

    •  By 2008, working with NEP partners,
       protect or restore an additional
       250,000 acres of habitat within the
       study areas for the  28  estuaries that
       are part of the NEP. (2002 Baseline:
       0 acres of habitat restored.)

                       •Sub-objective
                *             3
                       4.3.2; Increase
                       Wetlands. By 2008,
                       working with part-
                       ners, achieve a net
                       increase of 400,000
                       acres of wetlands
                       with additional
                       focus on biological
                       and functional
measures.  (2002 Baseline: annual net loss of
an estimated 58,500 acres.)
       Annually, beginning in FY 2004,
       work with the U.S. Army Corps of
       Engineers (COE) and other partners
       to achieve no net loss of wetlands
       under Section 404 of the Clean
       Water Act regulatory program.
    *  By 2006 and each year thereafter,
       work with COE and other partners to
       obtain no net  loss in wetland func-
       tion based on  quantifying functions
       gained and lost through mitigation
       for authorized  wetlands impacts.

Sub-objective 4-3.3: Improve the Health of
Great Lakes. Ecosystems. By 2008, prevent
water pollution and improve the overall
aquatic ecosystem health  of the Great Lakes
by at least 2  points. (2002 Baseline: Great
Lakes rating of 20 on a 40-point scale, where
the rating uses select Great Lakes State  of
the Lakes Ecosystem indicators, based on a 1
to 5 rating system for each indicator in which
1 is poor and 5 is good.)
       By 2007, the average concentrations
       of PCBs in whole lake trout and
       walleye samples will decline by 25
       percent. (2000 Baseline: concentra-
       tion for Lake Superior of 0.9 ug/g; for
       Lake Huron, 0.8 ug/g; for Lake
       Michigan, 1.6 ug/g; for Lake Erie, 1.8
       ug/g; and for Lake Ontario, 1.2 ug/g.)

       By 2008, the annual concentrations
       of toxic chemicals in the air in the
       Great Lakes basin will decline by 30
       percent. (2002 Baseline: concentra-
       tion for Lake Superior of 60 pg/m3;
       for Lake Huron, 19 pg/m3; for Lake
       Michigan, 87 pg/m.3; for Lake Erie,
       183  pg/m3; and for Lake Ontario,
       36 pg/rn3.)

       By 2010, restore and delist a cumula-
       tive  total of at least 10 Areas of
       Concern within the Great Lakes
       basin. (2002  Baseline: 0 Areas of
       Concern restored.)

-------
    •  By 2008, a cumulative total of at
       least 3.3 million cubic yards of con-
       taminated sediment in the Great
       Lakes will be remediated. (2002
       Baseline: 2.1  million cubic yards of
       contaminated sediments from the
       Great Lakes have been remediated
       from 1997 through 2001.)

Sub-objective 43.4° Improve the Aquatic
Health of the Chesapeake Bay, By 2008,
prevent water pollution and improve the
overall aquatic ecosystem health of the
Chesapeake Bay so that there are 120,000
acres of submerged aquatic vegetation. (2002
Baseline: 85,252 acres.)
    •  By 2008, reduce nitrogen loads enter-
       ing Chesapeake Bay by 94 million
       pounds per year, from 1985 levels.
       (2002 Baseline: 51 million pounds
       per year reduced.)

    •  By 2008, reduce phosphorus loads
       entering Chesapeake Bay by 9.7 mil-
       lion pounds per year, from 1985
       levels. (2002  Baseline: 8 million
       pounds per year reduced.)

    •  By 2008, reduce sediment loads
       entering Chesapeake Bay by 1.37
       million tons per year, from 1985 lev-
       els. (2002 Baseline: 0.8 million tons
       per year reduced.)

Sub-objective 43,5: Improve the Aquatic
Health of the Gulf of Mexico. Prevent
water pollution and protect aquatic systems
to improve the overall health of the Gulf
of Mexico.
       By 2008, prevent water pollution and
       improve the overall aquatic ecosys-
       tem  health of coastal waters of the
       Gulf of Mexico by 0.2 on the
       "good/fair/poor" scale of the National
       Coastal Condition Report. (2002
       Baseline: southeast rating of fair/poor
       or 1.9 where the rating is based on a
       5-point system in which 1 is poor
       and 5 is good and is expressed as an
       areally weighted mean of regional
       scores using the National Coastal
       Condition Report indicators address-
       ing water clarity, dissolved oxygen,
       coastal wetland loss, eutrophic condi-
       tions, sediment contamination,
       benthic health, and fish tissue con-
       tamination. )

       By 2015, reduce releases of nutrients
       throughout the Mississippi River
       Basin to reduce the size of the hypox-
       ic zone in the  Gulf of Mexico to less
       than 5,000 kmz, as measured by the
       5-year running average of the size  of
       the zone.  (Baseline: 1996-2000 run-
       ning average size is 14,128 km2.)
   MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR
                           43
    EPA is working to protect, sustain, and
restore the health of natural habitats and
ecosystems by identifying and evaluating
problem areas, developing tools, and improv-
ing community capacity to address problems.
Some activities will continue to be targeted
to such high-priority areas as Long Islan
Sound, Lake Champlain,  Lake Pontchartrain,
and South Florida. Targeted watershed grants
that provide tools, training, and technical
assistance  will support community efforts to
expand and
improve existing
watershed pro-
tection
measures.  These
various placed-
based ecosystem
protection
efforts provide
an opportunity

-------
to increase federal involvement in critical
watersheds and to develop and implement
water quality control practices and other
ecosystem management tools that can be
transferred to other place-based efforts
nationwide.
    Estuaries are among the most productive
ecosystems on Earth, providing numerous
ecological, economic, cultural, and aesthetic
benefits and services. They are also among
the most threatened ecosystems, largely as a
result of rapidly increasing growth and devel-
opment. About half of the U.S. population
now lives in coastal areas, and coastal coun-
ties are growing three times faster than
counties elsewhere in the Nation.'2 Overuse
of resources and poor land use practices have
resulted in a host of human health and natu-
ral resource problems.
    EPA plans to implement key activities
under the NEP to help address these growing
threats to the Nation's estuarine resources.23
The NEP, which provides inclusive, commu-
nity-based planning and action at the
watershed level,  is an important initiative in
conserving our estuarine resources. We will
facilitate the ecosystem-scale protection and
restoration of natural areas by supporting
continuing efforts of all 28 NEP estuaries to
implement their Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans to pro-
tect and restore estuarine resources. In
addition, EPA will provide more focused sup-
port for several priority needs the NEP has
identified, including problems of invasive
species; air deposition of pollutants, such as
mercury and nitrogen; and nutrient overeri-
richment. EPA will  support the NEP in
developing monitoring protocols for aquatic
nuisance species and rapid response plans,
expanding mercury deposition monitoring,
and developing and  implementing nutrient
management strategies.

   The health of the Nation's estuarine
ecosystems also depends on the maintenance
of high-quality habitat. Diminished and
degraded habitats are less able to support
healthy populations of wildlife  and marine
organisms and perform the economic, envi-
ronmental, and aesthetic  functions on which
coastal populations depend for  their liveli-
hood.

INCREASING WETLANDS

   Over the years,  the United States has
lost more than 115 million  acres of wetlands
to development, agriculture, and other uses.24
Today, the Nation loses an estimated 58,000
acres of wetlands every year, and other wet-
lands are being degraded by excessive
sedimentation, nutrient overenrichment, pes-
ticides, invasive species, habitat loss, and
fragmentation.25

    The Administration  is committed to  a
regulatory program aimed at no net loss of
wetlands and to initiatives and partnerships
to improve their overall condition. In
December 2002, COE, in cooperation with
EPA, issued a Regulatory  Guidance Letter to
improve wetland protection through better
compensatory mitigation. Also, the
Administration unveiled  a National
Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan2" listing
17 action items that federal agencies will

-------
undertake to improve the effectiveness of
wetland mitigation and restoration.

    EPA will work with its state and tribal
partners to develop and implement broad-
based, integrated monitoring and assessment
programs for wetlands that strengthen water
quality stan-
dards, improve
decision-making,
target restoration
within the
watershed,
address signifi-
cant stressors,
and report on
condition. EPA
will work  for
national gains in
wetland acreage
by implementing
an innovative
and partner-based wetlands and stream corri-
dor restoration program. Working with states,
COE, and other partners, we will build our
capacity to measure wetland function and
condition, as well as wetland acreage.  I he
Agency will assist its federal, state, and tribal
partners in building capacity to implement
more effective wetland programs, including
those that protect wetlands and waters not
covered by the Clean Water Act. EPA's sup-
port will help avoid or minimize wetland
losses and provide for full compensation for
unavoidable losses of wetland functions. We
will continue to focus on wetlands and
stream corridor restoration to regain lost
aquatic resources.
    The Great Lakes are the largest system of
surface freshwater on Earth, containing 20
percent of the world's surface freshwater and
accounting for more than 90 percent of the
surface freshwater in the United States. The
watershed includes two nations, eight-
American states, a Canadian province, more
than 40 tribes and is home to more than one-
tenth of the U.S. population. To further
restore the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem, EPA
is implementing Clean Water Act core water
protection programs and has launched the
                          Great Lakes
                          Strategy 2002: A
                          Plan for the New-
                          Millennium, on
                          behalf of the
                          U.S. Policy
                          Committee.27
                          The strategy
                          presents a basin-
                          wide vision for
                          Great Lakes pro-
                          tection  and
                          restoration, iden-
                          tifying the major
environmental issues in the Great Lakes;
establishing common goals for federal, state,
and tribal agencies; and helping to fulfill U.S.
responsibilities under the U.S.-Canada Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.28

    The Great Lakes Strategy incorporates
the Great Lakes  Binational Toxics Strategy,
a groundbreaking international toxics reduc-
tion effort that targets a common set of
persistent, toxic substances for reduction and
elimination.29 The Toxics Strategy  applies
voluntary and regulatory tools focused on
pollution prevention to a targeted set of
substances, including mercury, PCBs, dioxins/
furans, and certain canceled pesticides. The
strategy outlines activities for states, industry,
tribes, nongovernmental organizations, arid
other stakeholders.

    These efforts will be reinforced by the
Great Lakes Legacy Act, which targets addi-
tional resources to clean up contaminated
sediments. Sediment contamination is a sig-
nificant source of Great Lakes toxic  pollu-
tants and can threaten human health via the
bioaccurnulation of toxic substances through
the food chain.

-------
    EPA's Chesapeake Bay work is based on a
unique regional partnership formed to direct
and conduct restoration of the bay. Partners
include Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state leg-
islative body; EPA, which represents the
federal government; and participating citizen
advisory groups.  Chesapeake 2000, a compre-
hensive and far-reaching agreement, will
guide restoration and protection efforts
through 2010 and will focus on improving
water quality  as the most critical element in
the overall protection and restoration of the
bay and its tributaries.30

    One of the key measures of success in
achieving improved bay water quality will be
the restoration of submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion (SAV). SAV produces oxygen; nourishes
a variety of animals; provides shelter and
nursery areas  for fish and shellfish; reduces
wave action and shoreline erosion; absorbs
nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen;
and traps sediments. While recent improve-
ments in water quality have contributed to a
resurgence  in SAV (from a low  of 38,000
acres in 1984 to  more than 85,000 acres
today")) more improvements  are needed.
    To achieve improved water  quality arid
restore SAV, partners have committed to
reducing nutrient and sediment pollution
loads sufficiently to remove the  bay and the
tidal portions of  its tributaries from the list of
impaired waters.  Key elements of state strate-
gies to achieve these reductions include
implementing advanced treatment of waste-
water to reduce nutrient discharges, a range of
management practices to reduce nutrients and
sediments from farms, and the restoration and
protection of riparian forests that serve as a
buffer against sediment and nutrient pollution
that enters waterways from the land.
    EPA's efforts in the Gulf of Mexico
represent a broad, multi-organizational part-
nership. EPA, Gulf states, and stakeholders
are developing a regional, ecosystem, and
watershed-based framework for restoring and
protecting the Gulf of Mexico in ways consis-
tent with the economic well-being of the
region. Partners voluntarily identify key
environmental problems and work at the
regional, state, and local levels to define and
recommend solutions.

    Gulf of Mexico issues  can  be broadly-
categorized as affecting water quality, public
health, and habitat loss. The first step in
restoring and protecting the biological
integrity of the waters arid important habitats
of the Gulf of Mexico is to restore the full
aquatic life and recreational uses (including
safe consumption of seafood) of high-priority
coastal watersheds and estuaries, including
the watersheds of the Mississippi River Basin.
Continued implementation of EPA's core
Clean Water Act water protection programs'2
and efforts to address the hypoxic zone will
help to restore the waters  of the Gulf and its
tributaries. Restoring aquatic life and recre-
ational uses will directly benefit communities
as well.

-------
THROIJGEI ZOOS, FROvrDB A SOUND scmisniEsc EOUNDATR>N' FOR EFA'S OOAL OF FRO-
TECTINCA SUSTAINING, ANO RESTORING THE HEALTH Of PEOPLE, COMMUNITIES, AND
ECOSYSTEMS BY CONDOOTING LEADING-EDGE  REseAECii AND DEVELOPING A
BtiTTER 'UNDEKS-mMMNO AND CHARACTER NATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES
UISTDER GOAL. 4,
Sub-objective 4.4.1; Apply the Best
Available Science, Through 2008, identify7
and synthesize the best available scientific
information, models, methods and analyses to
support Agency guidance and policy deci-
sions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems.

Sub-objective 4-4.2: Conduct Relevant
Research. Through 2008, conduct research
that contributes to the overall health of peo-
ple, communities, and ecosystems. Focus
research on pesticides and toxics; global cli-
mate change; homeland security; and
comprehensive, cross-cutting studies of
human, community, and ecosystem health.
MEANS AM> STRATEGIES FOR
            OBJECTIVE 4A
    Protecting, sustaining, and restoring
the health of people, communities, and
ecosystems requires the commitment and
coordination of a number of EPA programs;
brings together expertise and resources from
across the Agency; and cultivates relation-
ships with our external partners and
stakeholders. To meet this goal, EPA must
use the best available science and apply its
findings effectively to make sound decisions
and meet a broad range of program needs.
    Environmental indicators are an impor-
tant tool for analyzing and communicating
information about environmental conditions
and human health. EPA will continue to
implement the Environmental Indicators
Initiative to establish a set of performance
indicators that measure environmental status.

    For environ-
mental indicators
to signal change
effectively, they
must be scientifi-
cally valid for
answering environ-
mental questions
from many per-
spectives. In many
cases, one environ-
mental indicator
may not be suffi-
cient to address
local, state, region-
al, or national
questions. Therefore, as explained in our
2003 Draft Report on the Environment, EPA
and its partners must select environmental
indicators carefully.

    To adequately report on environmental
conditions, by 2008 EPA will work with other
federal agencies to develop scientifically valid
environmental indicators that reflect national,
regional, and state interests and address six
ecological attributes: landscape condition,
biotic condition, chemical and physical char-
acteristics, ecological processes, hydrology/
geomorphology, and natural disturbances
regimes. In addition, based on sound science,
EPA regions and states will identify ecosystems
with highest priority for protection and
restoration.

-------
    In coordination with other federal agen-
cies, we will develop new geospatial tools
and information that will allow EPA and its
partners to assess ecosystem conditions holis-
tically. This approach will indicate where
environmental stressors are located and will
enable us to develop more comprehensive
natural resource and environmental programs
to improve ecosystem health.

    EPA's regional offices will continue to
improve their ability to identify baseline
community and ecosystem health conditions
in priority geographic areas. The Agency will
continue to assess the status and trends of
ecosystem health and develop community
and ecosystem indicators.

    We will continue to ensure  that high-
quality environmental data are used to
make sound environmental decisions by
conducting laboratory evaluations and inves-
tigations, data validations, quality assurance
management and project plan reviews, and
geographic information system analyses and
by managing regional quality assurance
programs and analytical services/support con-
tracts. State and tribal organizations that
receive EPA funds will provide quality man-
agement plans for EPA review and approval.
EPA regional offices will continue to provide
environmental monitoring and technical
assistance to federal, state, tribal, and local
agencies to assist them in evaluating and
addressing problem  facilities and priority geo-
graphic  areas. We will continue working to
improve public access to environmental
information that we, our partners, and our
stakeholders collect.
    Over the last several years, concern has
grown about exposure to endocrine-disrupt-
ing, or hormonally active, chemicals.
Evidence suggests that exposure to chemicals
that mimic hormones {endocrine disrupters)
may cause adverse health effects in wildlife
and may affect human health as well.33 EPA
is working to reduce uncertainty in our
knowledge of endocrine disrupters, determine
chemicals' potential for  endocrine disruption,
and identify the nature of adverse effects.

    The Agency needs valid tests to assess
new chemicals' and pesticides' potential for
endocrine disruption. We will complete vali-
dation of screens and  tests that are necessary
before large-scale reviews can take place, and
a Federal Advisory Subcommittee will con-
tinue to provide EPA with scientific and
technical advice. We  are working to mini-
mize the use of animals for these tests.
                                                  Through its regional offices, EPA will
                                              participate in the National Environmental
                                              Laboratory Accreditation Conference
                                              (NELAC), an association of state and federal
                                              agencies and private organizations formed to
                                              establish and promote mutually acceptable
                                              performance standards for the inspection and
                                              operation  of environmental laboratories. We
                                              will support implementation of the NELAC
                                              standards to ensure that decisions are made

-------
from a sound technical, scientific, and statis-
tical basis and that laboratories deliver
quality data. EPA will also update its own
outdated laboratory equipment to increase
our investigative, monitoring, and analytical
capabilities.
tools used in testing requirements, research
on probabilistic risk assessment methods,
biotechnology, and other areas of high inter-
est and utility to the Agency's pesticide,
pollution prevention, and toxic substances
programs.
CONDUCTING RESEARCH

    To enable us to meet our regulatory and
policy objectives for healthy people, commu-
nities, and ecosystems, EPA's Office of
Research and Development has developed
multi-year plans for research on safe food,
pesticides, and toxics; global change; ecologi-
cal assessment; human health; endocrine
disrupters; and mercury. These plans lay out
long-term research goals for the next .5 to 10
years and annual milestones needed to
achieve these goals.'4 In addition, we will
conduct research on computational toxicolo-
gy and PBT pollutants.
    The Safe Food Research Program, devel-
oped in response to FQPA, builds on earlier
research to reduce scientific uncertainty in
risk assessment. Research will provide data
needed to develop refined aggregate and
cumulative risk assessments, develop appro-
priate safety factors  to protect children
and other sensitive populations, refine risk
assessments, and provide risk mitigation tech-
nologies to reduce risks to humans. By 2008,
EPA will provide scientific tools that can be
used to characterize, assess, and manage risks
addressed under FQPA.

    Additional research on pesticides and
toxics provides results that support the
Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act and TSCA. EPA's multi-
year plans for safe pesticides/safe products
outline research designed to enhance the
Agency's human health and ecological risk
assessment and risk management capabilities
and includes the development of predictive
    The Global Change Research Act of
1990 establishes a coordinated, comprehen-
sive, interagency research program on global
change, in which EPA participates. In con-
ducting research and analysis on the
potential impacts of global climate change,
EPA will make certain that our work is coor-
dinated and consistent with the Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP) Strategic
Plan that was released on July 24, 2003.
Further, we will collaborate closely with the
CCSP Director (who also serves as the
Deputy Administrator of the National
Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration)
to assist in ensuring appropriate prior itiza-
tiori, efficiency, avoidance of duplication, and
a consistently high standard of scientific
review for all aspects of supported studies and
analyses across the federal government.
    Global change, loss and destruction of
habitat due to sprawl and exploitation of nat-
ural resources, invasive species, nonpoint
source pollution, and the accumulation and

-------
interaction of these effects present emerging
ecological problems. EPA will conduct
research to strengthen our ability to assess
and compare risks to ecosystems, to protect
and restore them, and to track progress in
terms of ecological outcomes. For example, as
part of our long-term research goals, we will
work to provide environmental managers and
researchers with a better understanding of
the links between human activities,  natural
dynamics, ecological stressors, and ecosystem
conditions; tools they can use to predict
stressors on ecological resources; arid scientif-
ically defensible methods for protecting and
restoring ecosystem conditions.
                            EPA's human
                        health research
                        represents the
                        Agency's only
                        comprehensive
                        program to address
                        the limitations in
                        human health risk
                        assessment.
Scientists across the Agency will use the
measurement-derived databases, models, and
protocols developed through this research
program to strengthen the scientific founda-
tion for human health risk assessment. EPA's
human health research will focus on a unified
risk assessment approach that incorporates
biological modes of toxicity, aggregate and
cumulative exposures, susceptible subpopula-
tions, and evaluations of public health
outcomes resulting from risk management
actions.
    To support our regulatory mandates,
EPA's research will focus on improving our
scientific understanding of exposures to,
effects from, and management of endocrine-
disruptor chemicals and advancing our
screening and testing program. We will also
conduct research to determine the extent
of the impact that endocrine-disrupting
chemicals may have on humans, wildlife, and
the environment.
    A 1997 EPA Mercury Study Report to
Congress discussed the magnitude of mercury
emissions  in the United States and conclud-
ed that a plausible link exists between human
activities that release mercury from industrial
and combustion sources in the United States
and rnethylmercury concentrations in
humans and wildlife. Regulatory mandates
require EPA to  address these risks. The
Agency's risk management research will
address managing emissions from coal-fired
utilities (critical information for rule-making)
and noncombustion sources of mercury; the
fate and transport of mercury to fish; region-
ally-based  ecological assessments of the
effects of methylmercury on birds; assessing
methylrnercury  in human populations; and
developing risk communication methods
and tools.
    EPA is developing a strategy for identify-
ing and reducing risks to humans and the
environment posed by current and future
exposures to priority PBT chemicals. Our
research will help us establish action priori-
ties for a select list of PBT pollutants; screen
and select additional priority PBT pollutants
for action; and develop a cross-cutting PBT
routine monitoring strategy.
    To enhance the scientific basis and diag-
nostic/predictive capabilities of existing and
proposed chemical testing programs, EPA will
use in vitro tests (carried out in test tubes or
artificial environments instead of in living
organisms) or such other approaches as
molecular profiling, bioinformatics, and
quantitative structure-activity relationships.
The term "computational toxicology" refers

-------
to using these alternative approaches in
conjunction with highly sophisticated
computer-based models. Computational toxi-
cology is expected to greatly reduce the use
of animal testing to obtain chemical toxicity
information.
    In pursuing our mission to protect human
health and safeguard the environment, EPA
has developed unique scientific and technical
expertise and possesses capabilities that com-
plement other federal agencies' homeland
security efforts. As a key agency charged with
crisis and consequence management responsi-
bilities under the National Strategy for
Homeland Security, EPA must be ready to
deploy its expertise to help detect, prevent,
protect against, respond to, and recover from
a terrorist act against the United States. To
meet this responsibility, EPA will perform a
number of functions.

    EPA will continue to identify and evalu-
ate biological agents that terrorists may use as
weapons against the United States. We have
begun to conduct scientific assessments and
develop test protocols to determine the effi-
cacy and safety of products that can be used
against these potential biological threats and
to develop detection and decontamination
processes. To provide added protection, we
will work to educate our partners and the
public about these pesticides, strengthen the
certification and training program, and
improve storage and disposal procedures.

    To support homeland security,  EPA con-
ducts research in three main areas: building
decontamination, water security, and rapid
risk assessment.

    •   Research on decontamination of
        buildings will focus on methods and
        technologies for (1)  preventing,
        detecting,  and containing biological
        arid chemical agents intentionally
        introduced into large buildings or
        structures; (2) decontaminating
       building surfaces and content; and
       (.3) safely disposing of residual mate-
       rials. This work will result in more
       efficient and effective cleanup of
       contaminated buildings and preven-
       tion measures.

    *  Water security research will focus on
       enhanced methods for preventing,
       detecting, treating, and containing
       biological and chemical agents inten-
       tionally introduced into drinking-
       water and wastewater systems.

    •  Rapid risk assessment research will
       focus on developing practices and
       procedures that provide elected offi-
       cials, decision-makers,  the public, and
       first responders with rapid risk assess-
       ment protocols for chemical and
       biological threats. For more efficient
       emergency response, EPA will also
       inventory the Agency's, the federal
       government's, and the private sector's
       expertise to provide quick access to
       nationally recognized, highly special-
       ized experts in such homeland
       security areas as biology, chemistry,
       exposure assessment, and detection
       and treatment technologies.

    EPA will also provide technical expertise
to federal, state, and local governments and
to other institutions. We will use customized
situational analysis tools for emergency man-
agement that deliver secure, reliable, and
timely data access and communications to
on-scene coordinators, emergency response
teams, and field investigators.

-------
    EPA's ability to achieve its strategic
objectives depends on many factors over
which the Agency has only partial control or
little or no influ-
ence. Partnerships,
voluntary coopera-
tion, international
collaboration, glob-
al harmonization,
industry, economic
influences, industri-
al accidents,
natural disasters,
litigation, and leg-
islation play critical
roles, affecting the
Agency's results.
Changes in the
focus, level of effort, or status of any of these
components could affect the success of the
Agency's programs under Goal 4.
Consequently, EPA must consider these fac-
tors as it establishes annual performance
measures and targets.
    EPA depends on its partnerships with
other federal agencies, states, tribes, local
governments, and regulated parties to
achieve results. We use information from a
variety of federal, state, and international
organizations and agencies to protect our
health and our environment from hazardous
or higher-risk pesticides and toxics. We rely
especially on states as co-implementors of out-
Nation's environmental protection programs.

    The Brownfields Program, which partners
EPA with more than 21 agencies and depart-
ments as well as with local communities,
exemplifies the effectiveness of the collabora-
tive approach. Although  federal and state
programs may be in place to address the diffi-
cult issues communities face, too often the
programs operate in isolation. Successfully
bringing to bear the diverse expertise and
experience offered by collaborating agencies
will help make federal efforts more effective.
                        Similarly, local
                        action is key to the
                        success of EPA's
                        lead program,
                        which depends on
                        our state partners
                        to encourage home-
                        owners to correct
                        lead-based hazards
                        in their homes.
                        The lead program
                        also depends on
                        schools  and parents
                        to screen children
                        for high blood lev-
els of lead. Disrupting these partnerships will
significantly compromise our ability to
achieve our risk reduction goals.

    EPA often relies on such agencies as the
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, IJSDA, the U.S. Department of
Housing arid Urban Development (HUD),
COE, and FWS to carry out aspects of envi-
ronmental protection programs. The success
of EPA's lead program, for example, partly
depends on HUD's ability to renovate the
Nation's public housing. Annual or biannual
tracking of wetlands inventory information
will depend upon the ability of FWS arid/or
USDA to deliver national wetlands inventory
information more frequently. Similarly,
USDA's successful  implementation of the
Farm Bill's wetlands provisions is critical for
reducing wetland losses in rural  areas.

    As we rely on other federal  agencies  and
our state and local government partners,
EPA's pesticide programs depend, in part,
on the voluntary cooperation of the private
sector and the public. Farmers favor broad-
spectrum pesticides that are cheaper arid
easier to apply. While EPA reviews pesticides

-------
to ensure that they meet the current health
and safety standards, we have limited influ-
ence in the adoption of registered pesticides.
Thus once a pesticide is registered, it is diffi-
cult to predict how extensively it will be used.
    International collaboration, guideline
harmonization, information sharing, and
building other nations' capacity to reduce risk
also contribute to achieving our risk reduc-
tion goals. For example,  it will be essential for
both the United States and Mexico to invest
the necessary resources to achieve the goals
of the Border 2012 binational effort and to
collect the data needed to measure progress.

    Continued ecological improvement in
the Great Lakes will rely on local, state, fed-
eral, and the Canadian government's
participation in the Great Lakes Strategy
under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. Until invasive species can be
prevented from entering the Great Lakes
through cargo ships, they will likely continue
to impede the achievement of Great Lakes
ecosystem goals.
    Progress in reducing risks is often highly
dependent on industry's response to EPA
assistance and initiatives. EPA has no direct
control over the pace and volume at which
industry develops new chemicals or pesti-
cides; we primarily concentrate on providing
industry with tools, such as the PBT Profiler
and Pollution Prevention Framework, or
incentives, such as the priority review of
reduced-risk pesticides, to help screen out
high-risk chemicals before they are submitted
for EPA review. Voluntary programs, such as
the HPV Challenge Program, operate exclu-
sively on the basis of industry commitments
for participation. If industry fails to respond
to such initiatives, the Agency will be less
able to achieve effective new chemical
screening efficiently.
    Economic growth and changes in
producer and consumer behavior could also
influence the Agency's ability to achieve its
objectives over the coming years. New tech-
nology or unanticipated complexity or
magnitude of pollution problems could delay
our progress. Economic conditions  will affect
EPA's ability to achieve its brownfields objec-
tives, since the ability of grant recipients to
leverage needed cleanup and redevelopment
funding and to create jobs depends on eco-
nomic conditions external to EPA.

    Finally, large-scale accidental releases,
such as chemical spills, or rare catastrophic
natural events, such as hurricanes or large-
scale flooding, could hinder our ability to
achieve objectives in the short term. Newly
identified environmental problems and prior-
ities could have a similar effect on  long-term
goals. For example, pesticide use may be
affected by unanticipated pest infestations or
disease factors, which would require EPA to
review emergency uses to avoid unreasonable
risks to health or the environment.

-------
1.    Source citation for Mexico: Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome 2001.
2.    "Acre treatments" relate the use of a pesticide to the number of acres treated and the number of treatments
     applied. For example, treating 50 acres of a crop with a pesticide, then applying it a second time later in the
     growing season, yields 100 acre  treatments. Considering pesticide use in terms of acre treatment provides a bet-
     ter sense of exposure levels.
3.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. OECD S/DS Manual
     Sections 3.4 and 3.5. Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/sidsappb.htm, High
     Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program. Accessed August 28. 2003.
     Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). April 2003. Manual for Investigation of
     HPV Chemicals (SIDS Manual). Paris, France. Available online at http://www.oecd.org  (enter "HPV
     Chemicals") at the  search window. Accessed September 9, 2003.
4.    Under Section 5 of TSCA, EPA is mandated to determine whether "the manufacture,  processing, distribution
     in commerce,  use, or disposal of a 'new' chemical substance or any combination of such activities presents or
     may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." Methods for determining unreason-
     able risk under TSCA Section 5 are contained in an internal document that is not currently made available to
     the public. Information from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office (if Pollution Prevention ant]
     Toxics. New Chemicals Program: TSCA 5(e) Exposure-Based Policy: Criteria Web Site. Available online at:
     http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/exphased.htm. Accessed September 9, 2003.
5.    Investigations are underway for  baseline development by an internal EPA New Chemicals Program
     Performance workgroup. Results are expected by January 2004 and may be available  in the FY 2005 Annual
     Performance Plan to Congress submitted in late January 2004.
6.    U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency. February 2004. FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan Verification and
     Validation of Annual Performance Measures, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7.    Centers for Disease  Control, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination
     Survey:  1999-2002. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
     Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention. December 22, 2000. Blood Lead Levels in Young Children—
     United States and Selected States, 1996-1999.  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Volume 49, Number 50,
     page 1133. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4950a3.htm.  Date of access:
     September 24, 2003.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2004. FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan Verification and
     Validation of Annual Performance Measures. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
8.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2004. FY2005 Annual Performance Plan Verification and
     Validation of Annual Performance Measures. Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
     40 CFR 761.180(a) requires storers and disposers of PCB waste to submit an annual report to their respective
     regional offices. The annual report is based on a calendar year  but is not required until  the following July result-
     ing in a delay  in generation of the trend summary.  The regions send summaries of annual report data to
     Headquarters for generation of an annual report summary. Tliese data provide PCB disposal trends. Current
     information for the  last 3 years  (1999-2001)  indicate a downward trend in PCB disposal.
9.    Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. 2000. PCBs in the Russian Federation: Inventory  and Proposals for
     Priority Remedial Actions (AMAP Report 2000.3). Moscow: Center for International  Projects.
10.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. December 1999,  Biennial  Report, FY
     199811999. EPA 735-R-99-02. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11.  Federal Food,  Drug  and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), Sec
     408(a)(2)(B).
12.  Toxic Substances Control Act Section 5: Manufacturing and Processing Notices,  Public Law 94-469, October
     11, 1976.
13.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. PBT Profiler Web Site,
     http://www.PBTProfiler.net. Washington, DC. Accessed September 3, 2003.
     U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Pollution Prevention (P2)
     Framework Web Site, http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2framework/. Washington, DC. Accessed September 9, 2003.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. January 2003. Pollution
     Prevention (P2) Framework. EPA-748-B-03-OOI. Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

-------
14.  67 Federal Register 76282. December 11, 2002. "Sustainable Futures" U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.  Pollution Prevention (P2) Framework Web Site,
     http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2framework/. Washington, DC. Accessed September 9, 2003.
15.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. High Production Volume
     (HPV) Challenge Program Web Site, http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/volchall.htm. Washington, DC. Accessed
     September 9, 2003.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Data Collection and
     Development on High Production Volume  (HPV) Chemicals. EPA OPPTS-42213; AR-201; FRL-6754-6.
     Available online at http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/ts42213.htm.
16.  National Research Council. 2001. Standing Operation Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
     for Hazardous Chemicals, Washington, UC:  National Academy Press.
17.  Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. 2003. National Health and Nutrition Examination
     Survey: 1999-2002. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/htm or at http://www.cdc.gov/
     nchs/about/major/nhanes/datalink.htm#1999. Washington, DC. Date of access: September 24, 2003.
18.  Octel Worldvjide Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Survey. 1998. Octel.
19.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Agency for International Development. Publication 160-B-99-001.
20.  Public Lavj 107-118, Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, 2002.
21.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.-Mexico Border Program, Border 2012 Program Web .Site,
     http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/.
22.  Beach, Dana. 2002. Coastal Sprawl:  The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States.
     Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission. Available online at http://www.pewoceans.org/reports/
     water_pollution__sprawl.pdf.
23.  The means and strategies outlined here for  achieving Sub-objective 4.3.1  must be viewed in tandem with the
     means and strategies outlined under  Goal 2, Objective 2, Sub-objective 2.2.2, "Improve Ocean and Coastal
     Waters." Sub-objective 2.2.2 contains strategic targets for EPA's vessel discharge, dredged material management,
     and ocean disposal programs, which  are integral to the Agency's efforts to facilitating the ecosystem-scale pro-
     tection and restoration of natural areas.
24.  Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the
     Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available online at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/
     wetloss/wetloss.htm.
25.  Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United. Stales, 1986 to 1997.  Washington, DC:
     U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available online at http://wetlands.fws.gov/
     bha/SandT/SandTReport.htrnl, Report to Congress on the Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous
     United States,  1986 to  1997.
26.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. December 26, 2002. National
     Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan and Wetlands Mitigation Regulatory Guidance Letter. Available online at
     http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/mapl226withsign.pdf, EPA Office of Water.
27.  U.S. Policy Committee for the Great Lakes. April 2002. A Strategic Plan for the. Great Lakes Ecosystem..
     Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/glsvideotest.html.
28.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. First signed in 1972 and
     Renewed in 1978. The  Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Washington, DC. Available online at
     http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwqa/index.html.
29.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. April 1997. The Great Lakes
     Emotional Toxics Strategy. Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/p2/bns.html.
30.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program. June 2000. Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.
     Annapolis, Maryland. Available online at http://chesapeakebay.net/pubs/chesapeake2000agreement.pdf.
31.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program. April 2003. Acres of Bay Grasses,
     Annapolis, Maryland. Available online at http://chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=88.
32.  EPA's water quality protection programs are discussed under Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water.
33.  Damstra. T, S. Barlow,  A. Bergman, R.Kavlock, and G. Van der Kraak World Health Organization. 2002.
     Global Assessment of the State-of-the-Science  of Endocrine Disruptors. International Programme on Chemical
     .Safety. Available online at http://www.who.int/pcs/emerg_site/edc/global_edc__toc.htm.
34.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Research Directions: Multi-Year
     Plans Web Site, http://www.epa.gov/osp/rnyp.htm.

-------

-------

-------
liHiiiiiiiiii
    This goal is designed to protect human health and the
environment by improving environmental behavior
through regulatory and nonregulatory
means.  Under this goal, EPA will
work to ensure that government,
business, and, the public meet federal
environmental requirements and will
empower and assist them to do more.
EPA programs designed to ensure
compliance with federal environmen-
tal laws and regulations, to increase
voluntary and self-directed actions to
minimize or eliminate pollution before
it is generated (pollution prevention),
and to promote environmental stew-
ardship  behavior all contribute to the
achievement of this goal.
    EPA uses the term "environmental stewardship" to
describe  behavior that includes, but also exceeds, required

 iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiili
iiiiiiiiiiii
compliance. Stewards of die environment recycle wastes to
the greatest extent possible, minimize or eliminate pollution at
                  its sources, and use energy and natural
                  resources efficiently to reduce impacts
                  on the environment. Under this goal,
                  EPA will strive to use science and
                  research more strategical^ and effective-
                  ly to inform Agency policy decisions and
                  to guide compliance, pollution preven-
                  tion, and environmental stewardship
                  efforts. Finally. EPA will work to pro-
                  vide necessary environmental protection
                  to the Nation's tribes and will assist
                  them in building the capacity to imple-
                  ment environmental programs where
                  needed and feasible.
       iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

-------
                                     Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Objective 5.1 Improve Compliance
OBJECTIVE 5,1: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE

BY 200B? MAm-RZE- COMPLIANCE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
BNĄmONl-4BNT THROUGH CCMFllANCE ASSISTANCE, COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES* AM>
ENFORCFMBNT BY ACH.OiVPNC? A 5 PERCENT INCREASE INf THE POUN'DS OP POLLUTION
REDUCED, TREATEO? OH EE1MPNATF1V AND ACHIEVING A ^ PERCENT LNCREAEE IN THE
NUMBEE OP BEOULATEO EN11TCES MAKING IMEEOWMSNTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL
        MENT PE ACT HITS/ (BASELINE TO PE  DEI1?.RM!:NEO FOR 1003.)
   MEANS AND STR&TEOIES
   ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 5
    Environmental laws and regulations are
designed to protect human health and safe-
guard the environment. But they can achieve
their purpose only when companies and facil-
ities comply with requirements. Companies
or facilities that do not comply with statutory
or regulatory requirements can gain an unfair
economic advantage over those that invest
the resources necessary to comply. EPA works
cooperatively with state, local, and tribal
agencies to secure and maintain compliance
by the maximum number of the Nation's 41
million regulated entities.6 Ib reduce non-
compliance and the
environmental risks
that can result, EPA
and its partners
provide compliance
assistance to promote
understanding of
environmental
regulations; offer
incentives that
encourage facilities
to identify violations;
monitor compliance
through inspections
and investigations;
and conduct civil and criminal enforcement
actions to correct violations and deter future
noncompliance. By  combining these tools
appropriately to address specific problems, we
and our partners can prevent and reduce pol-
lution, thereby protecting human health and
the environment.
Sub-objective 5.1,1s Compliance
Assistance, By 2008, prevent rioricompliance
or reduce environmental risks through EPA
compliance assistance by achieving: a
5 percentage point increase in the percent of
regulated entities that improve their under-
standing of environmental requirements; a
5 percent increase in the number of regulated
entities that improve environmental manage-
ment practices; and a 5 percentage point
increase in the percent of regulated entities
that reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution,
(Baseline to be determined for 2005.5)

Sub-objective 5.1.2: Compliance
Incentives, By 2008. identify and correct
noncompliance and reduce environmental
risks through a 5 percentage point increase in
the percent of facilities that use EPA incen-
tive policies to conduct environmental audits
or other actions that reduce, treat,  or elimi-
nate pollution or improve environmental
management practices, (Baseline to be
determined for 2005.4)

Sub-objective 5.1,3; Monitoring; and
Enforcement. By  2008, identify, correct, and
deter noncompliance and reduce environmen-
tal risks through monitoring and enforcement
by achieving: a 5 percent increase in comply-
ing  actions taken  during inspections; a
5 percentage point increase in the percent  of
enforcement actions requiring that pollutants
be reduced, treated, or eliminated; and a
5 percentage point increase in the percent  of
enforcement actions requiring improvement of
environmental management practices.
(Baseline to be determined for 2005.5)

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
     iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!
     iilliilflilllllllll
     iiiiiiiii^
     :||fif|||f|||||i|f|^^
     :|ff|||li|f|||$|||^^
     illlliiip^
     ilfpliliiM
     lllllllllP^
     llllllliB^
     iiiiiiiiiiB
     liilltlliil^^^
     lilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
     iiiiiililliiiliilB
     !i$|;||||||$|||||i^^
     lilllillllll^^
     liliiiliiiililillilliililliliiiillillliliiiiliil
                         IllJil^lfllllliJlill:
                         gil;:|||:;liii;:;:ii:i:
     iliilllllillli
                   We will continue to improve our working
               relationships with state, local, arid tribal
               environmental compliance programs to pro-
               duce maximum compliance by regulated
               facilities. Specifically, EPA will (1) work with
               states to ensure a consistent level of effort in
               state enforcement and compliance assurance
               programs; (2) expand the role of its partners
               in identifying national priorities for the fed-
               eral enforcement and compliance assurance
               programs; (3) better integrate strategic plan-
               ning efforts at the state, regional, and
               national levels; (4) share information about
               patterns of noncompliance or emerging risks
               which need to be addressed; and (5) explore
               development of common performance meas-
               ures for state enforcement and compliance
               assurance programs.

                   The four elements of EPA's compliance
               program—assistance, incentives, monitoring
               and enforcement-	are described in more
               detail below.
    Ib assist regulated facilities in complying
with environmental regulations, EPA will
continue to use a mix of tools and strategies
to address particular compliance problems
that exist in specific industrial, commercial,
and government sectors or that are associated
with certain regulatory requirements. We will
continue to partner with state and local gov-
ernments and to collaborate with trade
associations to equip those working directly
with the regulated community with compli-
ance information. We will continue to serve
as a national repository and point of contact
for information and materials. Our 13 virtual
Compliance Assistance Centers will provide
assistance directly to the regulated communi-
ty. We will also interact directly with
regulated entities through training, on-site
visits, and workshops, and we will assess the
results of our assistance efforts.7

    The Agency's partnership activities also
include a compliance assistance exchange
forum for sharing information on best prac-
tices, outcome measurement, and new
compliance assistance materials; an inter-
agency roundtable of representatives from
federal compliance assistance programs; and a
clearinghouse of compliance assistance mate-
rials available from federal, state, arid local
governments; academia; and trade associa-
tions.8 We will continue to publicize our
compliance assistance efforts to help the  reg-
ulated community anticipate and prevent
violations of federal environmental laws that
could lead to enforcement actions.
    EPA offers a suite of incentives to
encourage government, industry, and business
facilities to assess their overall compliance
with environmental requirements and volun-
tarily correct and report compliance
problems. The Agency will continue to make
the Audit Policy (Self-Policing Policy)3 and

-------
                                      Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Objective 5.1 Improve Compliance
other compliance incentives available to the
regulated community, including reduced
penalties for violations, extended time for
correction, and potentially fewer or less fre-
quent inspections. EPA also encourages
owners of multiple facilities to disclose envi-
ronmental violations because such disclosures
encourage these regulated
entities to review their
operations more compre-
hensively, providing a
greater overall benefit to
the environment.
                   EPA uses monitoring and enforcement
                activities—inspections, civil and criminal
                investigations, administrative actions, and
                civil and criminal judicial enforcement—to
EPAs compliance program consists  of assistance
incentives, monitoring, and enforcement.
    We will continue to
work with stakeholders to improve opportu-
nities for industries voluntarily to
self-disclose and correct violations. The
Small Business Compliance Policy has
recently been modified to encourage greater
participation by small businesses/0 As part of
the marketing and outreach it conducts to
support this approach, EPA will work with
small business compliance assistance
providers to develop tools small businesses
can use to understand applicable environ-
mental requirements  and take advantage of
the flexibility offered by the policy. EPA also
will continue to encourage states to adopt
and communities to use the policy.
                identify the most egregious violators and
                return them to compliance as quickly as pos-
                sible. Federal environmental regulations
                establish a baseline for consistent compliance
                levels nationwide. States that have been del-
                egated responsibilities for specific programs
                may make these baseline standards more
                stringent and enforce against the more strin-
                gent standards.11

                   We will continue to base our compliance
                monitoring and enforcement efforts on
                inspections, investigations, and enforcement
                actions carried out by the Agency and out-
                state, tribal, and local government regulatory
                partners. To address the most significant risks
                to human health and the environment,
                including disproportionate burdens on cer-
                tain populations, we will target inspections,
                civil investigations, and criminal investiga-
                tions to achieve the greatest reduction in
                pollution. For example, we and our partners
                review  compliance data, the results of inspec-
                tions and investigations,  and citizen "tips"
                and complaints to target those areas that
                present high rates of noncompliance and sig-
                nificant risks to human health and the
                environment.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
              OBJECTIVE 5.2s IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
              THROUGH POLLUTION PREVENTION
              AND INNOVATION

              BY 200B? IMPROVE EN'VrRO^MB'&IAL FROIMHION' AM) ENHANCE NATURAL K^OUKCB
              CONSERVATION OK THE M&T OF GOVEBNMENi; BUSINESS, AND THE PUBLIC THROUGH
              THE  ADOPTION OF POLLUI1ON PREVTi&llON ANfP Si;8TA!:Nr.'\BLB PRACTICES THAT
              r&CLUDE THE DBSKON OF PRODUCTS AND ^AN'UFACTURING PEOOBS&&8 THAI
              CINBIATB LESS EOI,iOAEIO?^ THE BEOUCTION OE EEOUiATOB.1 BAIMER^ AND THE
              ADOPTION OF RFSU'LT^FASKO, SNK'OV.'YriVF, AN'D MIJirriMEDlA APPROACHES*
              Sub-objective 5.2,1s Prevent Pollution and
              Promote Environmental Stewardship by
              Government and the Public. Through 2008,
              reduce pollution and improve environmental
              stewardship practices of all levels of govern-
              ment. Demonstrate how government
              agencies can serve as stewards of the environ-
              ment and assist them in meeting their
              responsibilities under the National
              Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Raise
              the public's awareness of actions it can take
              to prevent pollution.

              Strategic. Targets*.
                  •   By 2006, reduce Toxic Release
                     Inventory (TRI)-reported toxic chemi-
                     cal releases at federal facilities by 40
                     percent, from a baseline year of 2001.'2

                  •   By 2008, EPA will go beyond compli-
                     ance with executive orders to "green"
                     federal government operations in its
                     purchases of "green" products and
                     services from a baseline year of 2002."

                  •   By 2008, all federal agencies will have
                     defined Environmentally Preferable
       Purchasing programs and policies in
       place and will be expanding their
       purchases of available "green" prod-
       ucts and services, from a baseline of
       one federal agency in 2002.'4

    •   Through 2008, 70 percent of signifi-
       cant impacts identified by  EPA during
       the NEPA review of all major pro-
       posed federal actions are mitigated.

    •   Through 2008, 90 percent of EPA
       projects subject to NEPA
       Environmental Assessment or
       Environmental Impact Statement
       requirements result in a finding of no
       significant environmental  impact.

Sub-objective 5,2.2: Prevent Pollution and
Promote Environmental Stewardship by
Business, Through 2008, reduce pollution
and improve environmental stewardship prac-
tices in business operations by adopting more
efficient, sustainable, and protective policies,
practices, materials, and technologies.
                                                               By 2008, reduce by 40 percent TRI
                                                               chemical releases to the environment
                                                               from the business sector per unit of
                                                               production ("Clean Index"), and
                                                               reduce by 20 percent TRI chemicals
                                                               in production-related wastes generat-
                                                               ed by the business sector per unit of
                                                               production ("Green Index"), from
                                                               the  baseline year of 2001.lr>

-------
                        Compliarice and Environmental Stewardship—Objective 5.2 Improve Environmental Performance
    •   By 2008, reduce waste minimization
        priority7 list chemicals in hazardous
        waste streams reported by businesses to
        TRI by 50 percent from 1991 levels.

    •   By 2008, reduce pollution by 76 bil-
        lion pounds, conserve 360 billion
        BTUs of energy and 2.7 billion gal-
        lons of water, and save $400 million,
        from a baseline year of 2003.16

    •   By 2008, reduce 165 thousand metric
        tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emis-
        sions through the Green Chemistry
        Challenge Awards,  from  a baseline
        year of 1996.!7

Sub-objective 5,2.3; Business and
Comimmity Innovation. Through 2008,
achieve measurably improved environmental
performance through sector-based approach-
es, performance-based programs,  and
assistance to small business.

Strategic, T&ygetAt
    •   By 2008, Performance Track mem-
        bers collectively will achieve an
        annual reduction of: 1.5 billion
        gallons in water use; 3,300,000
        MMBTUs in energy use; 25,000 tons
        in materials use; 450,000 tons of solid
        waste; 10,000 tons of air  releases; arid
        19,000 tons in water discharges com-
        pared to 2001.!ii
    •   Through 2008, the  Sector Strategies
        Program will work with participating
        business and service sectors to
        achieve aggregate reductions in envi-
        ronmental impacts  of 15  percent in
        water use, energy use, waste genera-
        tion or disposal, air releases, or water-
        discharges. (Improvements will be
        measured from  baselines  selected in
        2004 for individual  sectors.)

Sub-objective 5.2.4: Environmental Policy
Innovation. Through 2008, achieve measura-
bly improved environmental and economic
outcomes by testing, evaluat-
ing, and applying alternative
approaches to environmental
protection in states, compa-
nies, and communities. This
work will be targeted at
improving the cost effective-
ness and efficiency for
regulatory agencies as well as
regulated entities.
    •  By 2008, facilities that
       partner to demon-
       strate alternative
       regulatory or techno-
       logical approaches will
       collectively achieve
       an environmental improvement of
       10 percent in water use, energy use,
       waste generation or disposal, air
       releases, or water discharges, or an
       increase of 10 percent in cost effec-
       tiveness or efficiency while achieving
       equal or improved environmental
       results.  (Improved environmental
       performance from alternative
       approaches will be measured against
       the baseline year in which each proj-
       ect is initiated.19)

    •  By 2008, state projects conducted
       under the State Innovation Grant
       Program, Environmental Results
       Program, and the Joint EPA/State
       Agreement to Pursue Regulatory
       Innovation will collectively achieve
       an environmental improvement of
       15 percent in water and energy use,
       waste generation or disposal, releases
       of contaminants into the air or water,
       or habitat quality, or an increase of
       15 percent in cost effectiveness or
       efficiency while achieving equal or
       improved environmental results.
       (Improved environmental perform-
       ance from alternative approaches will
       be measured against the baseline year
       in which each project is initiated/0)

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
               MEANi AND STRATEGIES FOE
               ACHIEVING OBJECTIVE 5*2

               Pollution Prevention

                   The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
               establishes pollution prevention as a "national
               objective" and the pollution prevention hier-
               archy as national policy.71 The Act declares
               that pollution should be prevented or reduced
               at the source wherever feasible; that pollution
               that cannot be prevented should be recycled
               in an environmentally safe manner; and that,
               in the absence of feasible prevention or recy-
               cling opportunities, pollution should be
               treated. Disposal or other release into the
               environment should be used as a last resort.

                                 EPA intends to achieve its
                             pollution prevention goals
                             through voluntary partner-
                             ships. The Agency will  work
                             with industry to build pollu-
                             tion prevention  into the
                             design of manufacturing
                             processes and products and
                             will team with states, tribes,
                             and governments at all  levels
                             to find simple, voluntary, and
                             cost-effective pollution  pre-
                             vention solutions. EPA  will
                             promote the principles of
                             responsible stewardship, sus-
                             tainability, and accountability
                             in developing approaches  to
                             prevent pollution.

                           fMy Pr&j&mhlR  Purchasing

                   Executive Order 13101 mandates that
               EPA assist executive agencies in making pur-
               chasing decisions that minimize damage to the
               environment.22 The Agency established the
               Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  (EPP)
               program to provide guidance and carry out a
               variety of initiatives and outreach activities for
               a wide constituency, including federal agen-
               cies.2'' Under the EPP program, EPA will help
               purchasers conduct thorough life-cycle analy-
               ses to identify those products that generate the
least pollution, consume fewest nonreriewable
natural resources, and are least threatening to
human health and to wildlife. Our strategy
harnesses the purchasing power of government
to stimulate demand for "greener" products
and services, thereby  fostering manufacturing
changes. We will identify environmental per-
formance standards by which products can be
evaluated (e.g., criteria and standards to evalu-
ate chemical cleaning products and their
impacts on the environment). The Agency
will also invest in the development of tools,
such as life-cycle analysis tools, that businesses
and purchasers can use to identify key envi-
ronmental attributes and evaluate the
environmental performance of products. In
developing and distributing these tools, we
will coordinate and cooperate with businesses,
states, tribes, and environmental groups and
will rely on the expertise of other federal agen-
cies, such as the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.

Biab&sed Products and Energy

    Under Executive Order 13134 and the
Farm Bill,2* EPA has  an important role in
developing and promoting biobased products
and energy. Biobased products are made from
renewable agricultural, animal, or forestry
materials, such as vegetable-based lubricants,
biofuels, and compost.  The Order sets a goal
of tripling U.S. use of bioenergy and bioprod-
ucts by 2010. To meet  this goal, EPA will
work closely with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture not only to promote the use of
these renewable resources, but also to ensure
that they protect the environment.

Pollution Prevention Stats Qrant Program
    EPA remains committed to helping indus-
try further prevent pollution by adopting more
efficient, sustainable,  and protective business
practices, materials, and technologies. A vital
component of our strategy is the continuation
of the Pollution Prevention State Grant pro-
gram.2' Annually, EPA provides $6 million to
states ancl tribes to support their efforts to pro-
vide industry with technical assistance,

-------
                           Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Objective 5.2 Improve Environmental Performance
information sharing, and outreach. The grants
also support promising, innovative ideas for
preventing pollution. Finally, states will
require adequate resources dedicated to pollu-
tion prevention to implement strategies
successfully. EPA will monitor state resource
levels and work with states to expand resource
commitments for pollution prevention.

Pollution Prevention at Federal Facilities

    Apart from its work with business, the
Agency will continue to target prevention of
hazardous chemical releases and wastes gener-
ated by federal facilities. Working  with the
states, in coordination with other federal
agencies, and armed with pollution prevention
tools,  technologies, and data generated
through TR1, we will work to reduce toxic
chemical releases at federal facilities by 40 per-
cent (from a 2001 baseline) by 2006.26 To help
achieve this goal, and to continue reducing
other  environmental impacts at federal facili-
ties, we will promote the use of environmental
management systems (EMSs) under Executive
Order 13148.27 These systems help to address
environmental impacts through measured
problem identification and response, rather
than crisis management. Leading by example,
EPA will be implementing EMSs at 34 of its
own facilities.
Qr&e.n Chemistry
                             CHEMISTRY
    EPA's Green
Chemistry Program23
supports research and fosters development and
implementation of innovative chemical tech-
nologies to prevent pollution in a scientifically
sound, cost-effective manner. Through volun-
tary partnerships with academia, industry, and
other government agencies, Green Chemistry
supports fundamental research in environmen-
tally benign chemistry and provides a variety
of educational and  international activities,
including sponsoring conferences and meet-
ings and developing tools. The Presidential
Green Chemistry Challenge Award program
recognizes superior achievement in die design
of chemical products.

                                                        ;||||||^
                                                  !iili!ll
                                                   ll!!^
                                                   illil^^
                                                   llililtll^
                                                   lllB
                                                   iiiji^
                                                  illiliJ!!!!!!!!
                                                   i|||||i|;|t||||||^
                                                   i||||i||i||$|i|p
                                                liliiiilllllliilllliliililliii
                                              Qreen Engineering and .Design for the
    Traditionally, engineering approaches to
pollution prevention have been focused on
waste minimization and have riot addressed
such risk factors as exposure, fate, and toxicity.
EPA's Green Engineering (GE) program29 pro-
motes consideration of these factors in the
design, commercialization, and use of chemical
products and the development of feasible,
economical processes that minimize generation
of pollution at the source. A goal of the GE
program is to incorporate "green" or
environmentally conscious thinking
and approaches in the daily work of
engineers, especially of chemical and
environmental engineers. Similarly,
EPA's Design for the Environment
(DfE) Industry Partnership Program30
promotes integration of cleaner, cheaper, and
smarter pollution prevention solutions into
everyday business practices. DfE will continue
to work with industry sectors to reduce risks to
human health and the environment, improve
performance, and save costs associated with
existing and alternative pollution prevention
technologies or processes.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
                                  and Recovery

                   To reduce priority chemicals in hazardous
               wastes going to landfills, EPA will focus on
               key waste streams and waste generators
                               through a variety of mecha-
                               nisms, including the Waste
                               Minimization Partnership
                               Program (part of the
                               Agency's Resource
                               Conservation Challenge, or
                               RCC). This program encour-
                               ages  EPA, state and local
                               governments, manufacturers,
                               and other nongovernmental
                               organizations to form volun-
                               tary partnerships to reduce
               the generation of hazardous wastes containing
               any of 30 priority chemicals. Companies that
               become Waste Minimization Partners are pub-
               licly recognized for their contribution to the
               national reduction goal. In 2003, EPA worked
               with a limited number of Charter Members in
               a pilot effort to ensure that all aspects of the
               program were operating smoothly. EPA will
               now be  accepting applications from additional
               companies that meet membership criteria,
               with the goal of recruiting 100 new partners,
               including Fortune 500 companies and small
               businesses, over the next 5 years. Our primary
               goal, however, will remain not the number of
               program participants, but the reductions in
               chemical wastes that can be achieved.

                   The RCC also focuses on recovering
               materials and energy,  either by converting
               wastes into products and energy directly or as
               a result  of process and product redesigns that
               produce these benefits. We will closely coor-
               dinate our RCC efforts with the Agency's
               other pollution prevention activities, poten-
               tially revising our strategies or targets to focus
               on materials and energy recovery through
               recycling when source reduction is not a fea-
               sible solution. The Agency is also working
               with its partners to identify additional goals
               that will reflect our expanded effort, begin-
               ning in  2003, to increase recovery of
               materials and energy and reduce releases of
               priority  chemicals in waste. We expect these
new goals to be in place by 2004, as the pro-
gram becomes fully operational.
EPA is committed to developing and promot-
ing innovative strategies that achieve better
environmental results, reduce costs, and
reward stewardship. In collaboration with its
state and tribal partners, the Agency will
continue to focus its efforts on innovations
that will assist small businesses and commu-
nities in improving  both their environmental
performance and their bottom lines. EPA has
prepared an Innovations Strategy to guide
our efforts in this and other areas. The strate-
gy relies on continued outreach to states,
tribes, and business  to help identify innova-
tive approaches that merit testing,
evaluation, and implementation.
    EPA will continue to advance environ-
mental protection through innovative and
collaborative approaches with business and
other governmental entities. EPA's National
Environment Performance Track program, for
example, recognizes and rewards superior
environmental performance and motivates
improvement. Through Performance Track,
the Agency will continue to recruit high-per-
forming facilities that have the
environmental policies and management sys-
tems needed to deliver better results and will
create mechanisms and resources for sharing
information that can help other Performance
Track members and prospective members
improve their performance.

    Under its Sector Performance Improve-
ment Program, EPA tailors environmental
performance improvement efforts to particular
industry sectors. The Agency will continue
to select sectors based on criteria, such  as their
impact on national and regional priorities,
trade association interest, arid facility-level
EMS development. The Agency will designate

-------
                           Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Objective 5.2 Improve Environmental Performance
a staff liaison with expertise on the sector to
develop and maintain partnerships and facili-
tate quick responses to sector-specific
questions and issues. Through its website, the
Agency will also continue to provide an array
of sector-specific information on pollution pre-
vention, voluntary partnerships, best practices,
sector performance, and other topics.

Improving Environmental Protection Policy
    To foster innovation in environmental
protection, the Agency reaches out to states,
tribes, businesses, and others to identify new
approaches that merit further testing, develop-
ment, and potential dissemination. Over the
next 5 years. EPA plans to test and demon-
strate various innovations. In partnership with
states and industry, and through programs and
agreements that have been created since the
mid-1990s, we will focus on priority environ-
mental problems to improve environmental
protection while increasing efficiency and cost
savings. For example, the State Innovation
Grant Program will fund projects that use
innovative approaches to permitting. The pro-
gram will broaden its solicitation of state and
tribal projects and will continue to provide
direct assistance on a number of the most
promising projects. The Agency also will con-
tinue to collect, review, approve, and help
implement state proposals through the Joint
EPA/State Agreement to Pursue Regulatory
Innovation.

    EPA will continue to promote promising
innovations that provide for the use of more
flexible  and performance-based regulation.
multimedia approaches, incentives for superior
performance, market-based approaches, public
involvement processes, and programs tailored
for small sources. In some cases these improve-
ments will be brought about through changes
in national rules or policies; in others, they
may occur through a more gradual process of
adopting new techniques across states or
Agency programs. EPA will facilitate these
processes by encouraging Agency, state, and
tribal staff to submit innovative  ideas and sug-
gestions to  a central point; using the Agency's
Innovation Action Council as a forum to
obtain senior-level endorsement of promising
innovations; identifying pilot projects that can
be mined for "lessons learned"; holding nation-
al symposia during which federal, state, and
tribal officials can share information and expe-
riences; and using web-based tools to
disseminate information about ongoing proj-
ects to Agencv staff and management.
    EPA actions that are subject to NEPA
requirements include wastewater and drinking-
water treatment plant construction and other
grants, EPA-issued new-source water discharge
permits, and EPA facility construction. For
actions that may impact the environment,
EPA prepares either an environmental assess-
ment that supports a finding of no significant
impact or an environmental impact statement.
The Agency will continue to comply fully
with NEPA requirements and to implement
mitigation measures to ensure that EPA-spon-
sored activities  result in no significant
environmental impact.
    Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act requires
EPA to review and make
public its comments on
other federal agencies'
environmental impact
statements. EPA per-
forms this role in
consultation with the
White House Council on
Environmental  Quality.
EPA also promotes envi-
ronmental stewardship by establishing strong
working relationships with other agencies. For
example, EPA helps other agencies scope out
their environmental impact statements; assists
them in developing projects to  avoid environ-
mental impacts; supports streamlined
environmental review processes; participates in
rotational assignment programs; participates in
interagency work groups; and provides training
and guidance.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
               OBJECTIVE 5,3: BUILD TRIBAL CAPACITY
                      GH 200B? Ammr ALL Ł&.OERALLY R^COGN^SD TRISES IN ASSESSING THE
               CONDITION OF THEIR ENVIRONMENT, HBLF IN BUILBINC THEIR CAPACITY TO
               IMPLEMENT ENTUiONMIiNTAL PROGRAMS WBIiRE WELDED TO IMPHOVg. TRIBAL HEALTH
               AND &NYD?
-------
                                      Compliance ami Environmental Stewardship—Objective 5,3 Build Tribal Capacity
Bureau of Reclamation, arid Indian Health
Service) to create an integrated, comprehen-
sive, multi-agency Tribal Enterprise
Architecture. This interactive system will
allow tribes and EPA regional offices to supply
management information that supplements
data collected by the national tribal systems.

    In addition, EPA will develop Strategic
Plan Tracking Systems (Government
Performance and Results Act [GPRAj tracking
systems) to follow progress in achieving tribal
objectives, sub-objectives, and strategic targets
on a real-time basis. The Agency will use data
available through the Iribal Enterprise
Architecture and allied GPRA tracking sys-
tems to adjust approaches and activities as
necessary to achieve improved results on tribal
lands and to report to the tribes on the
Agency's progress. Ihese tools will also help
EPA determine the resources and skills needed
over the 5-year cycle of the Strategic Plan.

    Consultation and direct partnerships with
tribes are integral to EPA's strategy. The Tribal
Caucus, which has advised the Agency on
tribal issues for several years, will serve as the
focal point for work under this objective and
will help facilitate continued development of
EPA-tribal partnerships. To improve the envi-
ronment in Indian country, the Agency will
also engage other EPA-sponsored tribal
groups, such as the Tribal Committee of the
Forum on  State and Tribal Toxics Action,39
the Tribal  Pesticides Program Council,40 and
the Tribal  Science Council;11
OBJECTIVE 5.4? ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
           2008, STRKMrragN THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND
S4;f PORTIKG ENVIRONMENTAL P0UCIES AXP DECISIONS ON COMPtCANCB,
         ION f >-WD ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDS I IS.R
Sub-objective 5.4.1: Strengthening Science.
By 2008, all (100 percent of) routine
National Enforcement Investigations Center
environmental measurements (field or
laboratory) will be accredited by an interna-
tionally recognized, third-party organization.
(FY 2001 baseline: 30 areas of environmental
data collection.42)

Sub-objective 5,4.2; Conducting Research.
Conduct leacling-edge, sound scientific
research on pollution prevention, new tech-
nology development, socioeconornics, and
decision-making. By 2008, the products of
this research will be independently recog-
nized as providing critical and key evidence
in informing Agency policies and decisions
and solving problems for the Agency and its
partners. (Also see Research, under Cross-
Agency and Support-Program Evaluations in
Appendix 2 of this Strategic Plan.)
   MEANS AND STRATEGIES FOR
               OBJECTIVE $A
    EPA is working to strengthen the science
that it needs to make sound decisions and
establish effective compliance arid enforce-
ment policies. The Agency is continuing to
conduct research on pollution prevention,
new and developing technologies, social and

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
               economic issues, and decision-making. We
               will use the results of these studies to develop
               products and tools that EPA, its partners, and
               stakeholders can use to promote energy and
               natural resource conservation, pollution pre-
               vention, recycling, and other aspects of
               environmental stewardship. Besides benefit-
               ting the Agency and its partners, advancing
               science and research will also help clarify
               requirements and expectations for members
               of the regulated community and will provide
               tools and strategies to help them meet those
               requirements.
                                         EPA's science
                                     work under Goal 5
                                     has a two-fold pur-
                                     pose: ( 1 ) to improve
               the science that supports compliance moni-
               toring, inspections, investigations, case
               support, and selected regulations; and (2) to
               continue to provide premier investigatory
               work to support the Agency's enforcement
               and compliance assistance activities. To
               accomplish these ends, EPA's National
               Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)W
               and EPA regional laboratories will implement
               a nationally arid/or internationally recognized
               quality system that provides for third-party
               oversight and features both technical/
               scientific and the forensic elements of envi-
               ronmental data collection and measurement.
               Through NEIC and our regional  laboratories,
               we will also work to improve field and labo-
               ratory measurement techniques and to
               advance innovative analytical approaches to
               support compliance and enforcement efforts.
                   EPA will work with its partners and
               stakeholders to identify research needs, set
               priorities, and develop project plans. We will
               concentrate on (1) research that will help
identify best practices and approaches that
promote, at a minimum, compliance with all
regulatory requirements and (2) research that
may yield innovative approaches to improve
performance and results in such areas as pol-
lution prevention and sustainable
development.

    For example, over the next 5 years
the Agency's Office of Research and
Development will conduct research and pre-
pare reports and assessments on renewable
resources, metal processing fluids, fuel cells,
and buildings. We will share these products
with industry, academia, and other agencies
to further their  work in preventing pollution.

    Other research efforts will result in four
generic, sustainable environmental system
methodologies for watershed management
(using market incentives, ecological food-web
models, hydrological models, and pest resist-
ance management frameworks);  an evaluation
of the effectiveness and efficiency of market-
based incentive approaches, as compared to
traditional environmental regulation;  and
efforts to make innovative environmental
technologies commercially available, such as
technologies EPA would use for building
decontamination and water security.

    EPA has developed Multi-Year Research
Plans that describe the research we will con-
duct on pollution prevention and new
technologies and on economics  and decision
sciences during  the next 5 to 10 years. The
plans lay out long-term research goals as  well
as the annual milestones needed to achieve
these goals/14

Polh-itifm Prevention and Nea; 'lechn&lagies
    Over the last decade, the Agency has
increasingly focused on pollution prevention
in addressing high-risk human health and
environmental problems. A preventive
approach requires (1) innovative design and
production techniques that minimize or elim-
inate adverse environmental impacts; (2)
holistic approaches that make the most of

-------
                                        Compliance ami Environmental Stewardship—5,4 Enhance Science and Research
our air, water, and land resources; and (3)
fundamental changes in how goods and serv-
ices are created and delivered to consumers.

    As part of its multi-year plan, EPA has
established long-term goals for pollution pre-
vention and new technologies research. These
goals focus on developing tools, technologies,
and sustainable environmental systems
approaches and on continuing to prevent and
control pollution by targeting sources and sec-
tors that pose the greatest risks to human
health and the environment. For example,
this research will provide credible performance
data for commercial environmental technolo-
gies to aicl vendors in marketing innovative
technologies, buyers in making purchasing
decisions,  and permitters in making decisions
about environmental technologies. Research
results can assist EPA and states  in improving
compliance performance by providing infor-
mation and tools for cleaner, cost-effective
industrial processes and new technologies and
verifying the performance of commercial tech-
nologies. Research results will also provide
technical options and alternatives for improv-
ing environmental management. Approaches
to sustainable environmental systems devel-
oped through this research will provide
cost-effective methods of protecting sensitive
ecosystems. For instance, this research can
help build tribal capacity by providing holistic,
multimedia solutions at the watershed scale
that take local cultural values into account
ancl promote sustainable practices.

.Economics and. Decision Sciences

    EPA conducts economics and decision-
sciences research  to increase our
understanding of human behavior toward the
environment, enabling us to develop policies
that can alter behaviors that contribute to
environmental problems. This research also
informs state and other federal agencies on
how to best and most cost-effectively accom-
plish three overarching responsibilities:
(1) anticipating, identifying, and setting pri-
orities for managing  environmental problems
to protect ecological and human health;
(2) developing policies to address the select-
ed environmental priorities; and (3)
implementing the policies to achieve better
environmental outcomes.

    Our multi-year plan for economics and
decision sciences establishes long-term research
goals for understanding and changing environ-
mentally damaging behaviors, developing tools
to assess the highest-priority issues based on
public preferences, and developing implemen-
tation strategies that provide incentives for
desirable behavioral responses to government
interventions. For example, this research will
help us understand  the motivations driving
human behavior toward protecting the envi-
ronment, the techniques for implementing
environmental policy most effectively and effi-
ciently (e.g., traditional regulation, market and
economic incentives, information disclosure),
and the monetary value society attaches to
healthy people and healthy ecosystems.

    The results of our research on compli-
ance behavior of regulated entities will help
EPA and states improve compliance perform-
ance and promote environmental
stewardship. We and our partners will rely on
research into market-based approaches and
economic incentives to develop innovative
alternatives to traditional regulatory
approaches. As we establish regulations to
protect human health and the environment,
research on valuation will enable us to make
informed decisions on which environmental
problems to address and the public benefits
to be derived from various types of standards
and levels of stringency.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
               EXTERNAL FACTORS
                   EPA's ability to meet its objectives for
               compliance and environmental stewardship
               could be affected by a number of factors. For
               example, natural catastrophes—such as
               floods, significant chemical spills, and the
               new challenges associated with homeland
               security and responding to real or potential
               terrorist threats—may require the Agency to
               revise its priorities and redirect its resources.

                   The Agency relies heavily on its partner-
               ships to advance protection of human health
               and the environment. For example, many of
               the strategic targets the Agency has set under
               this goal are predicated on the assumption
               that states and tribes will be able to maintain
               or increase their levels of compliance and
               enforcement work, or that the U.S.
               Department of justice will accept or prose-
               cute cases.

                   In the area of pollution prevention, for
               example, the Agency's work is almost entirely
               dependent on voluntary partnerships, collab-
               oration, and persuasion, since there are few
               environmental regulations that set specific
               source-reduction requirements. The DfE
               Program seeks partnerships with industry
               trade associations to engage jointly in the
               development and marketing of products that
               generate less pollution. The Green Chemistry
               Program  challenges industry and the academ-
               ic community to step forward with new
               chemical formulations that pose fewer  risks
               to human health and the environment. And
               EPA's strategy of "greening the supply chain"
               depends on the willingness of large manufac-
               turers to voluntarily require their suppliers to
               provide environmentally preferable products.
               These efforts all depend on our partners' con-
               tinued willingness to cooperate in joint-
               endeavors that might not realize an immedi-
               ate payoff. EPA's ability to carry out its
               voluntary pollution prevention initiatives
could be reduced if partners begin to believe
that the initiatives are not worthwhile, are
too risky, or are otherwise contrary to their
best interests.

    The community that contributes to and
uses EPA's data and information is also evolv-
ing. As states and tribes develop the ability
to integrate their environmental information,
EPA will need to adjust its systems to ensure
that it can receive and process reports from
states and industry under Agency statutory
requirements. Citizen and community organi-
zations and the public at large are also
increasingly involved in  environmental
decision-making, and their need for quality
information and more sophisticated analyti-
cal tools is growing.

    Finally, the regulated community's will-
ingness to comply with the law and to exceed
minimum requirements is an obvious factor in
the Agency's achievement of its compliance
and environmental stewardship goals. A key
component of our waste minimization strategy
for reducing priority chemicals from waste
streams, for example, is the commitment that
small and large businesses make to work with
EPA and other governmental organizations to
address the targeted chemicals.

-------
                                                                           Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Notes
1.   "Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated" is an EPA. measure of the quantity of pollutants that will
    no longer be released to the environment as a result of a noncomplying facility returning to its allowable limits
    through the successful completion of an enforcement settlement. (Facilities may further reduce pollutants by
    carrying out voluntary Supplemental Environmental  Projects.) Online compliance information is available to
    the public via EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/
    echo/, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Washington, DC. Accessed August 28, 2003.
2.   "Environmental management practices" refers to a specific set of activities EPA tracks to evaluate changes
    brought about through assistance, incentives, and concluded enforcement actions. Implementing or improving
    environmental management practices—for example, by changing industrial processes; discharges; or testing.
    auditing, and reporting—may assist a regulated facility in remaining in compliance with environmental require-
    ments. Further information on environmental management practices is available in EPA's Case Conclusion Do.la
    Sheet Training Booklet, available online at www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning/
    caseconc.pdf, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Washington,  DC.
3.   The performance results achieved in  EY 2005 will serve as the baseline from which future performance results
    will be compared. EPA will establish this objective's baseline in FY 2005 by analyzing data collected through
    EPA's Reporting Compliance Assistance Tracking System (RCATS), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
    Assurance, Washington, DC. RCATS is an internal tracking system and not available to the public.
4.   The performance results achieved in  EY 2005 will serve as the baseline from which future performance results
    are compared. EPA will establish this objective's baseline  in FY 2005 by analyzing data collected through EPA's
    Integrated Compliance Information System (1C1S), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
    Washington, DC. ICIS is an internal EPA database and not available to the public
5.   The performance results achieved in  EY 2005 will serve as the baseline from which future performance results
    will be compared. EPA will establish this objective's baseline in FY 2005 by analyzing data collected through
    EPA's Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis, (IDEA)  database and data collected manually on Inspection
    Conclusion Data Sheets (ICDS),  Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Washington, DC.
    Accessed September 10, 2003. Information on  IDEA is available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/
    planning/data/multimedia/idea/users.html.
6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. November 15,
    2001. OECA Regulatory Universe Identification Table. Internal memorandum.
7.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Compliance
    Assistance Centers Web Site: http://www.assistariceceriters.net. Washington, DC. Accessed August 28, 2003.
8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. National
    Environmental Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse Web  Site: http://cfpub.epa.gov/clearinghouse/.
    Washington, DC. Accessed August 28, 2003.
9.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. EPA's Audit Policy
    Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/auditing/auditpolicy.html. Washington, DC. Accessed
    August 28, 2003.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Small Business
    Compliance Policy.  Washington. DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/compliarice/resources/policies/
    incentives/smallbusiness/shcomppolicy.pdf. Accessed August 28, 2003.
11. The Environmental Council of States (EGOS), State Information Web Site: http://www.sso.org/ecos/states/
    StateInfo.htm#Delegations. Washington, DC. Accessed August  28, 2003.
12  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. 200] Toxic Release Inventory
    Public Data. Release. Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri01/pdr/
    chapter2.pdf. Accessed September 26. 2003.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administration and Resources Management. In  develop-
    ment: New EPA tracking system to track the purchase of environmentally preferable  procurements.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
                   14.  U.S. Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. December 2002. Leading by Example: A Report to the.
                       President on Federal Energy and Environmental Management (2000-2001), Washington, DC. Available online at:
                       http://www.ofee.gov/whats/leadingbyexarnple.htm. Accessed .September 9, 2003.

                       U.S. Oftice of the Federal Environmental Executive. October 2002. Report to Congress: Resource Conservation
                       and Recovery Act: A Report on Agencies' Implementation for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. Washington, DC.
                       Available online at http://www.ofee.gov/pubs/Final2000-2001report.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2003.

                   15.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. 200J Toxic Release Inventory
                       Public Data Release.  Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri01/pdr/
                       chapter2.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2003.

                   16.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Information. 200 J Toxic Release Inventory
                       Public Data Release.  Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri01/pdr/
                       chapter2.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2003.

                   17.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. 200! Toxic Release Inventory
                       Public Data Release.  Washington. DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri01/pdr/
                       chapter2.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2003.

                   18.  These improvements are beyond existing regulatory requirements.

                   19.  For every EPA-supported project, assistance agreements or other mechanisms will include a provision request-
                       ing recipients to quantify changes (i.e., improvements) to their environmental media, cost effectiveness, or
                       workload efficiency. These changes will be measured against a baseline year in which the projected is initiated.

                   20.  For every EPA-supported project, assistance agreements or other mechanisms will include a provision request-
                       ing recipients to quantify changes (i.e., improvements) to their environmental media, cost effectiveness, or
                       workload efficiency. These changes will be measured against a baseline year in which the projected is initiated.

                   21.  Pollution Prevention Act. US. Code Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 133, sec. 13101 b.
                       Policy.

                   22.  Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition, 63 Federal Regi.sr.er
                       49643. September 16, 1998.

                   23.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Environmentally Preferable
                       Purchasing Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp. Accessed September 9.  2003.

                   24.  Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-17).

                       Executive Order 13134, Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy (Federal Register Vol. 64,
                       No.  157,8/16/99).

                   25.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Pollution Prevention
                       Grants Web Site, http://www.epa.gov/p2/grants/index.htm. Accessed September 9, 2003.

                   26.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Information. 200 J Toxic Release Inventory
                       Public Data Release.  Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri01/pdr/
                       chapter2.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2003.

                   27.  Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management. 65 Federal Register 2-1595,
                       April 26, 2000.

                   28.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Green Chemistry Web
                       Site: http://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry. Washington, DC. Accessed September 9, 2003.

                   29.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Green Engineering Web
                       Site: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/greenengineeririg. Washington, DC. Accessed September 9, 2003.

                   30.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Design for the
                       Environment Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/dfe. Washington. DC. Accessed September 9, 2003

                   31.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Office. GAP
                       Tracking System:: http://gap.tetratech-ffx.corn. Washington, DC. Internal EPA data base, not accessible to the
                       public.

-------
                                                                           Compliance and Environmental Stewardship—Notes
32.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Office. Federal
     Integrated Tribal Information Systetn. Internal Database. Web Site: http://everest.sdc-moses.com/TRIBAL/FITIS/.
     Washington, DC.

33.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Olfice. Tribal
     Information Management .System. Washington, DC. Internal EPA database; not accessible to the public,

34.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Office. Tribal
     Accountability Tracking System. Washington, DC. Password-protected database; not accessible to the public.

35.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Olfice. GAP
     Tracking System. Washington, DC. Internal EPA database; not accessible to the public.

36.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Office. Tribal
     Accountability Tracking System. Washington, DC. Password-protected database; not accessible to the public.

     Federal Register 67: 46328 (July 12, 2002).

     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, American Indian Environmental Office. American
     Indian Environmental Office Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/indian. Washington, DC.

39.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of
     Pollution Prevention and Toxics,  Environmental Assistance Division. ECOS FOSTTA Activities Web Site:
     http://www.sso.org/ecos/projects/FOSTTA/ECOSFOSTTA.html. Washington, DC.

40.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Prevention. Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide
     Programs. Tribal Pesticide Program Council Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/tribes/tppc.htm.
     Washington, DC.

41.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, 'Office of Science Policy, tribal
     Science Council Mission Statement Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/osp/tribes/tsc.htm. Washington, DC.

42.  Accreditation standard based upon ISO 1 7025. Available online at: http://www.asq.org and
     http://www.nfstc.org.

43.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. National
     Enforcement Investigations Center Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/aboQt/offices/division/neic.html.
     Washington, DC. Accessed August 19, 2003.

44.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development.  Research Directions: Multi-Year
     Plans Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm. Washington, DC. Accessed August 26, 2003.

-------


-------

-------
    Many of EPA's efforts	-strengthening our partner




ships with states and tribes, improving the quality and




availability of the environmental and




health information on  which we base




our decisions, and improving our




management systems to achieve




better results	contribute to our




progress toward all five, of our goals.




This cross-Agency, cross-media




work includes both support func-




tions , such as administrative and




financial management or legal services, and the strategies




or means we employ to help accomplish our objectives,




such as science  and research or information management.
    Each of these efforts is a significant component of




our work and plays a critical role in the accomplishment




               of all of our goals. 1 'his chapter highlights




               a few of these cross-goal strategies:




               Partnerships, information, innovation,




               Human Capital, Science, Homeland




               Security,  and Economic and Policy




               Analysis. For each, we will discuss the




               Agency's  approach,  explain how the




               strategy will contribute to the achieve-




               ment of oi.tr goais. and describe some of




the activities we will conduct and results we hope to




achieve using this approach.

-------
PARTNERSHIPS
    The advances made in protecting our
Nation's health and environment since EPA
was established would not have been possible
without state, tribal, and local government
participation and support. EPA is committed
to strengthening these partnerships and,
recognizing the unique concerns and contri-
butions that each of us brings to the table,
working together to address environmental
problems and achieve results. The discussion
that follows outlines our approach to estab-
lishing and improving our partnerships with
states and tribes.

STATE PARTNERSHIPS

    EPA's partnership strategy is based on the
belief that states arid  EPA are equal partners
in the national effort to protect human
health and the environment. Progress toward
all five of our Strategic Plan goals depends not
only on EPA's efforts, but on the efforts of all
50 states, the  District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico,  the Virgin Islands, and the Islands of
the Pacific Insular areas.

    Most of the Nation's environmental laws
envision a strong role for state governments
in managing environmental and human
health protection programs. National laws set
certain goals,  standards, and approaches for
environmental protection to which EPA and
our state partners are committed. But envi-
ronmental issues and  problems can vary from
region to region, and EPA is also committed
to adapting to these situations.

    As state environmental authority and
management capacity have grown over the
past three decades, EPA has delegated or
authorized primary responsibility to states for
implementing many day-to-day program
activities, such as issuing permits, conducting
compliance and enforcement programs, and
monitoring environmental conditions. States'
direct administration of environmental
and human health protection programs	
along with EPA oversight to ensure, through
compliance with federal statutes and achieve-
ment of national objectives, that all
Americans have a healthy environment—has
brought about significant improvements in
the environment and human health across
the country.
    In 1995, the states and EPA agreed
on the series of principles that guide our
collaborative work. Articulated in the joint
Commitment to Reform Oversight and
Create the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System,  the
"NEPPS Agreement," these principles call
upon the states and EPA to set priorities
jointly; develop performance agreements to
define their roles, responsibilities, and
accountability; encourage innovative envi-
ronmental and human health protection
strategies; agree upon performance measures;
and jointly evaluate the results achieved.

    The states and EPA use a variety of tools
to define their relationship and guide their
implementation of the Nation's environmen-
tal laws and the principles of the NEPPS
Agreement. These tools include performance
partnership agreements (PPAs), performance
partnership grants (PPGs) and/or  categorical
program grants to states, enforcement agree-

-------
ments, and primacy delegation or authoriza-
tion agreements. In addition to the
Performance Partnership System, EPA works
with a variety of associations representing
states, such as the National Governor's
Association, the Environmental Council of
the States, and other organizations that deal
with specific environmental media, such as
the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators. We also
work with state agricultural and public health
agencies on environmental protection efforts.

    In 2002 and 2003, state environmental
commissioners and senior EPA managers
conducted a joint evaluation of the
Performance Partnership System. They found
the Partnership to be based on sound princi-
ples, which guide a flexible process for
adapting environmental goals to  local condi-
tions. The evaluation indicated that, by
breaking down organizational and media-
program barriers, states and EPA regional
offices are building trust. Increased joint
planning and priority-setting have focused
state and EPA regional office efforts on
achieving results, increased work sharing and
emphasized cross-media approaches, allowed
more flexibility in funding, and reduced over-
sight and reporting that is not value-added.

    In addition to these positive  findings, the
joint evaluation identified several problem
areas for improvement. These included con-
cerns that EPA's priority-setting and planning
processes (including PPAs, issuance of
national program guidance, budgeting, and
accountability systems) are not aligned in a
                        way that fosters
                        joint planning and
                        priority-setting
                        across media pro-
                        gram  Sines.

                           In addition,
                        transaction costs for
                        developing PPAs
                        were believed to be
                        too high for the
                        benefits obtained.
States enter EPA's planning process too late
to enable the PPA to reflect a true partner-
ship, hampering the use of the PPA as a
definitive agreement to guide EPA-state
operating relationships.

Improving Alignment
    Working with our state partners, we
intend to better align our priority-setting,
planning and budgeting processes and devel-
op PPAs that can definitively guide our
relationship. Aligning EPA and state strate-
gic planning processes will allow us to better
inform, influence, and reflect one another's
priorities and approaches to achieving our
environmental protection goals. In develop-
ing this Strategic Plan, for example, EPA has
sought earlier state input on strategies and
priorities. Similarly, soliciting state input
early in developing EPA's new Regional Plans
will influence how EPA regions will work
with their state and tribal partners to help
achieve the Agency's strategic goals and
objectives.

    I his early consultation with our partners
is also important as we develop National
Program Guidance arid conduct our annual
planning and budgeting. We are reforming
these processes to lower transaction costs by
focusing on results, synchronizing processes
across program areas, and reducing targets and
indicators to the fewest necessary to ensure
accountability for results and inform national
program management. We will continue to
work with our partners  to develop and use
better performance measures that focus on
outcomes and provide accountability.

Improving Performance Partnership
Agreements and Qrants

    We are working to  make development of
PPAs less burdensome and more meaningful
by engaging our state partners early and
through more transparent processes. Early
state input to EPA's Strategic Plan, regional
plans, Annual Plan and Budget, and national
program guidance will Sower transaction costs

-------
of developing PPAs by minimizing surprises
and reducing conflicts that can arise during
the preparation of the PPA itself. Resolving
potential conflicts early on will enable states
and EPA to rely on  the final PPA to define
roles, responsibilities, arid accountability of
all partners, thereby making the PPA defini-
tive for the program areas and time period it
addresses. Such a definitive agreement will
address environmental performance expecta-
tions and provide for joint EPA-state
performance evaluations that will hold both
accountable. We will continue to work with
our state partners through a joint evaluation
process to identify ways  to improve and
advance PPAs and the methods by which
they are developed and negotiated.

    Further, recognizing that states and their
environmental issues and concerns are
diverse, EPA will  continue to develop a  range
of PPAs tailored to state needs. These PPAs
will contain elements essential to ensure
alignment, accountability, and a clear defini-
tion of the agreement. We will base
priorities, strategies, and activities on a level
of reasonable strategic thinking. The PPA
will be related to  architecture presented  in
EPA's Strategic Plan, will include both pro-
grammatic and environmental measures, and
will outline a process for possible changes
during its term.

    In addition, EPA is working with states
to achieve greater value from PPGs. We are
conducting a structured, three-part effort to
evaluate and remove barriers that prevent
EPA and states from taking greater advantage
of the flexibility that PPGs provide. First, we
will identify and assess legal and administra-
tive barriers. Next, state and federal
front-line grant managers and  negotiators
will develop plans for reducing barriers and
increasing use of PPG flexibility. Finally we
will build on these efforts to develop a train-
ing module arid a best practices guide.

    The movement across all levels of gov-
ernment to focus on achieving performance
results continues to grow.
Our efforts to
manage for better results;
improve env ironmerttal
indicators; promote inno-
vation; and establish an
exchange network that
will allow EPA, states, and
the public better access to
environmental data
demonstrate our support
for this burgeoning move-
ment. Strengthening our working
relationship with the states is an important
part of this performance management effort.
Together,  these initiatives will help to focus
the entire national environmental protection
system on achieving improved results.
    EPA's mission—to protect human health
and the environment—applies to all  our
Nation, including Indian country and Alaska
Native villages. In carrying out our mission,
we will build on our strong foundation of
working with our tribal partners to ensure
that our efforts encompass all U.S. lands,
regardless of ownership status or jurisdiction.

    Tribes have unique cultural, j urisdiction-
al, and Segal issues  that present special
challenges to the coordination and imple-
mentation of environmental management
activities in Indian country. EPA's 1984
Indian Policy formally recognized the unique-
ness of tribal jurisdictional lands.  Vital to
that policy is the principle that EPA  works
with tribes on a government-to-government
basis that reaffirms the federal trust responsi-
bility to tribes. Therefore, EPA's work toward
a comprehensive plan of environmental pro-
tection activities in Indian country and
Alaska Native Villages must use innovative
approaches and coordinated programs that
complement tribal government structures,
incorporate tribal priorities, and recognize
tribal cultural considerations.

-------
    EPA's work with tribes is about more
than physical landscapes, rules, regulations,
matters of jurisdiction, and funding. We rec-
ognize that Indian people have distinct ways
of life that set them apart from other
Americans, Their cultural survival depends
on the protection and vitality of their tribal
homelands. Therefore, protecting that envi-
ronment and ensuring equitable
environmental protection in Indian country
and Alaska Native Villages is critical to
maintaining the vibrancy of tribal culture.

    The Agency will collaborate with tribes
by tailoring environmental programs to pro-
tect the natural resources and traditional
ways of life and to complement tribal govern-
ment structures. The improvements and
benefits of PPAs and PPGs are also available
to tribes. As we strive to advance consistency
and equitable environmental protection in
Indian country and for Alaska Native
Villages, EPA will promote development of
metrics under all of our strategic goals that
indicate performance and environmental
results  for tribes. Where we lack environmen-
tal data for Indian country, we will continue
our work to reduce those data gaps.
INFORMATION
    Accurate, timely, and usable information
is the foundation for decisions and actions
taken by EPA, states, and others responsible
for protecting human health arid the envi-
ronment. Effective information  management
is vital to the success of EPA's mission and
contributes to the achievement  of all Agency
strategic goals. The federal community has
recognized and commended EPA for ensuring
that information investments are made wisely
to achieve environmental results.

    EPA develops, collects, analyzes, and pro-
vides integrated access to information to
promote more knowledgeable and environ-
mentally responsible attitudes, decisions, and
actions. EPA strives to provide the right
information, at the right time, in the right
format, to the right people. This means mak-
ing quality environmental and management
information  available for developing environ-
mental policies and priorities. It means
making environmental data publicly accessi-
ble to support individual and community
involvement in decisions that can affect
environmental quality and public health.
And it means building the necessary infra-
structure to provide  secure information,
reliable data, efficient and timely access, and
analytic information tools.

    New ways of conducting business are
required to meet new, more complex informa-
tion challenges, especially for EPA's vital
responsibility to work with federal, state, ancl
local partners to ensure homeland security.
The Agency's cross-cutting information
strategy, developed in the framework of the
President's Management Agenda, is a three-
pronged approach to meeting these challenges.
To achieve EPA's mission, over the next .5
years EPA's information strategy will focus on:

    •  Analytic Capacity	Providing access
       to new analytic tools that facilitate
       data interpretation and enable
       users to respond to environmental

-------
       problems; assess risk; set priorities;
       make sound decisions; and manage
       for results, using integrated resource
       and performance information.

    •  Governance	Adopting an Agency-
       wide approach to managing
       information, including administrative
       and programmatic systems, data, and
       investment priorities.

    •  Excellence in Information Service
       Delivery	-Working collaborativ ely
       with states, tribes, other federal agen-
       cies, and key stakeholders to improve
       the efficiency and utility of environ-
       mental information.

    Finally, the need to  make environmental
information accessible and usable by the
American public, including populations that
have been historically disenfranchised, is crit-
ical to solving problems and addressing
challenges.

    Decisions regarding
Agency information manage-
ment can affect EPA
employees; state, tribal, and
local partners; and the regu-
lated community. EPA
employees rely on the
Agency's information man-
agement systems, central
information services, and spe-
cial information resources to
achieve the Agency's mission.
EPA has  adapted information
models that show the clear linkages between
information investments and achievement of
efficient, effective environmental results.
These logical models are part of the business
case methodology that EPA uses to evaluate
proposed investments in information technol
ogy.l We will continue to ensure that
information technology  and data initiatives
directly support EPA's mission, and are fully
coordinated within EPA and with the efforts
of our federal, state, tribal, and local agency
partners to avoid duplication, reduce burden,
and increase effectiveness.
    Environmental data are most meaningful
when examined from a holistic perspective,
when users are able to examine all of the
data about a particular situation, location, or
source at once.

    Integrated analytic
capacity is fundamental
to meeting the
Agency's five goals. To
meet the objectives
under each goal, EPA,
other federal agencies,
states, tribes, and other partners require spe-
cific information on  environmental and
human health conditions and analytic tools
capable of isolating specific stressors associat-
ed with those conditions. These capabilities
must be designed to meet the needs of specif-
ic objectives—whether assessing global issues,
              such as stratospheric ozone
              depletion; regional issues,
              such as haze; state-level issues,
              such as watershed protection;
              or local issues, such as ambi-
              ent air quality protection
              within a particular metropoli-
              tan area.

                  Improved capacity to
              integrate and analyze environ-
              mental data will support cross-
              media solutions to complex
              environmental and human
              health problems. Better
analytic tools will also help EPA fulfill its
homeland security responsibilities by provid-
ing a clear picture of spatial relationships and
corporate ownership  of regulated facilities.

What We Intend to  Accomplish

    Better analytic capabilities will help
managers to assess existing baseline condi-
tions, isolate data gaps and identify research
needs, track the implementation of specific
solutions, and develop methods for evaluat-
ing the results achieved. By 2008, EPA will

-------
provide analytic tools to support decision-
making, results-based management, and the
public's right to know. Over the next 5 years,
EPA will:

    •  Continue to implement the
       Environmental Indicators Initiative.
       EPA will establish a set of perform-
       ance indicators of environmental and
       human health conditions to support
       assessments of the effectiveness of
       environmental programs.

    •  Implement a  suite of customized
       tools for emergency management.
       These tools will deliver secure, reli-
       able, and timely data access and
       communications to on-scene coordi-
       nators, emergency response teams,
       arid investigators from field locations.

    •  Continue to increase the availability
       of useful health and environmental
       information. EPA will continue to
       implement the Toxics Release
       Inventory (TR1) Program to provide
       the public with information on
       releases of toxic chemicals to the
       environment.2 The Agency will build
       on the foundation of existing public
       access tools, such as Envirofacts"'
       and Window to My Environment4
       (a geographic portal to community-
       based environmental information),
       by providing additional access to
       information collected by EPA, its
       partners and stakeholders, and the
       public.
GOVERNANCE

    EPA recognizes that successful organiza-
tions align technology, people, and processes
with goals. Information governance is the
Agency's strategy to ensure efficient, coordi-
nated management of information assets
across all EPA programs. An Agency-wide
approach to information will allow EPA to
make key information, technology, and fund-
ing investments that improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of services and operations.
Ultimately, this enterprise-wide approach to
environmental information management will
benefit EPA and its partners by streamlining
access to and  exchange of information.

    In 1998, through the State/EPA
Information Management Workgroup
(IMWG), states and EPA committed to a
partnership for building locally and national-
ly accessible, cohesive, and coherent
environmental information systems. This
commitment was codified in the IMWG's
Vision and Operating Principles.
Improvements made through this partnership
will help ensure that public and regulatory
agencies have access to information to docu-
ment environmental performance,
understand environmental conditions, and
make sound decisions that ensure environ-
mental protection.

    Now, with more than 5 years of joint
experience, the IMWG has developed a more
specific  vision for how this partnership could
be realized. The National Environmental
Information Exchange Network5 is expected
to revolutionize the management of environ-
mental information by improving the quality
of environmental data, providing regulatory
agencies and the public ready access to data,
and increasing their ability to use this infor-
mation to protect human health and the
environment. The Network will be stan-
dards-based, highly interconnected, dynamic,
flexible, and secure and will operate with the
broad-based, voluntary participation of state
environmental agencies and EPA. Over the
next 5 years, EPA will:

-------
Continue to develop its enterprise
architecture. Enterprise architecture
involves identifying the business
processes that support Agency goals,
the data needed for measuring envi-
ronmental results, and the technology
that most efficiently secures and
delivers the data. Enterprise architec-
ture promotes wise investments in
information  technology.6

Continue to focus on partnering.
EPA will continue to strengthen
emerging partnerships,  identify col-
laborative goals, promote integrated
planning, and foster interagency
coordination with other federal agen-
cies, states, and tribes. The
foundation for meeting these goals is
access to the collective data resources
of all partners.

Improve  existing governance
processes. EPA will continue to pur-
sue an investment strategy to support
a strong Agency information archi-
tecture program and investment
management process, as outlined by
the Federal Chief Information Officer
Council and as required by the
Cliriger-Cohen Act.7 The architec-
ture and investment review processes
that use integrated information sys-
tems or more advanced applications
of the Exchange Network will govern
funding for individual systems devel-
opment and  modernization.
    Information technology is transforming
the way EPA conducts the business of envi-
ronmental protection. But EPA faces
information management challenges similar
to those faced by many other private and
public organizations. The Agency must con-
tinually adapt to emerging technologies, such
as electronic-commerce and web services that
enable organizations to become more produc-
tive, effective, and proactive in service
delivery. Three  major themes of change in
information service delivery are streamlining
management processes, linking data partners,
and improving information access.

Streamlining
Management
Processes

    EPA, like
other public and
private organiza-
tions, is exploiting
information
technology to
streamline internal management processes.
New administrative systems for financial, per-
sonnel, and program management will
integrate data, eliminating database fragmen-
tation and limited information access.
Groupware applications are enhancing the
traditional Agency workgroup process by-
improving information flow, facilitating
meeting scheduling, and encouraging more
frequent team member involvement. In other
organizational settings, changes such as these
have been shown  to deliver measurable
improvements in the quality and  efficiency of
administrative work processes.

Linking Data Partners

    Networks will link EPA to federal, state,
tribal, and other public and private agency
partners throughout the country to exchange
policy, research, management, and perform-
ance information. In the U.S. economy,

-------
distributed network technology is quickly
eliminating time and distance as obstacles to
business collaboration. Today, vast webs of
suppliers are able to contribute to work prod-
ucts in a global marketplace according to
their specialized expertise. The result: greater
innovation and productivity.

                      Improving
                      Information Access

                         Explosive growth
                      in data processing
                      and storage capacity
                      has opened up new
                      opportunities for
                      accessing data from
                      multiple sources.
Fine-resolution data from local monitoring
organizations can be assembled into geograph-
ic information systems, providing holistic
environmental pictures on large and small
geographic scales. Mountains of data collected
using advanced monitoring technologies in
space, in the air, and on the ground can be
placed at the public's fingertips in usable for-
mats. Integrated public information has been
shown to deliver bottom-line improvements
in environmental programs, by closing the
behavioral gap between environmental policy
and private actions.

    Improved information service delivery is
key to the implementation of many of the
objectives detailed under the Agency's five
strategic goals. The utility of environmental
information, from ambient monitoring data
to compliance assistance material, will
depend largely upon the Agency's ability to
ensure that the right  information is provided
to the right user at the right time.

    By 2008, EPA will increase the opera-
tional efficiency of all Agency business
processes through the use of information
technology. Over the next 5 years, EPA will:

    •   Solicit partner feedback. Through
       various techniques, EPA will solicit
       feedback to systematically improve
information usability, clarity, accura-
cy, reliability, completeness, and
scientific soundness.8 Other efforts to
improve information will include
working with the Environmental
Data Standards Council on develop-
ing and implementing necessary data
standards and associated registries to
improve the consistency, quality, and
comparability of data managed in
national environmental systems. EPA
will require that data quality is
known and appropriate for intended
uses. Usability testing and customer
satisfaction baselines will ensure that
the information the Agency provides
is meeting the needs of its customers.

Streamline information collection.
Streamlining will help regulated enti-
ties meet regulatory requirements,
while eventually easing burdens
placed on states and the Agency to
collect information. The Agency will
continue to  assess the information
reporting burdens placed on its part-
ners and on  the regulated
community,  and will align informa-
tion collection requirements with
specific needs. EPA will improve the
timeliness and completeness of
requests for information by imple-
menting an Agency-wide electronic
records and document management
system. The Agency plans to develop
and acquire  the necessary software
and hardware to begin phased imple-
mentation of the system throughout
the Agency.9

Continue to develop the Exchange
Network. The Exchange Network is a
comprehensive, integrated informa-
tion exchange program designed to
strengthen the partnership and facili-
tate information sharing among EPA,
states, other federal agencies, tribes.
localities, the research community,
and the regulated community. The

-------
Exchange Network will provide a
wide range of shared environmental
information and will improve envi-
ronmental decision-making through
increased availability of quality data,
enhanced security of sensitive data,
avoidance of data redundancy and
conflict, and reduced burden on those
who provide and those who access
information. It uses an Internet-based,
multimedia approach to environmen-
tal information exchange that is
standards-based, highly connected,
flexible, and secure. Additionally,
through the National  Environmental
Information Exchange Grant Program
begun in 2002, states and tribes will
be better positioned to participate in
the Exchange Network/0

"The Central Data Exchange {CDX)11
is the electronic portal of the
Exchange Network, through which
information is securely received, trans-
lated, and forwarded to EPA's data
systems. We anticipate that, by  2004,
the CDX infrastructure will service 46
states, and more than 25,000 facilities,
companies, and laboratories will use it
to provide data to EPA electronically.
By widely implementing an electronic
reporting infrastructure, CDX will
reduce reliance on less efficient, paper-
based processes, resulting in reduced
reporting burden and the creation of
new opportunities for simplifying the
reporting process. Electronic reporting
through CDX will be possible for all of
the national environmental systems.
CDX will serve as the  Agency's node
on the Exchange Network, providing
data exchange services for states and
other EPA partners. The Agency will
make strategic investments in the
information infrastructure that sup-
ports our 10 regional offices.

Continue to focus on data quality.
EPA plays a key role in working with
data partners to develop and promote
       consistent, complete, current, and
       reliable data to support full and
       effective information sharing,
       environmental monitoring, and
       enforcement. EPA will continue to
       develop Agency-wide policies and
       procedures for planning, identifying
       data needs, documenting, implement-
       ing, ancl assessing data collection and
       use in Agency decisions.  EPA will
       continue to work with data partners
       to develop and implement data stan-
       dards. I he Agency will also continue
       to implement its Information Quality
       Guidelines to help ensure that infor-
       mation EPA provides to the public is
       of the highest quality.12
    All of EPA's emerging information
capabilities will continue to support and
further the President's Management Agenda
Electronic Government (e-Gov) Strategy for
improving service to individuals, business,
and others while increasing efficiencies.13
EPA will continue to collaborate with other
federal agencies; states; tribes; environmen-
tal, public health, and research organizations;
and local partners to expand Internet access,
improve the quality of services, and drive
down the cost of basic government functions.
The approach of the e-Gov Strategy is to
simplify processes and unify operations to
better serve citizens' needs. EPA will contin-
ue to implement
this vision arid
eliminate redun-
dancies and
overlaps in such
functions as small
business compli-
ance, payroll  and
other resource
functions, and
geospatial
information.

-------
    Overall, EPA is participating as a partner
in 14 designated e-Gov projects and is the
lead agency for the government-wide Online
Rulemaking Initiative to make the rule-mak-
ing process more transparent to individuals
and businesses.14 By implementing this infor-
mation strategy, EPA will keep pace with the
rapid advances in information technology
and meet the growing demand for reliable.
quality environmental information.

    In addition, the Federal Financial
Assistance Management Improvement Act of
1999 mandates that federal agencies work
together to streamline grant application and
reporting requirements for all grants and to
develop a central electronic portal for grant
application and reporting. EPA continues to
deploy the Integrated Grant Management
System that is moving the Agency from a
paper-based grants culture to an electronic
culture by fully automating the grants process
within the Agency. The system will also be
capable of exchanging data with the E-Grant
electronic storefront for recipient application
and reporting, creating an all-electronic grant
process. Grant information will be available
online to every grant manager and project
officer in the Agency for better decision-mak-
ing. The system, which supports tracking of
grant milestones, products, and post-award
management activities, will save time and
resources by eliminating duplicate data entry,
avoiding mail and photocopy costs, and reduc-
ing the time it takes to track grants or build
and maintain separate grant tracking systems.
INNOVATION
    EPA ancl many other environmental
policy leaders see a critical need for
environmental innovation.13 The U.S.
environmental protection system is widely
recognized as one of the strongest in the
world. For more than 30 years, this system
has succeeded in cleaning up some of the
most visible and egregious forms of pollution
and has provided Americans with strong
environmental and public health protection.

    But that legacy of progress is challenged
by an increasingly complex  set of environ-
mental problems, such as global climate
change and polluted runoff, that will require
a broader set of tools than we  have relied
upon in the past. At the same time,  EPA and
other agencies are experiencing the reality of
tight budgets and pressure to be more
accountable for results. Other factors spurring
environmental innovation include the
availability of powerful new information
technologies that can advance environmen-
tal knowledge and public and private
interests in making environmental manage-
ment a value-added endeavor. Yet another
factor is the need to address sustainability,
environmental justice, and other issues with
interwoven social, economic, and environ-
mental dimensions.  Together, such challenges
make environmental innovation  an absolute
imperative.

    In 2002, EPA released a strategy to
strengthen environmental protection through
the power and promise of innovation.
Innovating for Better Environmental Results: A
Strategy To Guide the Next Generation of
Environmental Protection is designed to drive
innovation in environmental programs and
provides a vision for what our environmental
protection system should be.16 That vision—
one that is now widely shared in  the
environmental policy community—is for a
system that puts more emphasis on results;

-------
that focuses on environmental responsibility,
not just pollution control; and that uses mul-
timedia approaches to address problems
comprehensively rather than piecemeal.
The system envisioned would rely more on
incentives to motivate better environmental
performance and on partnerships that help to
leverage ideas arid resources for greater envi-
ronmental gain.

THE STRATEGY 's FOUR ELEMENTS

    Developed in consultation with states,
the Innovation Strategy consists of four
interconnected elements that will enable
progress toward this long-term vision arid, in
the shorter term, progress under EPA's
Strategic Plan.

Promoting State and Tribal Innovation

    The first element of the Innovation
Strategy is designed to strengthen our part-
nership with states and tribes. With shared
responsibilities for environmental programs,
states and tribes are EPA's most important
partners, and they share our interest in inno-
vations that can improve results.  The
Innovation Strategy lays out a set of actions
designed to enable state and tribal innova-
tion. These include finding ways  to improve
the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System ancl the Joint State/
EPA Agreement to Pursue Regulatory
Innovations—two policy tools that provide a
means  for jointly advancing innovation ini-
tiatives. Another priority is providing states
with opportunities for earlier, more meaning-
ful input in EPA's planning and budgeting
processes, where decisions about resources for
innovation are made.

Using' Innovation to Solve Priority Problems

    The second element of the Innovation
Strategy focuses on using innovation to solve
a set of priority environmental problems	
greenhouse gases, smog, degrading water
quality, arid deteriorating water infrastructure.
While there is a need for innovation in solv-
ing many environmental problems, these are
especially important because they are persist-
ent, widespread problems that are not being
adequately addressed with the tools and
approaches that exist today. From partner-
ships with industry sectors, to  market-based
trading programs that create an economic
incentive for environmental improvement, to
new information tools that support decision-
making, the  Innovation Strategy calls for a
suite of creative approaches for making
progress on these priority problems.

Developing Problem.'
Solving 'Tools and
Approaches

    The problems
described in the
previous section high-
light the importance of
continuously developing
new tools and approach-
es that can expand and
enhance environmental
problem-solving. The
third element of the
Innovation Strategy
focuses EPA on die con-
tinued development of tools that have already
proven effective on a limited scale and that
have applicability across many environmental
programs. They include information tools that
can improve our understanding of problems
and solutions, environmental management
systems (EMSs)17 that can foster a more com-
prehensive approach to environmental
protection, incentives that can motivate better
environmental performance, environmental
technologies that can improve results and
lower costs, and performance measures that
show how well innovations are working.

Creating a Culture and Organisational
Systems to Foster Innovation

    Finally, the Innovation Strategy focuses
on what may be the most important element
of all—creating a culture and set of organiza-

-------
tional systems that foster innovation through-
out EPA. The goal is to have each individual
within the EPA workforce view his or her job
more broadly, as an environmental problem-
solver, a partner, a facilitator, and a leader, as
well as a program implemeritor. Communi-
cating results from innovations, rewarding the
innovators, and ensuring that successful
approaches are considered for broader replica-
tion are just some of the ways we will work to
realize our innovation potential.

                       INNOVATIVE
                       APPROACHES
                       FOB. ACBIBVING
                       NATIONAL  GOALS

                           With its com-
                       prehensive focus
                       and detailed plan
                       for implementation,
                       EPA's Innovation
Strategy identifies a number of actions that
will drive innovation throughout the Agency
and ensure progress toward each of our
national environmental goals.

Clean Air and Qlohal Climate Change
    From indoor environments to global cli-
mate change, EPA faces the challenge of
developing air strategies that are workable on
very different scales and for very different cir-
cumstances. We will meet this challenge by-
innovating in air programs, policies, and reg-
ulations.  For example, our strategy for
reducing smog calls for national leadership—
creating new inherently innovative programs
such as the Clear Skies Initiative, a new mar-
ket-based cap-and-trade program  modeled
after the acid rain trading program. 18 We
will continue to develop new regulations
where needed, but those regulations will be
crafted in innovative ways to improve results,
ease implementation, and decrease costs.
Outside the regulatory arena, we will work to
reduce smog and greenhouse gas emissions by-
developing new cleaner technologies and
promoting the use of those developed by-
others. We are also creating a range of part-
nership and information programs to catalyze
improvements across the Nation.

    But federal government actions alone are
not the solution. That is why we will contin-
ue to work at the international, regional,
state, tribal, and local levels, providing infor-
mation and tools to empower individuals,
community groups, air quality officials, and
other interested stakeholders who  want to
work for cleaner, healthier air.

    The Innovation Strategy also calls for
management actions that will lead to more
efficient and effective regulatory approaches
to clean air. One action is to evaluate pilot
projects that can show whether an innovation
has value. For example, in the mid-1990s,
EPA launched a series of innovative air per-
mitting projects designed to streamline the
regulatory process and foster pollution pre-
vention. The results show that flexible air
permits can help companies achieve equal or
greater environmental protection,  improve
competitiveness, arid encourage pollution
prevention, while still retaining practicable,
enforceable capabilities.19

    Over the years we have developed a
number of innovative programs and new
tools to achieve environmental improve-
ments. Now the key is to learn from these
innovative approaches and use our experi-
ence to create additional options for cleaning
the air. In this way,  we can tailor clean ait-
strategies, using new and traditional tools, to
ensure that we are using the  approach that
will achieve the best possible results.

Clean and Safe Water

    The national water program focuses on
watersheds—those naturally defined areas
that encompass and affect our rivers, streams,
and lakes. By looking at watersheds as a
whole, rather than as a set of unrelated com-
ponents, watershed management offers a
more advanced and effective approach for

-------
improving water quality. 1b support this
approach, the Innovation Strategy commits
EPA to issuing a national policy on water-
quality trading. This policy, along with a new
policy on watershed-based permitting, will
lead to more cost-effective approaches to
meeting water quality goals. In addition, EPA
has launched a new national Watershed
Protection Initiative that,  in its first year,
awarded $1.5 million in grants to support pro-
tection and  restoration activities in 20
priority watersheds.2"
    Another priority for the national water
program—and one that can clearly benefit
from innovative solutions	is water infra-
structure. A 2002 EPA study revealed a
critical funding gap for meeting U.S. waste-
water and drinking-water infrastructure
needs.21 Recognizing this gap, the Innovation
Strategy called for a national forum to discuss
innovative management mechanisms, such as
EMSs, that can reduce the life-cycle costs of
infrastructure and more flexible financial
mechanisms to fund improvements. EPA held
that forum in January  200.3,22 and many of
the ideas that emerged are reflected in this
Strategic Plan,

Preserved and Restored Land

    The Innovation Strategy's emphasis on
testing, evaluating, and implementing innova-
tive approaches to environmental problems;
fostering a more innovation-friendly culture
within EPA; and working through partnerships
and stakeholder collaboration will promote
better waste  management and cleanup of con-
taminated waste sites. In particular, innovative
tools and approaches will be used for land
revitalization; consistency and enhanced
effectiveness in site cleanups; and waste mini-
mization, recycling,  and energy recovery of
hazardous and nonhazardous wastes.

     Building upon the success of its
Brownfields  Program, EPA will pilot projects
that integrate land reuse into all land
cleanup processes, explore the use of innova-
tive public and private property reuse and
stewardship mechanisms, and actively seek
out opportunities for policy reforms. We will
do so by working with partners and stake-
holders to enhance coordination, planning,
and communication across the full range of
federal, state, tribal, and local cleanup pro-
grams. These efforts will improve the pace,
efficiency, and effectiveness of site cleanups,
as well as more fully integrate land reuse into
cleanup programs.

    Recognizing that many changes have
taken place since the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act23 was passed, EPA is
launching a national Resource Conservation
Challenge that is designed to find flexible,
yet more protective, ways to conserve our
natural resources through waste reduction
and energy recovery.24 This new program will
take a comprehensive, integrated approach
that includes traditional waste management
programs and lesser recognized avenues,
inside and outside of EPA, for promoting
waste minimization and natural resource con-
servation. This approach will involve
forming diverse partnerships to test innova-
tive approaches to waste reduction and to
stimulate development of new environmental
management infrastructure and technologies.

-------
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

    The Innovation Strategy recognizes the
value of community-based approaches that
integrate environmental management with
human needs, consider long-term ecosystem
health, and highlight the positive correlations
between environmental well-being and eco-
nomic prosperity. Many actions planned under
the Innovation Strategy demonstrate this kind
of comprehensive, community-based focus. For
example, the national air program is supporting
the development of a regional strategy to
comprehensively address multiple air quality
problems, as well as economic growth, land-use
patterns, transportation, and energy issues, in a
growing urban area along the North Carolina-
South Carolina border. Likewise, the national
water program's watershed strategy will enable
a more comprehensive, stakeholder-driven
approach to achieving water quality goals.

    The Innovation Strategy also calls
for environmental protection tools and
approaches that can be used to protect
people, communities, and ecosystems. For
example, improving the use and deployment
of information resources and technology
means we will have more powerful tools to
make environmental management decisions.
It will also  enable us to give citizens informa-
tion they can use in their own lives, and if
they choose, to become more involved in
environmental decision-making. The empha-
sis on developing results-based performance
goals and measures will have similar conse-
quences, creating information that agencies
can use to manage programs and provide
public accountability.
    Finally, the plans for strengthening our
partnership with states and tribes are designed
to improve the environmental and public
health effectiveness of our individual levels of
government. Engaging states earlier in nation-
al planning and budgeting processes;
facilitating state innovations; and reaching out
to build working relationships with agricul-
ture, transportation, and other agencies with
environmental interests are just some of the
means through which we will enhance protec-
tion for people, communities, and ecosystems.

Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
    The vision described in the Innovation
Strategy would raise the bar for environmen-
tal performance by creating an environmental
protection system that encourages greater
environmental stewardship across all parts of
society. Getting there means finding ways to
bring together compliance, pollution preven-
tion, and environmental leadership initiatives
in a way that facilitates environmental
management  and  maximizes environmental
results. It also means meeting the various
needs that exist along the environmental
performance spectrum, from the leaders who
are pursuing advanced environmental
improvements to those enterprises, such as
small businesses, that require assistance in
meeting regulatory responsibilities.

    One way toward these ends is working in
partnership with industry sectors on tailored
environmental management strategies that
recognize  the unique issues affecting their
operations. Through its Sector Strategies
Program,2'1 EPA works with industries to
address sector-specific barriers to improving
performance and develop EMSs and other
innovative tools that are designed with each
sector's needs in mind.  Sector-based programs
enable EPA to better understand the indus-
tries we oversee and to tap into the creative
thinking of others who can help us devise
new and better ways of improving environ-
mental and economic results.

    The Innovation Strategy calls for more
support and encouragement for environmental

-------
leaders by expanding the National
Environmental Performance Track.2" This
unique program offers rewards and recognition
for strong environmental
performance. The
Innovation Strategy focuses
on making membership
even more valuable by offer-
ing additional regulatory
incentives and a higher
level of membership for the
very top performers. While
the program clearly benefits
members, its greatest value is in creating role
models and mentors from whom other facili-
ties can learn as they pursue their own
environmental improvements.

    The Innovation Strategy also recognizes
the value of smart and strategic compliance
assurance in helping companies meet their
environmental responsibilities. To this end, it
focuses EPA on using the full range of com-
pliance assurance tools and combining them
in ways that improve environmental manage-
ment by  regulated entities, maximize
compliance, arid address the needs of envi-
ronmental justice communities. These
integrated approaches include voluntary
compliance incentives, such as the Audit,
Small Business, and Small Communities
Policies2'' to encourage self-auditing, report-
ing, and correction; the use of EMSs in
enforcement settlements to address serious
environmental management problems; and
creative supplemental environmental projects
that return significant, tangible benefits to
communities harmed by noncompliance.

       The award-winning environmental
results program represents another successful
approach.28 Pioneered by Massachusetts, this
program merits expansion because it
improves the performance of small businesses,
results in savings for those businesses, and
allows EPA and states to focus resources on
priority environmental problems.

       Providing smart, strategic compliance
assurance also means providing additional tools
to help facilities understand environmental
laws and regulations. EPA partners with com-
pliance assistance providers to provide easy
access to compliance information through the
                 National Compliance
                 Assistance Clearing-house
                 and "virtual" compliance
                 assistance centers that sup-
                 port specific industry sectors
                 and national environmental
                 program priorities.20 These
                 innovative resources har-
                 ness the power of the
                 Internet to meet small busi-
ness needs. The Innovation Strategy will direct
more attention to small business  needs, starting
with a national small business environmental
summit and development of a comprehensive
small business assistance strategy.
    The complexity7 of today's environmental
challenges, coupled with the need to achieve
environmental results more cost-effectively,
make environmental innovation an imperative.
But innovation brings its own set of challenges.
As EPA pursues new approaches for improving
environmental results, we are faced with the
difficulty of crafting multimedia solutions with-
in a single-medium-based organization, the
complexity of sharing responsibilities across
several layers of government, and the need to
maintain baseline environmental protections
while still creating room for experimentation.

    EPA's Innovation Action Council provides
experienced leadership for addressing these and
other challenges. This group of EPA's most sen-
ior career managers provides overall  direction
for innovation, demonstrated most recently
through the development of the Innovation
Strategy. The Innovation Action Council also
helps resolve policy issues that invariably arise
when exploring new approaches.

    EPA is also making strategic organization-
al changes to support and facilitate
innovation. In 2003, EPA formed a National
Center for Environmental Innovation to
advance innovation in environmental pro-

-------
       grams.-0 Combining staff who have led some of
       EPA's most innovative initiatives, the Center
       has several unique roles. First and foremost,
       it is a focal point for strategic thinking on
       innovative approaches to environmental man-
       agement and provides a point of contact for
       organizations that share EPA's interests in
       environmental innovation. The Center acts as
       a partner with organizations that want to test
       and evaluate innovative approaches and as a
       proponent for replicating innovations that
       prove successful. The Center also stays at the
       forefront of scientific, economic, and other
       social trends to bring the value of new devel-
       opments to EPA's strategic thinking, planning,
       and management.
                                               While the National Center for
                                           Environmental Innovation will foster inno-
                                           vation throughout EPA, there have been
                                           additional efforts within EPA's  national pro-
                                           grams. The national air program has
                                           established a Center for Excellence on Air
                                           Innovations/Futures to enhance information-
                                           sharing among EPA's regional air divisions.
                                           And the national solid waste and emergency
                                           response program has realigned staff in a new
                                           innovation office that will help drive innova-
                                           tion in its programs and policies.

                                               Together, these moves will  ensure that
                                           EPA has the innovation leadership it needs
                                           to achieve better environmental results.
HUMAN CAPITAL

    Protecting human health and the envi-
ronment requires a diverse, highly skilled,
and motivated workforce that seeks creative
solutions to environmental problems and is
committed to achieving excellence. To devel-
op and retain such a workforce, EPA was
                                                  Agency's workforce is high-performing,
                                                  results-oriented, ancl aligned with our strate-
                                                  gic goals and objectives for air, water, land,
                                                  communities and ecosystems, and compli-
                                                  ance and environmental stewardship.
EPA will integrate workforce planning,
employee development, and targeted recruitment
with Agency processes for strategic planning and
 esoiArce management.
       among the first agencies to publish a human
       capital strategy. Issued in 2000, Investing in
       Our People, EPA's Strategy for Human Capital,
       200! - 2003!l has guided our human capital
       efforts over the past few years.

           We are now updating our human capital
       strategy to address the President's
       Management Agenda and to better integrate
       human capital issues into EPA's strategic
       planning for the coming 5 years.  Investing in
       Our People. JJ, EPA's Strategy for Human
       Capital 2003 - 200832 (our updated "human
       capital strategy") will ensure that the
                                                                  Our updated human
                                                              capital strategy will
                                                              help us integrate work-
                                                              force planning,
                                                              employee development,
                                                              and targeted recruit-
                                                              ment with our ongoing
                                                              strategic planning and
                                                              resource management
                                                              processes. By promoting
                                           strong national leadership and effective plan-
                                           ning and implementation of human capital
                                           programs across the Agency, the human capi-
                                           tal strategy addresses both our current and
                                           future workforce needs to accomplish our
                                           goals and objectives.

                                               As part of the President's Management
                                           Agenda, the Office of Personnel
                                           Management (OPM) is leading the federal
                                           government's Strategic Management of
                                           Human Capital Initiative. New Human
                                           Capital Standards for Success,"'3 developed

-------
                                                                       Cross-Goaf Strategies—Human (Capital
jointly by OPM, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), and the General
Accounting Office (GAO), provide the
foundation for this initiative.

    Guided by our Human Resources Council
(HRC), which is composed  of senior leaders
representing headquarters and regional
offices, EPA is developing its human capital
strategy to address OPM's Human Capital
Standards for Success, Our updated human
capital strategy will help to ensure that EPA:

    •   Aligns its workforce to accomplish
        strategic goals arid objectives to pro-
        tect human health and the
        environment through  effective inte-
        gration of Agency-wide planning
        and management processes.

    •   Conducts workforce planning and
        deployment at the regional arid pro-
        gram levels and deploys employees
        or assigns work based on mission-
        critical needs.

    •   Maintains continuity of leadership
        and employee skills and competen-
        cies through strong knowledge
        management, employee develop-
        ment programs, and succession
        planning.

    •   Encourages a results-oriented work-
        place and culture by emphasizing
        performance management.

    *   Identifies, hires, and retains a diver-
        sity of talented individuals, using
        innovative and progressive tools for
        recruitment and retention.

    *   Evaluates its human capital pro-
        grams to ensure they are
        data-driven, cost-effective, and held
        accountable for results by develop-
        ing and Sinking program
        performance to organizational goals.
    Aligning EPA's workforce with our goals
for protecting the environment and human
health is a critical element of our human
capital strategy. The Agency will accomplish
this alignment in two ways: (1) by addressing
human capital management issues under each
of the Agency's five strategic goals and (2) by
explicitly linking human capital activities
with annual Agency-wide processes for
strategic planning arid budgeting. EPA will
make planning, reporting, and accountability
for effective human capital management an

-------
essential component of its Annual
Performance Plan and Budget. Linking dol-
lars, people, and skills will enable program
managers across the Agency to develop a
more complete  assessment of the resources
required to meet annual performance goals
and strategic goals and objectives.

                            The HRC will
                        communicate the
                        Agency's vision for
                        human capital to
                        EPA employees at
                        every level and  will
                        continue to pro-
                        vide staff with
                        information on
                        human capital
                        planning activities.
                        Concurrently,
                        EPAs Senior Policy
                        Council—com-
                        posed of Assistant
                        and Regional
                        Administrators  to
                        address cross-cut-
                        ting Agency
issues	is expected to communicate human
capital roles and responsibilities and inspire
employee commitment to the President's and
the Administrator's vision. Senior Policy
Council members will also ensure that
resources and tools for sharing knowledge  are
available to their organizations and across the
Agency and foster a culture of continuous
learning. Both councils will support Agency-
efforts to develop performance measures for
evaluating the effectiveness of EPA's human
capital programs.

    As we implement our human capital
strategy, we will continue to benchmark
other federal agencies' best practices and
evaluate whether  EPA should implement
similar strategies or processes. We also expect
to strengthen our human capital strategy as a
result of our ongoing work with OPM, OMB,
and GAO and to  consider lessons learned to
improve our strategies.
    Strategic workforce planning is integral
to addressing many of EPA's human capital
issues. We have identified 20 major occupa-
tions—each with a unique set of skills and
competencies—to help the Agency align
mission-critical work with the skills of its
workforce. To facilitate this alignment. EPA
developed a National Strategic Workforce
Planning methodology and online support
system and is in the midst of phased imple-
mentation.34 The Agency's workforce planning
system will enable line managers to make
decisions on deploying employees with
mission-critical skills and competencies both
programmatically and geographically to fulfill
EPA's mission.  By 2005, EPA's workforce plan-
ning system, in conjunction with established
Agency planning and budgeting systems, will
support analysis and decision-making for effec-
tively managing human capital.

    In making sound workforce deployment
decisions, EPA recognizes the need to look
beyond numbers of employees arid their
respective skills. We continuously examine
environmental objectives, changing priori-
ties, and  emerging technologies. Our
competitive sourcing efforts complement our
human capital strategy by providing an
opportunity to analyze the Agency's activities
and increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of our operations. We are examining those
activities with potential for efficiency gains
either through internal improvements or
competition/direct conversion.

    To leverage the skills and talents of our
workforce, the Agency will evaluate innova-
tions in human capital management for their
potential nationwide. Examples include:

    •  Assignments, Not Positions Program,
       EPA Region 10 offers voluntary rota-
       tions every 3 years to encourage
       employees to swap jobs and learn
       about technical programs outside  their
       immediate areas of expertise. Since

-------
                                                                        Cross-Goaf Strategies—Human (Capital
        1996, approximately 70 employees
        have participated in each of the three
        Assignments. Not Positions exercises,
        and more than 100 people have
        moved to different organizations,
        bringing insights and fresh points of
        view to their new assignments.

    •   The Senior Executive Service (SES)
        Mobility Program; To develop our
        senior executives and optimize their
        talents, EPA moved more than 60
        executives into new positions across
        the Agency in 2002 through the SES
        Mobility Program. The Mobility
        Program concept may be extended to
        other EPA levels of management to
        strengthen leadership skills and pro-
        vide exposure to programs across the
        Agency. Such flexibility supports
        continued development of EPA man-
        agers by challenging them with new
        learning experiences and broadening
        their view of the Agency. If imple-
        mented, these development
        opportunities would strengthen EPA's
        succession planning and management
        efforts as well.

    EPA is using advances in information
technology to improve managers' and
employees' access to personnel data through
its automated human resources information
system,  PeoplePlus.3' Improved access to per-
sonnel data will help employees manage their
careers and help Agency leaders make critical
decisions in managing their organizations'
human capital resources.

    •   Employee Profiles will provide
        employees with access to their offi-
        cial personnel records to update
        personal information, such as emer-
        gency contacts, home address/phone,
        handicap/special needs designations,
        and other business process-related
        information.

    •   E-'Development provides web-based
        access for employees and managers to
        update/review training information,
       review/approve training enrollment,
       and document newly acquired skills.

    •  The Manager's Desktop gives super-
       visors and managers access to
       workforce information to facilitate
       organizational decision-making. It
       also provides the connection for
       managers to initiate and track per-
       sonnel action change requests
       electronically.
    EPA is also supporting the President's
government-wide E-Gov Internal Efficiencies
and Effectiveness initiatives'6 to bring com-
mercial best practices to key government
operations. The Agency is an active partici-
pant in a number of government-wide human
resources-related E-Gov activities:

    •  E-Payroll consolidates systems at
       more than 14 processing centers
       across government and eliminates
       duplication in purchasing enterprise
       resource planning software.

    *  Enterprise Human Resources
       Integration integrates personnel
       records across government electroni-
       cally and reduces delays in processing
       security clearances.

    •  Recruitment One-Stop modifies
       USA jobs to create an automated
       resource for federal government
       information and career opportunities.
       It allows for automated resume and
       assessment tools to route resumes,
       assess candidates, and streamline the
       federal hiring process, and it provides
       an up-to-the-minute status on job
       applications."

    EPA has annually awarded over half of
its budget in grants  to state, local, and tribal
governments, educational institutions, and
nonprofit organizations and uses grants as a key
means to achieve its strategic goals. Therefore,
we need grant specialists and project officers
skilled in grants management. They will be
responsible for reviewing, negotiating, and
administering EPA's grant agreements—from

-------
pre-award review of applications, to post-award
monitoring and final closeout.

    Given our renewed emphasis on grants
oversight, EPA must supplement our grant
specialists' traditional skill set (i.e.. grants
processing) with a new competency centered
on the business aspects of grants manage-
ment. We will develop a standardized
training program that, when fully implement-
ed, will enable specialists to verify grantee
compliance with procurement and other
administrative
requirements, identify
unallowable costs,
and ensure that the
rare exemptions made
to allow noncompeti-
tive awards are
appropriately justi-
fied. In addition, we
will improve account-
ability for grants
oversight by requiring
that grant specialists'
and project officers'
performance standards adequately address
their grant management responsibilities.

    Investing in human capital for grants
management is linked to and complements
EPA's human resources plan and the
President's Management Agenda initiative
on strategic management of human capital.
    The loss of institutional knowledge that
can result as managers and employees retire
clearly highlights the need for effective
systems to retain leadership and knowledge.
Ib meet this need, EPA relies on three core
strategies: (1) developing leaders throughout
the organization, (2) promoting continuous
learning, and (3) enabling knowledge transfer.

    Through EPA's Workforce Development
Strategy, the Agency develops leaders by
offering programs  centered on EPA's core
competencies and the SES Executive Core
Qualifications. Using classroom training,
mentoring, coaching, and rotational assign-
ments, EPA will continue to build its
leadership capacity. As an increasing number
of EPA's senior executives become eligible for
retirement, our SES Candidate Development
Program (CDP) will help to mitigate the loss
of leadership, institutional knowledge, and
expertise."'8 By 2004, over 50 highly qualified
EPA SES candidates will graduate to replace
the retiring SES corps. We will continue to
                     strengthen the SES
                     CDP to ensure conti-
                     nuity of leadership.

                         EPA is establish-
                     ing a continuous
                     learning culture  that
                     enables employees
                     and managers to
                     adapt to the rapidly
                     changing political,
                     social, and economic
                     environment.
                     Feedback systems are
key to developing this culture. EPA's perform-
ance management system, PERFORMS
(Performance Planning,  Employee Rating,
Feedback, Opportunity, and Recognition
Management System), provides regular per-
formance feedback to employees and helps
them understand how their work aligns with
the Agency's mission.  To help Agency man-
agers assess and improve their performance,
EPA has implemented a 360-degree feedback
program that enables employees and peers to
provide feedback on managers' performance.

    Evaluating EPA's human capital programs
will provide feedback at the organizational
level. In 2003, we evaluated our EPA Intern
Program to assess its effectiveness in recruit-
ing and preparing a diverse group of future
Agency leaders.39 In 2004, we  will begin eval-
uating other EPA workforce development
programs, and we will use the  results to
improve and refine our leadership  develop-
ment and knowledge management activities.

-------
                                                                       Cross-Goaf Strategies—Human (Capital
    In addition, the Agency will use its work-
force planning system to enhance its
knowledge management activities by examin-
ing ways to access and link information on
EPA expertise in selected skills and compe-
tencies. This capability will enable us to align
our in-house resources and expertise with
mission-critical projects.
    EPA is implementing three core strate-
gies to build a results-oriented workforce and
culture: (1) enhancing performance manage-
ment, (2)  fostering workplace diversity, and
(3) improving employee-labor relations man-
agement.

    In 1998, EPA redesigned PERFORMS to
more clearly, simply, and easily communicate
performance expectations to managers and
employees. PERFORMS reduces administra-
tive burden and minimizes paperwork for
managers by providing broader spans of con-
trol and promotes more frequent, meaningful,
two-way communication between supervisors
and employees. An essential aspect of PER-
FORMS is separating cash awards from
ratings of record, so that feedback and
rewards occur not just at appraisal time, but
throughout the year to highlight and rein-
force excellence in a timely manner.

    A variety of monetary and non-monetary
awards are available to supervisors and man-
agers to motivate or recognize individual
employees, teams, or organizations for high
performance. Although the Agency has pay
and performance systems in place to provide
timely feedback and pay for increased contri-
butions, we are reviewing these systems to
ascertain that skilled individuals are indeed
attracted,  encouraged, and rewarded for their
high performance. We are also evaluating
PERFORMS to confirm that the system
improves communication between employees
and managers and sets appropriate perform-
ance expectations. We will continue to
benchmark other federal and private-sector
performance management systems for appli-
cation in EPA.

    EPAs National Diversity Action Plan
Initiative40 represents the Agency's strategy to
ensure that all employees are treated equi-
tably. EPA is educating its employees about
diversity issues, promoting dialogue within
every office to address and work through
diversity concerns, recruiting and maintain-
ing a diverse workforce, and developing and
implementing concrete solutions to EPAs
diversity issues. We are also expanding our
targeted recruitment initiatives to identify7
well-qualified candidates for mission-critical
positions.

    EPA and its National Partnership
Council are working to foster collaborative
relationships between Agency managers,
unions, and employees to improve working
conditions, career development, and employ-
ee morale. We have established the
Workplace Solutions Staff41 to provide
employees with one-stop service for prevent-
ing and  resolving workplace conflicts,
including informal mediation, conflict resolu-
tion, Alternative Dispute Resolution
Awareness training, outreach, and consulta-
tion. The Workplace Solutions Staff coaches
employees in dealing with workplace con-
flicts more effectively to resolve disputes
before filing formal grievances or complaints.
To improve labor management accountabili-
ty, PeoplePlus provides modules  to manage
labor-employee relations by creating a corpo-
rate database for tracking labor-management
agreements, decisions, and disputes.
R.ECRU TUNG
AND RETAINING
TALENT

    In light of chang-
ing Agency priorities,
the growing number
of senior managers
and employees eligi-
ble for retirement,

-------
                    and the increasingly
                    competitive market for
                    individuals with desir-
                    able or unique skills,
                    EPA's human capital
                    strategy emphasizes
                    recruiting and retaining
                    creative and talented
                    people. We are using
                    our workforce planning
                    system to identify gaps
                    in mission-critical skills,
                    knowledge, and compe-
                    tencies, and we are
                    employing a variety of
human resource tools to recruit and retain a
diverse and highly skilled workforce.

    Toward this end, EPA is maximizing its
use of special hiring authorities, incentives,
and internship and fellowship programs. For
example, to recruit and retain talented
researchers and scientists, the Agency  is
examining the use of a pilot program to hire
up to five researchers a year. Under the pilot,
the Agency will be able  to offer the competi-
tive salaries needed to attract and retain
workl-class scientists and researchers. In addi-
tion, we are reviewing innovative pay
strategies being used  across government.
focusing on pay structures; flexibility; and
opportunities related to the Agency's work-
force needs, program requirements, and
job-market conditions.

    We are also exploring flexible organiza-
tion structures, collaborative work
arrangements, multi-skilled teams, and
options to promote a family-friendly, quality
work environment. EPA is interested in
reviewing the proposed civil service retire-
ment system computations for part-time
service, which would eliminate disincentives
for employees nearing the end of their careers
who would like to phase into retirement by
working part-time schedules, [his would
allow EPA to retain senior staff in hard-to-fill
positions as part of our succession
planning/management effort.
    In addition, EPA is using and will con-
tinue to use various human resource tools
(e.g., voluntary separation incentives and
early retirement authority) provided by the
Homeland Security Act.42 These tools pro-
vide more flexibility than do those offered
under current regulations, and they may aid
in reshaping the workforce when an organiza-
tion's skill mix is no longer optimal for
carrying out the Agency's mission.
    To manage our human capital efforts
effectively, the Agency has established and
continues to improve its Human Resources
Management (HRM) Accountability
Program.43 The HRM Accountability
Program provides a template to ensure that
all Agency employees, from the
Administrator to EPA's rank and file, under-
stand their human capital roles and
responsibilities. EPA's senior political and
career leaders are taking an active role in
communicating EPA's human capital vision
at all levels of the Agency. The HRC advises
the Administrator and Deputy Administrator
on human resource issues, maintains a sus-
tained commitment to managing human
resources within EPA, and oversees imple-
mentation of Agency-wide human capital
initiatives and policies. The  Senior Policy
Council advises the Administrator arid
Deputy Administrator on cross-cutting
Agency issues and helps to communicate the
impact of human capital issues on the
Agency.

    EPA's human resource program managers
in headquarters and regional offices ensure
that employees are recruited and hired to
meet Agency needs in accordance with
merit-based principles and other civil service
personnel requirements. Our new HRM
Accountability Program ensures effective
merit-based decision-making by collecting
substantive data that serve as a primary diag-
nostic tool and provide information  on

-------
performance measurement indicators.
Annual onsite reviews of human resources
offices and delegated examining units will:

    •   Certify knowledge of, and compli-
       ance with. Merit System principles.

    •   Identify the contribution that human
       resource management makes to
       organizational effectiveness.

    •   Determine whether human resource
       management is accomplishing its
       objectives.

    •   Establish a database that can assist
       managers  in making human resource
       decisions.

    •   Identify strengths and weaknesses of
       human resource programs and
       processes.

    As a part of EPA's future human capital
planning process,  we will prepare annual
human capital plans in concert with the
Agency-wide process for developing Annual
Performance Plans. Data-based planning and
analysis required for Annual Performance
Plans will rely heavily on the completion of
EPA's workforce planning and allocation
model to help programs identify the compe-
tencies needed to meet EPA's strategic and
organizational goals. Annual human capital
plans will present strategies for deploying the
resources and workforce development tools
needed to achieve EPA's goals and objectives.

   We are also developing results-oriented
performance goals and measures and a track-
ing mechanism to link the effectiveness of
the human capital program with the
Agency's environmental protection mission.
These performance goals and measures  will
help to guide implementation of our human
capital strategy, track our progress toward our
human capital objectives, and evaluate our
approach for aligning human capital with
EPA's Strategic Plan.
SCIENCE
   Today, scientific knowledge and technical
information are more important than ever as
we seek to understand, and successfully
address, the increasingly complex environmen-
tal problems facing our Nation.44 EPA has
identified reliance on sound science and credi-
ble data among the guiding principles we will
follow to fulfill our mission to protect human
health and the environment. EPA depends on
science, technology, and scientifically defensi-
ble data and models to evaluate risk, develop
and defend protective standards, anticipate
future health and environmental threats, and
identify their solutions.

   To conduct science of the highest quality
and relevance, we promote collaborative part-
nerships and expert peer review. Our approach
to addressing science issues is centered on gen-
erating and using scientific information based
on science priorities ("doing the right science")
         Sound science is the.
       foundation of EPA's work.
       We refa upon science  and
                ,y   i
       technology to kelp us determine
       which environmental problems
       pose important: risks to our
       natural environment,  human
       health, and our quality  of life,>!

-------
     and sound science practices ("doing the
     science right''). We do this through partner-
     ships with states, tribes, and other federal and
     international institutions and by producing
     scientific information of the highest quality.
     In 2002, Administrator Whitman named a
     Science Advisor to work across the Agency to
     ensure that the highest-quality science is bet-
     ter integrated into the Agency's programs,
     policies, and decisions.
         EPA's organizing principle for generating
     and using scientific information is the risk
     assessment/risk management paradigm
     (Figure 1). Risk assessment is the process that
     scientists use to understand and evaluate the
     relative size  (magnitude) and likelihood
     (probability) of risk posed to human health
     and ecosystems by environmental stressors,
     such as air pollution or chemicals in drinking
     water. Risk assessments play an important
     role in Agency decisions and, as appropriate,
     they are integrated with other scientific
     information, such as economic data and engi-
     neering studies, as part of a complete
     scientific analysis to inform decisions. Risk
     management involves determining whether
    Identification of Future Problem, Initiating Event,
          or Puhlic Policy Mjndate
                                   Public HeJth Consideritio
                                   Statul mry/Ucil C,-,nsiderali
                                   Social Factors

                                   Political Considerations
          ami/or Public Health Risk
Figure 1. Risk Assessment/Risk Management Paradigm'"
and how risks should be reduced. Scientific
analysis taken together with nonscientific
factors, such as public values, social factors,
legal requirements, and statutory mandates,
inform Agency management decisions and
guide our actions.

       The scientific data used in risk assess-
ments are generated in research facilities,
collected in the field, and compiled from the
body of scientific literature. EPA creates and
gathers scientific information through our
laboratories, centers, and program and
regional  offices, and from external partners
such as states, tribes, other federal agencies,
and the academic and regulated communi-
ties. Making environmental decisions built
on sound science includes ensuring that sci-
entific findings are properly described
(characterized). To characterize scientific
findings properly, the knowledge, assump-
tions, and uncertainties regarding the science
must be clearly stated.

EPA SCIENCE PRIORITIES?
"'DOING THE RIGHT SCIENCE"

    EPA determines its science priorities
through coordinated science planning, while
also taking into account the particular mis-
sions and mandates of individual programs.
For example, EPA uses "analytic blueprints"
to plan and guide scientific analyses through-
out the regulatory decision-making process.
Analytic blueprints lay out the sequence and
nature of the scientific analyses and data
needed to inform regulatory decisions. As
more complex environmental science is
included in the Agency's regulatory and non-
regulatory decision-making process, EPA
scientists are  increasingly involved through-
out the decision-making process and help
determine additional research and analyses
needed to ensure that EPA's policies are
informed by the best possible science. For
complex environmental management issues
requiring close  coordination across multiple
programs and regions, EPA may develop

-------
Agency-wide science plans to ensure that the
relevant science is available to inform its
decisions and actions.

    EPA's science is
strengthened
through regional
organizations that
provide field sam-
pling, analytic and
data management
support, and quali-
ty assurance for
Agency programs
nationwide. EPA
regions have devel-
oped special capabilities and expertise
(Centers of Applied Science) based on
unique geographic and demographic issues.
Centers have been designated for ambient
monitoring, environmental biology, chem-
istry, microbiology, and analytic pollution
prevention methodologies. EPA's quality-
assurance programs ensure the integrity of
environmental data by overseeing manage-
ment of monitoring
programs, approving data
collection activity plans, and
evaluating monitoring and
laboratory practices. The fast
pace of emerging technolo-
gies arid science requires that
Agency programs remain at
the forefront of new analytic
procedures, and  developing and adapting
analytic methods and procedures are increas-
ingly important. These capabilities enable us
to provide technical advice and assistance to
our federal, state, and local government
agency partners.

    The Agency's research program is
designed to conduct leading-edge research
and foster the sound use of science and tech-
nology. EPA research both addresses specific
needs to support Agency decisions and, by
increasing our understanding of key process-
es—biological, physical/chemical, social, and
others	that underlie and drive environmen-
             tal systems, provides the generic scientific
             basis for responding to a wide variety of envi-
             ronmental problems.46 Our research direction
                                     is describee! in
                                     research strategies
                                     arid documented as
                                     performance meas-
                                     ures in multi-year
                                     research plans. To
                                     ensure the quality
                                     of our research pro-
                                     gram, we use a
                                     coordinated, coop-
                                     erative research
                                     planning process;
             rigorous, independent peer review; and inter-
             agency partnerships and extramural grants to
             academia to complement EPA's own scientif-
             ic expertise. This approach allows EPA to
             keep its leading edge in environmental
             research and focuses our efforts and resources
             on those areas where we can add the most
             value toward reducing uncertainty in risk
             assessments and enhancing environmental
             management.
EPA's approach to
includes setting science  priorities
right science"—and using sound science
practices	"'doing the science right.n
                EPA is implementing the President's
             Management Agenda to improve research
             and development (R&D) program manage-
             ment and effectiveness through our
             application of explicit R&D investment cri-
             teria.4' By carefully examining the relevance,
             quality, and performance of our research pro-
             gram, we are improving R&D program
             management, better informing R&D program
             funding decisions, and increasing public
             understanding of the possible benefits and
             effectiveness of the federal investment in
             R&D. Agency R&D programs strive to artic-
             ulate why this investment is important,
             relevant, and appropriate. R&D programs

-------
have well-conceived plans that identify pro-
gram goals and priorities and Sinks to Agency
program and regional office needs, as well as
to national needs.

    EPA's specific science priorities, identified
in each strategic goal in a separate science/
research objective, are summarized below:

    •  Goal 1, Clean Air and Climate
       Change: Science priorities focus on
       emissions,  fate and transport, expo-
       sures, mechanisms of injury, and
       health effects of criteria air pollu-
                         tants. Activities
                         include routine
                         monitoring, air
                         quality modeling,
                         fuel and fuel addi-
                         tive toxicity
                         testing review, and
                         risk assessments.
                         Air toxics priori-
                         ties include
                         developing and
                         improving air
                         quality models and
                         source receptor
       tools; cost-effective pollution preven-
       tion and other control options; and
       scientific information and tools for
       quantitative assessment of nation-
       wide, urban, and residual air toxic
       risks. Other significant activities
       include analyses of the impacts of
       atmospheric change, the collection
       and analysis of solar ultraviolet (UV)
       monitoring data, community-based
       assessments, and building surveys.

       Goa! 2, C!ean and Safe Water:
       Science priorities address water quali-
       ty and drinking water. Water quality
       priorities focus on approaches and
       methods to develop and apply crite-
       ria to support designated uses and to
       diagnose impairment of and protect
       and restore aquatic ecosystems.
       Drinking water priorities include
       assessing and managing risks to
       human health posed by exposure to
       regulated and unregulated chemicals
       and pathogens, and protecting source
       waters and the quality of water in the
       distribution system.
    •  Goal 3, Land Preservation and
       Restoration: Science priorities focus
       on improving characterization, meas-
       uring, and monitoring methods;
       enhancing methods and models for
       estimating ecological effects; reduc-
       ing uncertainty in human health and
       ecological risks; and developing more
       cost-effective and reliable remedia-
       tion and treatment technologies.
    *  Goal 4, Healthy Communities and
       Ecosystems: Science priorities are
       wide ranging and comprise a variety
       of priorities among multiple program
       offices. These priorities  include risk
       assessment/management of new  and
       existing chemicals, protection of tar-
       geted aquatic ecosystems,  refinement
       and enhancement of human health
       and ecological risk assessments, char-
       acterization of global climate change,
       development and support of emerg-
       ing scientific advancements, and
       homeland security.
    •  Goal 5, Compliance and
       Environmental Stewardship:
       Science priorities are pollution pre-
       vention practices; new technology
       development; socioeconomics; and
       decision-making related to compli-
       ance, enforcement, incentives,
       monitoring, and innovative
       approaches to environmental stew-
       ardship and sustainable  development.
    In addition. EPA has identified cross-cut-
ting science priorities that span  several
programs and help the Agency accomplish
multiple science objectives. We have identi-
fied aggregate and cumulative risk
assessment, genomics, computational toxicol-
ogy, and susceptible subpopulations as

-------
high-priority cross-cutting activities.
Advances in these areas will improve EPA's
capability to predict and reduce potential
human health and ecological risks under all
five of the Agency's goals.

Aggregate and Cumulative Risk Assessment
    Risk assessment is evolving from evalu-
ating a single stressor in one environmental
medium affecting one endpoint to consider-
ing aggregate and cumulative risks. Aggregate
risk assessments consider exposure to a single
stressor, such as a chemical, by multiple path-
ways and all relevant routes of exposure.
Cumulative risk assessments describe and,
where possible, quantify a wide variety of
health and ecological effects from radiation,
biological stressors, and chemicals. An exam-
ple is the estimation of risks posed from
concurrent exposure, through all relevant
pathways and routes of exposure, to multiple
chemicals that act the  same way in the body.
Cumulative assessments also consider charac-
teristics of the population potentially at risk.
These range from individuals to sensitive
subgroups who may be  highly susceptible to
risks from stressors or groups of stressors due
to their age, gender, disease history, size, or
developmental stage.

Qenomics

   Advances in genetic toxicology will have
an enormous impact on EPA's ability to assess
potential risk. Our initial research is focusing
on the use of genomics as  a tool to identify
and, ultimately solve human and environ-
mental problems. Genomics examines the
molecular basis of toxicity and develops bio-
markers of exposure, effects, and
susceptibility to chemicals and other stres-
sors. Before genomics information can be
used effectively in Agency risk assessments,
such issues as accuracy, reproducibility, data
quality, and understanding whether a genetic
change indicates an adverse effect, need to be
resolved. An important goal for EPA is to use
genomics  approaches to provide data for the
computational modeling of toxicological
pathways for single chemicals or classes of
chemicals ("computational toxicology").

Computational Toxicology

    The Agency is enhancing the scientific
basis and diagnostic/predictive capabilities of
existing arid proposed chemical testing pro-
grams by using in vitro or alternative
approaches, such as molecular profiling,
bioinformatics, and quantitative structure-
activity relationships. These techniques will
be used in attempting to determine genes
that may be responsible for specific mecha-
nisms of toxicity, diagnosing patterns of genes
associated with known mechanisms of toxici-
ty, and characterizing and modeling chemical
structures associated with known mechanisms
of toxicity, respectively. The term "computa-
tional toxicology" refers to using these
alternative approaches in conjunction with
highly sophisticated computer-based models.
This approach is expected to greatly reduce
the use of animal testing to obtain chemical
toxicitv information.
Environmental Indicators

    EPA is committed to identifying, devel-
oping, and applying indicators that can
improve our ability to assess environmental
progress. While they complement more tradi-
tional process indicators, such as measures of
emissions or discharges,  these new "outcome"
measures are  intended to more closely reflect
the actual impact on ecological or public
health from environmental decisions and
help clarify	-quantitatively and qualitative-
ly—the benefits and costs associated with

-------
further incremental improvements. Under
ORD's Environmental Indicator Initiative,
launched in November 2001, our research
will result in a technical report that provides
the scientific foundation for future Reports
on the Environment and will identify addi-
tional scientific research and data needed to
improve our ability to make sound human
and environmental health decisions.

                      Susceptible
                      Subpopulations

                          The Agency con-
                      ducts a continuing
                      research program to
                      protect the general
                      public as well as
                      groups of individuals
                      (for example, older
                      people, children, and
                      tribal peoples) who
                      might be more sensi-
                      tive/susceptible than
                      the general popula-
                      tion to  the harm fill
                      effects of exposure to
                      environmental
                      agents,  such as con-
taminants in drinking water. Studies
conducted or supported by EPA to identify
and characterize susceptible subpopulations
can be described in the context of the various
intrinsic (e.g., age, genetic traits) or acquired
(e.g., pre-existing disease, exposure) charac-
teristics that can modify the risk of illness or
disease. Studies of susceptible subpopulations
typically involve multi-disciplinary research
and assessments to identify a range of possible
adverse health effects, including cancer,
reproductive toxicity, and gastrointestinal ill-
ness. Because of the importance and broad
scope of this issue, EPA has established part-
nerships with various federal and state
agencies, universities, and other public or pri-
vate research entities to leverage resources
and capabilities. Examples of activities at EPA
include developing supplemental guidance to
the cancer guidelines on cancer risk to chil-
dren and prioritizing and studying environ-
mental health hazards to older people.
    Equally important to doing the right sci-
ence is doing it correctly. Sound science, as
described by the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, is "organized
investigations and observations conducted by
qualified personnel using documented meth-
ods and leading to verifiable results and
conclusions."43 The R&D investment criteri-
on of quality, mentioned earlier, refers to the
Agency ''doing the science right." Sound sci-
ence or "doing the science right" means
supporting, enhancing, and implementing
sound science practices  arid approaches, such
as peer review, quality assurance, science
coordination,  and oversight.

Peer Review

    External review of scientific work products
by qualified, independent, knowledgeable
scientists enhances credibility, uncovers
technical problems, identifies additional infor-
mation needs, and ensures that conclusions
follow from data using generally accepted
scientific standards. The goal of the Agency's
Peer Review Policy49 is to enhance the quality
and credibility of Agency decisions by ensur-
ing that the scientific  and technical work
products underlying these decisions receive
appropriate levels of peer review by independ-
ent scientific and technical experts.

External Advisory Qroups

    External advisory groups play an  impor-
tant role in "doing the right science" and
"doing the science right." In particular, the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), EPA's
Science Advisory Board (SAB), and  the
Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) pro-
vide scientific and technical advice to the
Agency. Each of these advisory groups is
composed of a distinguished body of scientists

-------
and engineers who are recognized experts in
their respective fields.

    As chartered by Congress. NAS advises
the federal government on scientific and
technical matters and conducts studies for a
variety of sponsors, including EPA.'1' 'The rec-
ommendations resulting from these studies are
an important source of independent advice
for Agency decision-makers and scientists.

    SAB has a broad mandate to advise the
Agency on technical matters.51 Among its
principal missions are reviewing the quality
and relevance of scientific and technical
information being used or proposed as the
basis for Agency regulations; reviewing
research programs and the technical basis of
applied  programs; and advising the Agency
on broad scientific matters in science, tech-
nology,  social, and economic issues.

    BOSC's mission is to provide advice,
information, and recommendations about
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
research programs.52 Its specific responsibilities
include  evaluating ORD's science and engi-
neering research, programs and plans,
laboratories, arid research management prac-
tices and recommending actions to improve
their quality and/or strengthen their relevance
to EPA's mission. BOSC also evaluates and
provides advice on using peer review within
ORD to sustain and enhance die quality of
EPA's science and reviews ORD's program
development and progress, research planning
process, and research program balance.

Quality Assurance

    Quality assurance involves planning,
implementing, and reviewing data collection
activities to ensure that the data collected by
or on behalf of the Agency are of the type,
quantity, and quality needed. EPA's peer
review policy and quality system are
described in our Information Quality
Guidelines, which outline how we maximize
the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity
of our scientific information.3'
Science Coordination and Oversight

    The Science Policy Council (SPC) serves
as a mechanism for addressing EPA's many
significant science policy issues that go beyond
regional and program boundaries'4. To integrate
the policies that guide Agency decision-makers
in their use of scientific and technical informa-
tion, the SPC works to implement and ensure
the success of selected initiatives recommended
by external advisor/ bodies, such as NAS and
the SAB, as well as the U.S. Congress, iiidus-
try, environmental groups, and Agency staff.
Examples of SPC issues include: revision of
the cancer guidelines to provide a current
state-of-the-art approach for determining
cancer risk, harmonization of cancer and non-
cancer risk assessment approaches, evaluation
of toxicity testing approaches, and validation
of laboratory methods.

    The Risk Assessment Forum (RAF) is a
standing committee of senior EPA scientists.55
It was established to promote Agency-wide
consensus on difficult and controversial risk
assessment issues and to ensure that this con-
sensus is incorporated into appropriate Agency
risk assessment guidance. The RAF focuses on
generic issues fundamental to the risk assess-
ment process and related science policy issues.

    Another effort to ensure Agency dialogue
and coordination is the Council for
Regulatory Environmental Modeling
(CREM).56 CREM was established to pro-
mote consistency and consensus between
environmental  model developers and users.

-------
    EPA intends to meet the challenge of
advancing environmental science, and the
use of this science in our decisions, by con-
tinuing and enhancing collaboration with
states, tribes, and federal and international
partners, and by measuring our performance
through the use of environmental indicators
and other measures.
Tribal Partnerships

    The Tribal Science Council (TSC)37
represents a new paradigm for how the
Agency works with tribal governments. The
mission of the TSC is to provide a forum for
interaction between tribal and Agency repre-
sentatives to work collaboratively  on
environmental scientific issues, including
research, monitoring, modeling, information,
technology, and training in Indian country.
In conjunction with our tribal partners, the
Agency is exploring a new approach, Health
and Well-Being, that incorporates the cultur-
al interconnecteclness between tribes ancl the
natural world into assessments arid uses
human and environmental health and well-
being as its foundation. The TSC is
committed to developing sound cross-media
scientific approaches to support tribal cultur-
al values and traditional ways of life and the
availability of a healthy environment for
present and future generations.

Other Federal Partners

    Our emphasis on building partnerships
also extends to our relationships with other
federal agencies. EPA has ongoing partner-
ships with many federal agencies engaged in
environmental research. We actively partici-
pate in the Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources (CENR) of the National
Science and Technology Council, which was
established to foster arid implement a coordi-
nated multi-agency and interdisciplinary
focus for federal environmental  R&D.
Through partnerships with CENR mem-
bers—such as the Departments of Energy,
Agriculture, and the Interior and the
National Institutes of Health—we can stay
abreast of emerging technologies, evaluate
new approaches, and provide a broad  knowl-
edge base to inform EPA decisions.
    EPA's approach to conducting and using
science in service to the Agency's mission
will ensure that Agency policies, decisions,
and other activities reflect high-quality scien-
tific information relevant to current and
future environmental issues. We will accom-
plish this goal by ensuring that we work
together, both across the Agency and with
our partners, to identify the highest-priority
science activities and that our work meets
the highest standards of scientific excellence.

-------
HOMELAND SECURITY

    The terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, followed shortly by the deliberate use of
anthrax to contaminate public buildings,
brought into sharp focus the important role
EPA has to play iri helping America meet and
defeat the threat of terrorism. EPA's role in
environmental monitoring and remediation
in lower Manhattan, along with the Agency's
efforts to decontaminate the Hart Senate
Office Building arid other facilities on Capitol
Hill, revealed the extent to which we will be
on the front lines in the war against terrorism.

    EPA's mission is clear: to protect human
health and the environment. In pursuing this
mission, we have developed certain unique
scientific and technical expertise arid possess
additional capabilities that complement
those of other federal
agencies, including the
new Department of
Homeland Security.
                                           (4) protection of EPA personnel and infra-
                                           structure. Each of these areas draws on
                                           expertise the Agency already possesses and
                                           expands on that experience to meet the chal-
                                           lenges we face in protecting the Nation
                                           against the threat of terrorism.
                          EPA's homeland security  efforts  focus on:
   The events of
September 11 and             ,
thereafter led us to
reassess our capabilities         <
relating to national
security and determine         {
whether they can be
enhanced to better pro-
tect the American people. Our role in
homeland security reflects certain responsi-
bilities given to the Agency under  such laws
as the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act
of 2002,3b several Presidential decision direc-
tives,59 and the President's July 2002 National
Strategy for Homeland Security.60
                   >'0'RK
    EPA's homeland security efforts are cen-
tered on four main areas of responsibility:
(1) critical infrastructure protection; (2)
preparedness, response, and  recovery;
(3) communication and information; and
^  recovery
                                 Preparedness, response, an
                                 Commiinication and providing information
                                 Protecting EPA personnel  and hrfrastructure.
                                               Under the National Strategy for
                                           Homeland Security, EPA is named the lead
                                           federal agency for protecting two of the
                                           Nation's critical infrastructure sectors: the
                                           Water Sector and the Chemical Industry and
                                           Hazardous Materials Sector.61 In addition, the
                                           Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
                                           Preparedness and Response Act of 2002  gives
                                           EPA specific responsibilities for promoting
                                           the security of the Nation's public drinking-
                                           water infrastructure.62

                                               These missions draw on EPA's unique
                                           programmatic responsibilities and expertise
                                           related to the drinking-water and wastewater

-------
industries and the use, handling, storage,
release, and disposal of chemicals and chemi-
cal wastes at industrial facilities. In addition,
as a result of EPA's experience with air moni-
toring and indoor air quality issues, the
then-Office of Homeland Security at the
White House gave the Agency the lead  for
the Biowatch system. This system is being
implemented in cities across the country to
monitor for airborne release of certain biolog-
ical contaminants.

                              In these
                          areas, EPA is
                          committed to
                          assessing and
                          reducing vulnera-
                          bilities and
                          strengthening
                          detection and
                          response capabili-
                          ties for critical
                          infrastructures. In
                          addition, EPA
                          will contribute to
                          similar efforts by
                          other federal
departments and  agencies addressing food,
transportation, and energy, and will  provide
environmental expertise to support federal
law-enforcement  activities. Among EPA's
program offices involved in this area are the
Office of Solid Waste  and Emergency
Response (OSWER), the Office of Water
(OW), the Office of Research and
Development  (ORD), the Office of Air  and
Radiation (OAR), and the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(OPPTS). EPA's goals for protecting critical
infrastructure include:

    •   Work  with the states, tribes, drink-
        ing-water and wastewater utilities
        (water utilities), and other partners
        to enhance the security of water and
        wastewater utilities.

    •   Work  with the states, tribes, and
        other partners to enhance security in
        the chemical and oil industries.
    *   Work with other federal agencies, the
        building industry, and other partners
        to help reduce the vulnerability of
        indoor environments to chemical,
        biological, and radiological incidents.

    •   Help ensure that critical environmen-
        tal threat-monitoring information
        and technologies are available to the
        private sector, federal counterparts,
        and state and local governments to
        assist in detecting threats.

    •   Actively participate in  national secu-
        rity  and homeland security efforts
        pertaining to food, transportation,
        and energy.

    •   Manage its federal, civil, and crimi-
        nal enforcement programs to meet
        our homeland security,  counter-ter-
        rorism, and anti-terrorism
        responsibilities under Presidential
        Decision Directives 39,6i 62,6"1 and
        6365 and environmental, civil, and
        criminal statutes.
    Under the National Strategy for
Homeland Security and various federal
response plans, EPA has specific response and
recovery responsibilities. As the Agency's
experience since September 1 1  has made
clear, we must expand and enhance our abili-
ty to provide response and recovery support
to any future terrorist events. EPA will focus
on strengthening and broadening its response
capabilities,  clarifying its roles and responsi-
bilities to  ensure an effective response, and
promoting improved response capabilities
across government and industry in the areas
in which the Agency has unique knowledge,
experience, and expertise. Among the pro-
gram offices involved in this effort are
OSWER,  OPPTS, arid ORD. To fulfill our
responsibilities for preparedness, response,
and recovery, EPA will:

-------
    •  Be prepared to respond to and recover
       from a major terrorist incident any-
       where in the country by maintaining
       trainee! personnel and effective
       communications, ensuring practiced
       coordination and decision-making,
       and  providing the best technical tools
       arid  technologies to address threats,

    •  Communicate to federal, state, and
       local agencies its roles, responsibili-
       ties, authorities, capabilities, and
       interdependericies under all applica-
       ble emergency plans consistent with
       the National Strategy for Homeland
       Security and efforts undertaken by
       the new Department of Homeland
       Security. The Agency will also
       understand the roles, responsibilities,
       authorities, capabilities, arid interde-
       pendencies of its partners.

    •  Support and develop the preparedness
       of state, local, and tribal governments
       and  private industry to respond to,
       recover from, and continue opera-
       tions after a terrorist attack.

    *  Advance the state of knowledge in the
       areas relevant to homeland security to
       provide first responders and  decision-
       makers with the tools and scientific
       and  technical understanding they need
       to manage existing and potential
       threats to homeland security.

COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION

    Comprehensive,  accurate, well-organized,
and timely information is critical to sound
decision-making internally and to maintain-
ing public confidence in times of threat. EPA
possesses unique capabilities to collect, syn-
thesize, interpret, manage, disseminate, and
enhance  understanding of complex informa-
tion about environmental and human-made
contaminants and the condition of the envi-
ronment. Effectively managing and sharing
this information within  the Agency, among
our partners at all levels of government, with
the private sector, and with academia will
contribute to the Nation's capability to
detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against,
respond to, and recover from terrorist inci-
dents. Specifically, EPA will:

    •  Use reliable environmental informa-
       tion from internal and external
       sources to ensure informed decision-
       making and appropriate response.

    •  Effectively disseminate timely, quality
       environmental information to all lev-
       els of government, industry, and the
       public, allowing them to make
       informed decisions about human
       health and the environment.

    •  Exchange information with the
       national security community to pre-
       vent, detect, and respond to terrorist
       threats or attacks.

    *  Continuously and reliably communi-
       cate with employees and managers.
    The security and protection of EPA's per-
sonnel and infrastructure are critical to
ensuring our ability to respond to terrorist
incidents as well as continue to fulfill our
mission. To further safeguard our staff, ensure

-------
the continuity of our operations, and protect
the operational capability of our vital infra-
structure assets, EPA is taking steps to:
    •  Safeguard our employees.

    *  Ensure the continuation of the
       Agency's essential functions and
       operations.

    •  Maintain a secure technology infra-
       structure capable of supporting lab
       data transport and analysis functions,
       continual telecommunications to all
       EPA locations, and management of
       critical data and information.

    •  Ensure that the Agency's physical
       structures and assets are secure and
       operational.

COORDINATING TI-IE EFFORT

    EPA's homeland security efforts are very
much an extension of our traditional mission
and involve a number of our program offices.
To coordinate these efforts, the Agency has
established the EPA Office of Homeland
Security within the Office of the
Administrator. This new office will serve as
the central coordinating body in the Agency
for homeland security and as a single point of
entry for homeland security matters with
other federal departments and agencies.
    The new Department of Homeland
Security is responsible for coordinating the
various efforts of federal departments and
agencies involved with homeland security. As
an important partner of the Department of
Homeland Security, EPA—through its pro-
gram and regional offices	will work with
the department on a host of homeland secu-
rity issues, including critical infrastructure
protection, research, and response and recov-
ery. EPA's Office of Homeland Security will
be responsible for ensuring that the Agency's
various external efforts are properly coordi-
nated arid receive clear direction from the
Office of the Administrator and other senior
AcffiKViNG RESULTS

    EPA is capable of meeting our homeland
security mission without compromising our
ability to fulfill our traditional mission. By
keeping the operational aspects of homeland
security in existing programs (as opposed to
creating a new homeland security program
office), EPA should realize numerous cross-cut-
ting benefits from its homeland security work.

    For example, our work in enhancing
technologies for detecting chemical or
biological  contaminants that could be delib-
erately introduced into a public water supply
might prove useful in detecting naturally
occurring contaminants. Similarly, efforts to
enhance our response capacity to meet the
challenges of several simultaneous terrorist
acts could help the Agency respond more
effectively, for example, to an accidental
release at a chemical facility. As we continue
to build our capacity to meet our homeland
security responsibilities, we will bring our
expertise and experience to bear in our
efforts to protect human health and the envi-
ronment under all of our strategic goals.

-------
ECONOMIC AND POLICY AMALYSIS
    EPA's regulations and policies define the
technical, operational, and legal details of
many of the Nation's environmental pro-
grams. Each year, we issue hundreds of rules
and policies—some routine and non-
controversial, others dealing with complex,
cutting-edge scientific issues or generating
major economic benefits and costs. The
quality of the analyses on which we base our
decisions and the clarity of policies and
regulations  we develop determine how well
environmental programs actually work and
achieve health and environmental goals.
Sound economic and policy analysis builds
the foundation for EPA to meet its goals and
use its resources wisely to do so.

    To ensure that EPA uses sound analysis
in developing priority regulations and guid-
ance, we have adopted procedures to leverage
cross-Agency expertise, emphasize early
analytic planning, promote option develop-
ment, and encourage timely management
involvement. A recent review of our process
for developing regulations found our current-
system to be well designed, but recommended
several improvements, including strengthen-
ing economic and science analysis,
considering a broader range of options, and
increasing management attention.
    To address these recommendations, we
have developed a strategy for improving our
internal processes. In particular, we will
emphasize sound economic and policy analy-
sis by continually investigating emerging
analytic approaches and adopting them as
appropriate, fostering consistent techniques
across Agency programs, and ensuring that
appropriate environmental results are
achieved cost-efficiently. In addition, we
have named an Economics Advisor who will
work across the Agency to ensure that EPA
uses the best economic science to support
Agency regulations, policies, procedures, and
decisions.
    Sound economic and policy analysis sup-
ports EPA's continuing efforts to quantify the
benefits of its air, land, and water regulations,
policies, and programs. For example, deter-
mining the value of ecological systems and
the benefits of preserving these systems will
be critical in our work toward healthy com-
munities and ecosystems. Sound economic
and policy analysis will also support EPA's
goals for promoting stewardship and
improved compliance by fostering considera-
tion of such nonregulatory approaches as
voluntary programs, innovative compliance
tools, and flexible, market-based solutions.
Sound analyses help gain support for Agency
decisions, allowing us to implement regula-
tions, policies, and programs effectively and
efficiently. In addition, our analysis of issues
and priorities established under statute or by
executive order that cut  across Agency pro-
grams	such as small business and unfunded
mandates—help us better understand the
economic effects of various approaches and
ensure that we use the Nation's resources
wisely. Carefully allocating resources is par-
ticularly important today, as many states face
severe budget constraints.

-------
WHAT WE INTEND TO ACCOMPLISH

    Our strategy for improving EPA's regula-
tory and economic analysis addresses several
objectives: (1) to enhance the quality of
Agency decisions; (2) to refine our analytic
tools and capabilities and factor new analytic
information into Agency rules and policies
more effectively; and (3) to address priorities.
To accomplish these objectives, our strategy
emphasizes analytic planning, management
involvement, cross-office participation, and
public input.

Enhancing the Quality of Agency Decisions
    As suggested by our recent review of our
regulatory development process, EPA is
strongly committed to strengthening the
quality and consistency of the economic sci-
ence and policy analysis supporting Agency
decisions.  lypically, EPA forms workgroups of
technical experts to develop regulations and
policies. We will strive  to bolster workgroup
expertise by engaging economists, policy ana-
lysts, scientists, and legal staff from offices
across the Agency throughout the regulation
and policy development process.

    In addition, we will work to apply sound
economic science and promote consistency.
In FY 2001, following extensive peer review-
by the Economics Subcommittee of EPA's
Science Advisory Board (SAB), the Agency
released its Guidelines for Preparing
Economic Analyses. In its final review report,
SAB concluded that the guidelines "succeed
in reflecting methods and practices that
enjoy widespread acceptance in the environ-
mental economics profession." EPA will work
to ensure that staff across the Agency under-
stand these guidelines and apply them
consistently, and we will conduct internal
peer reviews to ensure the quality of econom-
ic analyses prepared for economically
significant regulatory actions.

    Finally, we will identify and investigate
key cross-cutting environmental policy issues.
Historically, EPA has addressed environmen-
tal problems by medium—air, water, or land.
However,  many problems might be addressed
more efficiently using holistic or multimedia
approaches. We will continue to use econom-
ic and policy analysis to identify emerging
environmental concerns,  such as children's
health, and assess cross-media, cross-program
issues, such as Agency policy on mercury.

Improving Analytic Tools and Capabilities

    EPA must use the most up-to-date, sound
information and economic analysis methods
in developing regulations and policies. We
are working to advance the tools and tech-
niques we can use to assess the effects of
Agency actions, communicate with our part-
ners and the public, and strengthen our
regulations and policies.

    In the coming months, the Agency will
issue an Ecological Benefits Strategic Plan to
provide a framework for using ecology and
economics to evaluate the impact of policies
and regulations. We will also establish a
research agenda to better  account for ecologi-
cal impacts in benefit-cost analyses.

-------
    We are finalizing an Agency
Environmental Economic Research Strategy
that will draw together EPA research and
establish our eco-
nomic research
priorities. Future
research will focus
on such topics as
resolving issues
associated with
determining the
value of reducing
health risks;
improving our cost
estimation; and
treating uncertainty
in benefit-cost
analysis.

    Through our
SAB affiliation,
EPA will work
closely with preeminent economic scientists.
We will continue to consult with the SAB
Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee to ensure that our Economic
Guidelines comport with current economic
science in mortality risk valuation, uncertain-
ty analysis, and ecological benefits valuation.
Finally, to improve our staff's capability to
provide sound economic and policy analysis,
our internal Economics Forum will continue
to address economic issues.  We will train  staff
in such key areas as economic analysis guid-
ance, children's health valuation,
quantitative uncertainty analysis, and incor-
porating analysis in regulation and policy
development effectively.

Addressing Policy Priorities

    EPA actions are bounded by many policy
priorities and initiatives, including
Congressional priorities provided in environ-
mental or other statutes, Executive Office
priorities presented in executive  orders, and
Agency initiatives. We will use appropriate
economic and policy analysis to further the
Agency's policy priorities.
    One such priority is reducing burden
on small entities. Consistent with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by
                        the Small Business
                        Regulatory
                        Enforcement
                        Fairness Act,
                        EPA will consider
                        the impact  of its
                        actions on small
                        entities. When
                        appropriate, we
                        will continue to
                        convene a Small
                        Business Advocacy
                        Panel with  the
                        Office of Manage-
                        ment and Budget
                        and Small Business
                        Administration.
                        To date, EPA has
                        convened 26 panels
and continues to assess the need for addition-
al panels.

    In addressing our policy priorities, we will
continue to promote innovative analytic
approaches, work with our federal, state, trib-
al, and local government partners, and
encourage public participation to  ensure that
Agency decision-makers consider  a broad
range of approaches and perspectives.

-------
1.   U.S. Environmental Prelection Agency, EPA's Enterprise Architecture 2003, Submitted to the Olfice of
    Management and Budget, September 8, 2003. Internal document.

2.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Information, Toxics Release Inventory Web
    Site: http://www.epa.gov/tri/-Date of access: August 25, 2003.

3.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Envirotacts Web Site:
    http://www.epa.gov/enviro. Date of access: August 25, 2003.

4.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Information, Window to My Environment
    Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/wme. Date of access: August 25, 2003.

5.   Network Steering Board. Exchange Network Net Web Site: http://www.exchangerietwork.net. Washington DC.
    Date of access: August 26, 2003.

6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Enterprise Architecture 2003, Submitted to the Office of
    Management and Budget, September 8, 2003. Internal document.

7.   Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106, February 10, 1996). Available online at
    http://www.tricare.osd.mil/imtr/ppm/documents/clingercohen.pdf. Date of access: August 25, 2003.

8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Information. Environmental Data Standards
    Council Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/edsc. Washington DC. Date of access: August 21, 2003.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. System of Registries Web Site:
    http://www.epa.gov/sor. Washington DC. Date of access:  August 21, 2003.

9.   Mark Luttner and Mark Day, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information.
    August 15, 2003. Electronic Records and Document Management System  (ERDM.S)  Update Memorandum.
    Washington DC.

10. Network .Steering Board. Exchange Network Net Web Site: http://www.exchangenetwork.net. Washington DC.
    Date of access: August 26, 2003.

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. Central Data Exchange Web
    Site: http://www.epa.gov/cdx. Washington DC. Date of access: August 26, 2003.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2002. Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,
    Objectivity, L'tiiity. and Integrity, of Information E>isseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/260R-
    02-008. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oei/quali-
    tyguidelines, EPA information Quality Guidelines Web Site. Date of access: September 17, 2003.

13. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. April 2003. Implementing the Presidents Management Agenda for E-
    Government. Washington DC.  Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/2003egov__strat.pdf.
    Date of access: September 17, 2003.

14. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. April 2003. Implement/rig the President's Management Agenda for E-
    Government. Washington DC.  Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/2003egov__strat.pdf.
    Date of access: September 17, 2003.

15. National Academy of Public Administration. 2000. Environment.gov: Transforming Environmental  Protection for
    the 21st Century. Washington,  DC.

    Gibson, Thomas. March/April 2002. The innovation imperative. Environmental Forum Volume 19, Number 2:
    22-31.

16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Economics and  Innovation. April 2002. innovating for
    Better Environmental Results: A Strategy To Guide the Next Generation of Environmental Protection, EPA100-R-02-
    002. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available online at www.epa.gov/opei/strategy.

17. Information about Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and EPA's EMS activities is available online at:
    www.epa.gov/erns. Date of access: August 2003.

18. Information about EPA's  Clear Skies Initiative is available online at: www.epa.gov/clearskies. Date of access:
    August 2003.

-------
19.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Flexible Permit Implementation Review: }ntel Permit Review Report,
     Available online at http://www.epa. gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/iap_inprr.pdf.
20.  Information about EPA's Watershed Protection Initiative is available online at www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/
     initiative. Date of access: August 2003.
21.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. September 2002. The
     Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. EPA-816-R-02-020. Washington, DC: U.S.
     Government Printing Office.
22.  The agenda and a summary of the January 31, 2003 Water Infrastructure Forum is available online at
     www.epa.gov/water/infrastn.icti.ire. Date of access: August 2003.
23.  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S. Code s/'s 321 et seq. (1976) is available online at
     http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch82.htrnl.
24.  Information about EPA's Resource Conservation Challenge is available online at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
     osw/conserve. Date of access: August 2003.
25.  Information about EPA's Sector Strategies Program is available online at www.epa.gov/sectors. Date of access:
     August 2003.
26.  Information about EPA's National Environmental Performance Track program is available online at
     www.epa.gov/performancetrack.  Date of access: August 2003.
27.  Information on the Audit, Small Business, and Small Communities policies is available online at
     http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/incentives/index.htm!. Date of access: June 2003.
28.  Information about EPA's Environmental Results Program can be found online at http://www.epa.gov/cornpli-
     ance/incentives/innovations/programresults.html. Date of access: August 2003.
29.  Information about the National  Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse is available online at
     http://cfpub.epa.gov/clearinghouse/index.cfm. Date of access: August 2003.
     Information about Industry-specific Compliance Assistance Centers can be found online at http://www.assis-
     tancecenters.net. Date of access: August 2003.
30.  Information about EPA's National Center for Environmental Innovation can be found online at
     http://www.epa.gov/innovation. Date of access: August 2003.
31.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS).
     June 2000. Investing in Our People,  EPA's Strategy for Human Capital,  2001 through  2003, Draft. Washington,
     DC.
32.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS).
     August 2003. Investing in Our Peoble II, EPA's Strategy for Human Capital, 2003 - 2008, Draft. Washington, DC.
33.  U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework.
     Washington, DC: Office of Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability, c/o Human Capital
     Liaison.
34.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS).
     June 2002. National Strategic Workforce  Planning methodology, Draft. Washington, DC.
35.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS).
     EPA's PeoplePlus system is built using PeopleSoft,  Inc., Human Resources Management System Software. For
     additional information about PeopleSoft products and services, visit: http://www.PeopleSolt.corn. Date of
     access:  August 28, 2003.
36.  Office of Management and Budget. The Official Site of the President's E-Government Initiatives Web Site:
     http://www.whitehoi.ise.gov/omb/egov. Washington, DC. Date of access: August 28, 2003.
37.  Office of Personnel Management. Overview of OPM's E'Government Initiatives Web Site:
     http://apps.oprn.gov/egov. Washington, DC. Date of access: August, 28, 2003.
38.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM).
     .September 2001. EPA Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program, EPA210-F-01-001. Washington,
     DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

-------
39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS).
    October 2002. EPA Intern Program Guidance Manual, Draft. Washington, DC.

40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Human Resources and 'Organizational Services (OHROS).
    Organizational EEO Reports and Diversity Action Plan, Draft. Washington, DC.

•11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM). The
    charter of the Workforce Solutions staff is to help employees and managers prevent and resolve workplace dis-
    putes in a balanced, quick, and confidential way.

42. Homeland Security Act 0/2002, Titles VII section 705, XIII, Subtitles A, B, C, D. Available online at
    http://thomas.loc.gov/. Date of access: August 28, 2003.

43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS).
    August 2003. EPA's Human Capital .Accountability Plan, Draft. Washington, DC

44. National Research Council. 2000. Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research
    Management and Peer Review Practices. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

45. National Academy of Sciences. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government Mianaging the Process.
    Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    National Research Council. 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National
    Academy Press.

46. National Research Council. 1997. Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC:
    National Academy Press..

47. Executive Office  of the President, Office of Management and Budget. June 5, 2003. FY2005 Interagency
    Research and Development Priorities). Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-
    15.pdf. Accessed  September 15. 2003.

48. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1999. Sound Science Technical issue Paper. Pensacola,
    Florida.

49. Carol  M. Browner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 2, 1994. Peer Review and Peer Involvement, at
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/osp/spc/perevrnem.htm.
    Accessed September 1.5, 2003.

50. The National Academies. The National Academies Web Site: http://www.rias.edu. Accessed September 15.
    2003.

51. Information about EPA's Science  Advisory Board is available online at http://www.epa.gov/sab/.

52. Information about EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors is available online at http://www.epa.gov/edrlupvx/
    bosc/index.htm.

53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Information Quality Guidelines Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/
    oei/qualityguidelines/. Accessed September 15, 2003.

54. LJ-S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Policy Council, Science Policy Council Web Site:
    http://www.epa.gov/osp/spc/. Accessed September 15, 2003.

5.5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Risk Assessment Forum Web Site:
    http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/index.cfm.cfm?ActType=default. Accessed September 15, 2003.

56. Regulatory Environmental Modeling, About. CREM, July 29, 2003, available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/
    crem/aboutcrem.cfm. Date of access: September 15. 2003.

57. Tribal Science Council, Tribal Science Council Mission Statement, available online at http://www.epa.gov/osp/
    tribes/tsc.htm. Date of access: September 15, 2003.

58. Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, 42  U.S.  Code 201, Public Law
    107-188, June 12,2002.

59. Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD-39), U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism, June 21, 1995. Available
    online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/pdd39.httn, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for
    Domestic Preparedness Web Site. Date of access: .September 17, 2003.

-------
     Presidential Decision Directive 62 (PUD-62), Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland
     and Americans Overseas, May 22. 1998, Available online at http://www.ojp.asdoj.gov/odp/docs/pdd62.htrn,
     U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness Weh Site. Date of access: .September
     17, 2003
     Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-6.3), Policy on Critical Infrastructure Protection, May 22, 1998.
     Available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/pdd63.htrn, U.S. Department or Homeland Security,
     Office for Domestic Preparedness Web Site. Date of access: .September 17, 2003.
60.  White House Office of Homeland Security. July 2002. National Strategy for Homeland Security. Washington, DC:
     OPO. Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/nat_strat__hls.pdf, The White House,
     Homeland Security Web Site. Date of access: September 17, 2003.
61.  White House Office of Homeland Security. July 2002. National Strategy for Homeland Security. Washington, DC:
     GPO. Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/liomeland/book/nat__strat_hls.pdf, The White House,
     Homeland Security Web .Site. Date of access: September 17, 2003.
62.  Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, 42 U.S. Code 201, Public Law
     107-188, June 12,  2002, Title IV, "Drinking Water Security and Safety."
63.  Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD-39), U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism, June 21, 1995. Available
     online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/pdd39.htm, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for
     Domestic Preparedness Web Site. Date of access: September 17, 2003.
64.  Presidential Decision Directive 62 (PDD-62), Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland
     and Americans Overseas, May 22, 1998. Available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/pdd62.htm,
     U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness Web Site. Date of access: September
     17,2003.
65.  Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63), Policy on Critical infrastructure Protection, May 22, 1998.
     Available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/pdd63.htm, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
     Office for Domestic Preparedness Web Site. Date of access: September 17, 2003.

-------

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                   The Office of Management and Budget
               (OMB) requires that EPA include both social
               costs and budget costs of attaining each goal
               in its revised Strategic Plan under the Budget
               and Performance Integration initiative of the
               President's Management Agenda.1 The
               Agency would like to have provided esti-
               mates of the social costs and benefits of
               attaining our strategic goals. However, such
               an analysis is infeasible, largely because EPA's
               economic models and tools have not been
               developed to estimate the aggregate costs or
               benefits of achieving the kind of ambitious,
               broad, long-term goals adopted in this
               Strategic Plan,

                   As part of its ongoing assessment of EPA's
               progress toward  Budget and  Performance
               Integration, OMB has recognized the
               methodological  difficulties of estimating the
               future social costs of achieving our strategic
               goals. This appendix, therefore, describes the
               current social costs and benefits  of EPA's  pro-
               grams and policies under each of our strategic
               goal areas for the year 2002. It is important
               to note that although the results are present-
               ed here by strategic goal area,  they do not
               reflect the costs and benefits of achieving the
               specific strategic goals in this plan.
                   The methods used here are generally
               based on those used in EPA's 1990 report,
               Environmental Investments: The Cost of a
               Clean Environment.2 In that report, EPA pre-
               sented a comprehensive assessment of the
               costs of environmental programs based on
               readily available data, including those from
               the U.S. Census Pollution Abatement Costs
               and  Expenditures (PACE) survey.3 Many
               parts of the analysis in this appendix draw
               upon the most recent version of this survey.
               The analysis in this report is also guided by
EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses.*

    The quantitative and qualitative analysis
of current social cost and benefits includes
regulations, programs, and activities that
were substantially in place by 2002 and have
achieved substantial compliance with stan-
dards or attainment of goals.

    For the purposes of this report, we have
defined social costs as nonfederal expenditures
due to EPA policies, regulations, and pro-
grams. 1 his includes compliance costs by the
private sector as well as costs borne by state
and local governments. It does not include
the costs of "basic services," such as trash
removal or sewer lines, under the assumption
that these activities would occur regardless of
EPA activities. Also, our definition of social
costs is narrower than that typically used by
economists. Economists usually define social
costs as all opportunity costs associated with
resource use, which would include  all rele-
vant indirect effects throughout the
economy.  Additionally, we include in this
report  some expenditures that are better clas-
sified as transfers than as social  costs.

    This appendix is based on readily avail-
able information assembled in ways that are
methodologically convenient. It draws upon
existing data, reports,  summaries, arid studies
of the costs and benefits of environmental
regulation. While there are many studies that
address these economic effects in part (e.g.,
regulatory impact analyses), studies that fully
support the analysis of social costs and bene-
fits for strategic goal purposes are not
generally available. Even the most complete
existing analyses, such as those  estimating
the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) mandated under Section 812 of the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA),5
are substantially limited by current economic
data and models.6

-------
                                                                          Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
    The benefits of environmental protection
are particularly difficult to quantify and mon-
etize for most EPA programs. Social benefits
from EPA programs are diverse, ranging from
reduced health risks to improvements in eco-
logical services. Many of these benefits are
quantified and monetized in this appendix,
but many more are not. To offer a more com-
plete picture of benefits, we have included
indicators and qualitative descriptions when
limitations in data and methods prohibited
quantification and monetization.

Key .UmitaJiioxjs of !:he Analysis
    While this appendix presents an assess-
ment of benefits and costs of EPA activities
in the year 2002, it is not a benefit-cost
analysis. A benefit-cost analysis would evalu-
ate EPA activities over time and calculate
the present value of future costs and  benefits.
Efficiency could then be gauged by compar-
ing the present value of benefits with the
present value of costs. An analysis of current
costs and benefits,  like this report,  only pres-
ents information for a single year. The
distinction between assessing current (single-
year) costs and benefits and assessing the
present value of all costs and benefits is impor-
tant because even a program that is net
beneficial may have costs exceeding benefits
in any particular year. For example, a regula-
tion promulgated in 2001 may result in
compliance costs during 2002, but  may not
produce benefits until future years. This
could be the case for a regulation that
reduces exposure to carcinogens and leads to
cancers avoided after a period of latency.

    The cost and benefit estimates in this
appendix cannot be aggregated across goal
areas without some double-counting, due to
the overlapping of many EPA activities. For
example, the costs and benefits of enforce-
ment activities are subsumed in the estimates
under other goals because  of compliance
assumptions in analyses of specific programs
in those goals.
    Another complicating factor for aggrega-
tion is that our analysis draws on studies
conducted at different times under differing
analytic circumstances. While the methods
and data used in the original studies are
sound, given the resources available at the
time each study was conducted, there are sig-
nificant differences in their baselines,
analytic methods, discount rates, and other
critical analytic elements. As a consequence,
aggregated results even within narrowly
defined programs should generally be regard-
ed as suggestive rather than conclusive.

    This analysis was completed in a relative-
ly brief period of time in order to be included
with the Strategic Plan. The timeframe was
much shorter than that provided for analyses
that are narrower in scope and did not allow
for a more thorough and rigorous assessment
of all benefits and costs. However, this
appendix has been subject to limited external
peer review by four experts in economic
analysis of environmental programs.
Additionally, the appendix was subject to an
internal Information Quality Guidelines pre-
dissemination review. The appendix was
subsequently revised. More information on
peer review comments and  supporting docu-
ments  may be found on the website for the
National Center for Environmental
Economics (www.epa.gov/economics) follow-
ing publication of this document.

     Specific limitations and uncertainties
associated with estimates of individual pro-
grams ancl Agency activities are detailed
below. In many cases the appendix reports
several separate estimates for individual pro-
grams under a goal area. Generally we have
not added these separate estimates to produce
an overall estimate for the goal area because
of concerns about double-counting costs
and/or benefits  described earlier.
    This appendix presents costs and benefits
individually by strategic goal area. Under
each goal we begin by discussing the scope of

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
               the analysis, describe the methodology and
               limitations, and then detail estimates of the
               goal's social costs and benefits.
                   The analysis of social costs and benefits
               includes EPA actions under the CAAA,
               Titles I through VI. Analyses are provided for
               three source categories—point sources,
               mobile sources, and area source compli-
               ance—as well as for the compliance costs and
               benefits associated with the stratospheric
               ozone program.
                   This appendix reports the benefits and
               costs of programs under the Safe Drinking
               Water Act (SDWA) and the Clean Water-
               Act (CWA). All actions evaluated under the
               SDWA are regulations that improve the
               quality of drinking water in the United
               States. CWA programs assessed in this report
               include industrial and municipal pollution
               control performance standards for point
               sources of pollutants.
                   Most of the activities associated with the
               Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
               Response, including Superfund, the Oil Spill
               Program, and activities under the Resource
               Conservation and Recovery Act and
               Underground Storage lank program, fall
               under this goal. Quantitative and qualitative
               descriptions of benefits and costs are reported
               for each of these activities.
                   The analysis includes EPA's pesticide pro-
               grams, such as registration and
               re-registration, worker protection and certifi-
               cation, and ecological resource protection.
               The Toxics Release Inventory Program also
               falls under this goal, and the section provides
               an assessment of its costs and benefits.
    The analysis covers Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
activities, such as fines and penalties. As
noted earlier, economists generally consider
fines and penalties to be a  transfer of
resources rather than a social cost. However,
for consistency and clarity, we have included
these in the appendix as "nonfederal expen-
ditures." Also included are pollution
prevention programs under Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.


GOAL lj CLEAN AIR AND
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

DISCUSSION'

    Although the Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR) administers several pro-
grams in addition to the CAA-' regulations,
the estimates presented in  this section are
based upon assessments of  CAA and the
CAAA.8 Of OAR's programs and regulations,
CAA-  and  CAAA-related activities generate
the most significant costs and benefits. In
addition, several programs, such as the radia-
tion program, are voluntary and require no
expenditures from private firms.
    To estimate the costs and benefits in 2002
of CAA and its Amendments, we rely upon
the comprehensive economic assessments of
the legislation that Congress requires the
Agency to conduct under Section 812 of
CAAA. To date, EPA has completed two
reports to Congress in this series:

    1.  The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air
       Act: 1970 to  I9909 (hereafter "the
       Retrospective") was delivered to
                                                                    Congress in 199

-------
                                                                          Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
    2.   The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air
        Act: 1990 to 2010"> {hereafter "the
        Prospective"), which examines the
        benefits and costs of CAAA for the
        target years 2000 and 2010, was
        delivered to Congress in 1999.

    Both of these reports address the full range
of regulatory programs implemented pursuant
to CAA, including measures to achieve com-
pliance with all National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (Title I of the Act);
measures to control air pollutant emissions
from mobile sources, primarily cars and trucks
(Title II); measures to control the release of
hazardous air Pollutants (Title III); measures
to control acid rain, including the sulfur emis-
sions trading program that primarily affects
electric utilities (Title IV); permitting require-
ments  (Title V); and measures to control
pollutants that contribute to the depletion of
stratospheric ozone (Title VI).

    We generate separate cost and benefit
estimates for CAA ancl CAAA and, for rea-
sons noted  in the appendix, we present only
estimates based on the Prospective. While
estimate-specific discussions appear in the
appendix, for the most part estimates related
to this appendix have been calculated by lin-
early interpolating estimates provided in the
Prospective. We present estimates for three
source categories—point sources,  mobile
sources, and area  source compliance—as well
compliance costs  associated with Title VI of
the Amendments.
    A variety of uncertainties arid limitations
are associated with the estimates discussed in
the appendix. As previously noted, these esti-
mates are not reflective of all of OAR's
program.

    Because of the comprehensive nature of
the Retrospective and Prospective, an ideal
measure of the social costs and benefits
would reflect the combined effect of CAA
and CAAA. The combined effect, however,
is not necessarily represented by adding the
estimates from the Retrospective to those
from the Prospective. There are many reasons
to expect that the cost estimates from the
last target year in the Retrospective, 1990,
overstate the costs that were incurred  in
2002 for compliance with those regulations.
The reasons include the cumulative effects of
CAA and CAAA regulations that lead to
co-control efficiencies, the  cost-reducing
effects of 12 years of learning-by-doing, major
advancements in technologies for extracting
and using  low-sulfur coal that reduces costs of
all compliance, and a significant shift  in U.S.
economic  activity away from higher-polluting
manufacturing industries. As a result,
attempting to extrapolate the cost and bene-
fit estimates from the Retrospective to 2002
is too problematic to undertake. We therefore
report only estimates from the Prospective.
The likely effect on the cost estimates we
report is that they are underestimated some-
what. The recent PACE survey suggests that
the degree of underestimation in costs may
be small. The likely effect on benefit esti-
mates is a  substantial underestimation, as the
Prospective measures benefits relative to a
baseline of CAA compliance.

    The PACE survey suggests that the total
point source costs of complying with CAA
and CAAA are much less than the sum of
the Retrospective and Prospective cost esti-
mates ancl are close to those estimated for the
Prospective alone. According to PACE
results, point source  expenditures in 1999
were $10 billion in 2002  dollars. Adjusting
for inflation and increased abatement  and
prevention activity between 1999 and 2002,
these  costs would be $11.5  billion in 2002,
which is significantly lower than the $44.4
billion sum of point source  compliance costs
as estimated in the Retrospective and
Prospective analyses.

    With regard to the benefit estimates,
monetized social benefits include only
improvements in human  health, enhanced

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                worker productivity, and increased recre-
                ational services and are not a complete
                picture of even these benefit categories.
                Further, OAR programs also generate ecolog-
                ical benefits that have not been quantified.
                It is also important to note that our estimates
                of annual  benefits  exclude the potentially
                substantial benefits of CAA regulations
                promulgated before 1990. The Retrospective
                estimates that annual benefits of CAA in
                1990 were approximately $1.2 trillion in
                1990 dollars, which translates to over $1.8
                trillion in 2002 dollars. While we cannot
                reliably estimate the effects of a shift  in eco-
                nomic activity away from more polluting
                activities, some of which may actually have
                been hastened by CAA, it is reasonable to
                expect that some substantial portion of this
                very large benefit estimate still applies in
                2002. As a result, we expect that our  esti-
                mates are  a substantial understatement.

                SUMMARY OF RESULTS

                    A summary of the  estimated costs and
                benefits appears in Table 1. Using a 5 percent
                discount rate,  the estimated 2002 monetized
                benefits associated with OAR regulations and
                programs are $118.9 billion, while the esti-
                mated costs are $30.9 billion.
SOCIAL COSTS

    We present CAA and CAAA cost esti-
mates for three source categories	point
sources, mobile sources, and area source com-
pliance	as well compliance costs associated
with Title VI of CAA A.
    To estimate 2002 CAAA compliance
costs, we linearly interpolated cost estimates
from the 2000 and 2010 target years of the
Prospective analysis. Table 2 shows the infla-
tion-adjusted point source costs of CAAA for
the two target years. Using the 2000 and
2010 data from the Prospective analysis, we
estimated the annual change in costs for dif-
ferent types of point sources. Based on this
per year average change, we estimate 2002
point source CAAA compliance costs of
approximately $10.0 billion in 2002.
    The Prospective presents 2000 and 2010
compliance cost estimates for both on-road
and off-road mobile sources.  We use these
estimates to linearly interpolate 2002 compli-
ance costs for motor vehicles and non-road
engines. Mobile source costs for CAAA are
Regulation or Program
CAAA, Titles I through V
CAAA, Title VI
TOTAL, CAAA
Costs
$29.1
$1.8
$30.9
Benefits
$118
$0.90
$118.9
                Note: The above estimates were generated using a 5 percent discount rate, consistent with advice received by EPA
                from the Science Advisory Board panel that oversaw development of the section 812 reports. A discount rate sensi-
                tivity analysis performed in the Prospective found that annual costs in 2010 are 0.746 percent lower when the
                discount rate is 3 percent, but the analysis could only be completed for a subset of the relevant regulations. Because
                of the effect of a modeled cessation lag, the use of a lower discount rate would increase benefits.

-------
                                                                          Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
Source Category
Non-utility Point
Sources through V
Utility Point
Sources
Permits
Total
2000 Costs
$4,313
$4,610
$446
$9,369
2010 Costs
$5,056
$6,841
$446
$12,343
Estimated
Annual Change
$74
$223
$0
$297
Estimated
2002 Costs
$4,461
$5,056
$446
$9,963
approximately $19.2 billion in 2002. As was
the case with point sources, cost estimates
derived from the sum of Retrospective and
Prospective analysis estimates may substan-
tially overestimate total 2002 mobile source
costs because of the reasons previously dis-
cussed.

    We performed a separate  calculation for
area source compliance costs  with CAAA.
Our method for calculating area source costs
related to CAAA was identical to our
method for calculating mobile source costs.
    In calculating the costs of Title VI of
CAAA in 2002, we used data that formed
the basis of EPA's present-value stratospheric
ozone cost estimate in the Prospective analy-
sis. We present only the costs associated with
compliance with Sections 604 and 606, as
most of CAAA stratospheric ozone costs are
associated with these sections. Adjusting the
Prospective estimates for inflation, we esti-
mate the 2002 cost of the stratospheric ozone
provisions is approximately $1,752 million.
However, the costs of the stratospheric ozone
program were highest during its earlier years.
By 2008, the last  year covered in this Strategic
Plan, annual costs of the program will have
fallen by 36 percent.
    Monetized social benefits include
improvements in human health, enhanced
worker productivity, and increased recre-
ational services. OAR programs also generate
ecological benefits that have not been quan-
tified. Benefit estimates are based upon the
Prospective analyses of the legislation, which
provides monetized benefits  estimates for the
human health and welfare improvements
resulting from CAAA.

    The Prospective analysis provides annual
benefits estimates for the target years 2000
and 2010. To estimate the 2002 benefits of
CAAA, we linearly interpolated the infla-
tion-adjusted annual change in benefits
between the years 2000 and  2010. Based on
this average rate of change, we estimate 2002
health and welfare benefits of $118 billion
(Table 3).
    We estimated the annual benefits of the
stratospheric ozone provisions of Title VI of
CAAA with annual benefits data used to cal-
culate the present value of benefits estimated
in the Prospective. According to these data
and adjusting for inflation, benefits are $893
million in 2002. Although the 2002 annual

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
Source Category
Mortality
Chronic Illness
Hosp realization
Minor Illness
Welfare
Total
2000 Benefits
$93,686
$5,562
$414
$1,538
$4,327
$105,527
2010 Benefits
$148,708
$8,595
$775
$2,443
$6,186
$166,707
Estimated
Annual Change
$5,502
$303
$36
$91
*~~~~~~$T86~
$6,118
2002 Benefits
$104,690
$6,168
3486
$1,719
$4,699
$117,76
                Notes: Mortality benefits include only the deaths of people who are least 30 years of age. Chronic illness includes
                chronic bronchitis and chronic asthma. Hospitalization benefits include all hospital visits due to respiratory and
                cardiovascular conditions, as well as asthma-related emergency room visits. Minor illnesses include acute bronchi-
                tis, upper respiratory symptoms, lower respiratory symptoms, asthma attacks, work-loss days, and several other
                conditions. Welfare benefits include enhanced worker productivity, increased recreational activity, and improved
                agricultural productivity. For a complete list of minor illnesses, refer to Table H-5 of US EPA. (1999).
                benefits are less than 2002 costs, most of the
                benefits of the program will not be realized
                until after 2015, Estimates of annual benefits
                climb rapidly after 2015, to well over $1 billion
                annually through the end of the 21st century.

                GOAL  2:
                CLEAN  AND  SAFE WATER
                    EPA's programs related to this goal are
                primarily administered under the SDWA"
                and CWA.12
                    In 2002,  14 federal regulations aimed at
                improving the quality of drinking water  in
                the United States were in effect (see Table
                4).  Ihese regulations require public drinking
                water systems to monitor for contaminants,
                provide finished water in compliance with
                maximum contaminant levels, install
                required drinking water treatment technolo-
                gies, and inform their customers when water
                quality is compromised. In addition, these
                regulations impose primacy requirements on
the states to implement and enforce these
regulations. The public health issues
addressed by these rules are far-reaching.
They include, among other effects, avoided
cancer cases, reduced incidences of acute gas-
trointestinal illnesses associated with
microbial infections, and reduced incidence
of brain damage associated with lead expo-
sure in children.

    With regard to surface water, EPA estab-
lishes industrial and municipal pollution
control performance standards for point
sources of conventional, noriconventional,
and toxic pollutants. It charges states and
tribes with setting specific water quality crite-
ria appropriate for their waters and with
developing pollution control programs,
including controls on nonpoint sources, to
meet them. The Agency also provides fund-
ing to states and communities to help them
meet their clean water  infrastructure needs,
EPA's efforts to implement the CWA provide
benefits to businesses that use water as an
input and to households,  which value water
for a variety of services including recreation,
aesthetics, existence, and fish consumption.

-------
                                                                                            Appendix 1:  Social Costs arid Benefits
Regulation
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(47 Federal Register 9350, December 24, 1975)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation; Thihalomethane
(44 Federal Register 68624, November 29, 1979)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Huonde
(51 Federal Register 11396, April 2, 1986)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic Organic
Chemicals (Phase I) (52 Federal Register 25690, July 8, 1987)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Total Coliform
Rule (54 Federal Register 27544, June 29, 1989)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Surface Water
Treatment Rule (54 Federal, Register 27486, June 29, 1989)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic
Organic Chemicals; Inorganic Chemicals; (Phase 11)
(56 Federal Register 3526, January 30, 1991)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Lead and
Copper (56 Federal Register 26460, June 7, 1991)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Volatile
Organic Chemicals (Phase (IB)
(56 Federal Register 30266, July 1, 1991)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic
Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals (Phase V)
(57 Federal Register 31776, July 17, 1992)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation; Consumer
Confidence Reports
(63 Federal Register 44512, August 19, 1998)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Disinfectants
and Disinfection By-products (Stage 1)
(63 Federal Register 69389, December 16, 1998)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(63 Federal Register 69478, December 16, 1998)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides
(65 Federal Register 76707, December 7, 2000)
TOTAL
Year
1976-
1979
1986
1987
1989
1989
1991
1991
1991
1992
1998
1998
1998
2000

Social
Costs
Social
Benefits
(milSiorss of 2002 $)
§293.3
$4.4
$63.4
$86.3 -
$102.4
$672.5 -
$955.6
$147.3
$699.8 -
$1,105.7
No
estimate
$59.7
$25.5
$676.7
$310.3
$86.4
$3,125.6
to
$3,830.7
$293.3
No
estimate
No
estimate
No
estimate
No
estimate
$39.0 -
$778.3
$4,016.8 -
$6,215.1
No
estimate
No
estimate
No
estimate
$0-
$4,324.2
$376.2 -
$1,732.9
$5.0
$4,730.3
to
$13,348.8
Other Benefits
* Estimates combined in 1990
Cost of Clean Report *
Reduction in incidences of
osteosclerosis and fluorosis.
27-32 cancer cases avoided.
Identification of public water sys-
tems that are contaminated or
vulnerable to contamination.
Reduction in 83.194 cases of water-
borne microbiological disease.

Corrosion control extends the life
of distribution system.
280,000 reduced exposures to
aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and
aldicarb sulfone. 960,000 people
will have reduced exposure to
pentachlorophenol.
0.01 cases of cancer avoided per
year.
Increased consumer awareness
concerning source water protec-
tion. Encourages consumers to be
more aware of decisions that affect
their health.
Possibly reduces mutagenicity, kid-
ney disorders, developmental
effects, immunotoxicity, liver dis-
orders, kidney disorders, and
spleen disorders.
Reduces the risk of outbreaks and
exposure to other pathogens such
as giardia.
Avoidance of kidney toxicity due
to reductions in exposure to urani-
um. Treatments may also reduce
exposure to other contaminants.

All prices were adjusted to Year 2002 dollars using the estimated GDP price index as found in liistorical Table 10.1 of the FY2003 Federal Budget.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                   To estimate the costs and benefits associ-
               ated with SDWA, we relied on Environmental
               Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment"
               (hereafter "Cost of Clean") as well as regula-
               tory impact  analyses, economic analyses, and
               Federal Register preambles associated with
               SDWA regulations. Specifically, the cost of
               compliance  with the two earliest drinking
               water standards (the National Interim
               Primary Drinking Water Regulations14 and
               the Total Trihalomethane Rule1')  estimate is
               based on information from Cost of Clean,
               while the incremental cost of the  remaining
               12 regulations rely upon the other types of
               documents.  For each of these 12 federal regu-
               lations, the  annualized capital cost was added
               to the annual operation and maintenance
               costs to derive an estimate of 2002 social
               costs.

                   An estimate of the benefits associated
               with the two earliest regulations is not readi-
               ly available. For the purpose of this analysis,
               it is assumed that the annual benefits of these
               two rules are equal to the annual costs.16 For
               each of the  12 regulations, the annualized
               benefits were applied to derive an estimate of
               2002 benefits. In some cases, we were not
               able to monetize or quantify the estimated
               benefits of a regulation.
                   Cost estimates related to CWA are based
               on partial estimates through the mid-1990s
               from EPA's retrospective study of the costs of
               CWA1'' and are supplemented by data on
               water pollution abatement expenditures from
               PACE surveys, the Census of Governments
               through 2000/2001  for state/local spending,
               and EPA 2002 budget for information on fed-
               eral spending.18 Data through 1994
               (industrial) and 2000/2001 (state/local) are
               extrapolated to 2002 using the methods
               described in the retrospective cost study. The
retrospective study was also used for method-
ology and data to apportion total spending
into the amount that would occur without
CWA and the increment attributable to
CWA. Data on capital expenditures are con-
verted to annual capital costs by annualizing
over the expected life of the capital equip-
ment.

    Spending is considered pursuant to an
EPA program if the program prompting the
spending is carried out by EPA or can be
enforced by EPA. The estimate does not
include most nonpoint source costs, the bulk
of which are voluntarily initiated in response
to incentive-based voluntary programs; how-
ever, these programs are also often heavily
cost-shared. Likewise, it does not include
clean water  programs implemented by other
federal agencies. We also assume that there
would be some spending on water pollution
abatement even in the absence of EPA pro-
grams.13

LIMITATIONS
    To estimate the costs and benefits of
SDWA programs, we used the economic
analyses developed in support of 14 regulatory
actions. While aggregating the values is com-
paratively straightforward, it is important to
note that the approach taken in these analy-
ses typically involves comparing the state of
the world before the regulation to the state of
the world after the regulation. This before -
arid-after approach ignores the potential for
the future state of the world to be different
than it is today even without the regulation.
It is, however, analytically more tractable,
since a sophisticated baseline forecast is not
necessary.
    To estimate CWA benefits and costs, we
used a "with-and-without" approach that
improves the quality of the baseline estimate

-------
                                                                         Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
by forecasting post-1972 spending in the
absence of CWA by using exogenous macro-
economic variables as correlates and
predictors of pollution control activities.20 To
estimate federal contributions that are not
included in this social cost estimate, we sub-
tracted the amounts provided for state, local,
and private spending in EPA's 2002 enacted
water program budget. There are certain
clean water grant programs, subsidies, or tax
expenditures administered by federal agencies
other than EPA which may provide federal
contributions toward state/local clean water
activities. However, we are uncertain how
much of this spending may simply fund basic
services or further CWA activities.
Furthermore, we did not separate some funds
in EPA's water budget that are provided to
state and local governments because
state/local spending on these items was not
considered to be pursuant to an EPA man-
date in the first place. Finally, our process for
extrapolating to 2002 from data series that
end in 1994 (PACE) and 2000/2001 {Census
of Governments) omits any increments of
spending due to EPA programs or require-
ments that have ramped up sharply over
this period.

    There are also  uncertainties and omis-
sions associated with the CWA social benefit
estimate.  The partial estimate of benefits
through the mid-1990s does not include
improvements to the Great Lakes, ocean
shorelines, bays and estuaries, and lakes and
reservoirs; benefits from reductions in non-
conventional and toxic pollutants arid
controls on nonpoint sources; or withdrawal
benefits. These omissions likely result in a
substantial underestimate of benefits. No
benefits are counted for the National Toxics
Rule (NTR),21 state water quality standards
for toxics  not included in the NTR,  or the
Combined Sewer Overflow policy.22 Only
partial estimates were possible for other regu-
lations implemented since the 1990s.
Although EPA policies may be reflected  in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permits by  2002, factors such as com-
pliance schedules and historical contamina-
tion may result in a lag in realizing water
quality benefits; compliance schedules may
also mean that neither are costs fully realized
by 2002.
    The monetized portion of the benefits of
SDWA programs are estimated to be between
$4.8 billion and $13.5 billion in 2002, while
the costs are estimated to be between $3.1
billion and $3.8 billion. The monetized por-
tion of the benefits of CWA programs are
estimated to be $12.8 billion, while the costs
are estimated to be $11.2 billion. Potentially
significant effects were not valued in mone-
tary terms, in large part as a result of missing
or incomplete data and/or methods. For
example, the data, information, and/or
methodologies required to reasonably esti-
mate and monetize the benefits associated
with CWA programs are often entirely
unavailable, particularly with regard to eco-
logical benefits.
    The estimated social costs of SDWA pro-
grams are presented in Table 4.
    Annual 2002 monetized social costs for
the public and private sectors pursuant to
EPA clean surface water programs imple-
mented under CWA are presented in Table 5.
    The estimated monetized social benefits
of SDWA programs are presented in Table 4.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                   Table 5 provides benefit estimates pre-
               pared in economic analyses or regulatory
               impact analyses for specific rules implement-
               ed since the 1990s, The retrospective study-
               estimated partial annual benefits of $12.4 bil-
               lion annually in the mid-1990s. These
               benefits are partial because they reflect only
               controls on point sources, controls on con-
               ventional pollutants, improvements to rivers
               and streams, and in place  and existence ben-
               efit values. EPA has estimated the benefits of
               some of these missing elements, listed in
               "Table 6:

                   «   Great Lakes Water Quality
                      Guidance.2'1

                   •   California Toxics  Rule.25

                   *   Effluent limitation guidelines for
                      seven industries.26
    Adding in these benefits results in annual
benefits of $12.7 billion to $12.9 billion.
Moreover, EPA's benefit estimates reflect the
fact that the technology-based effluent limi-
tation guidelines program and the national
pretreatment program has reduced the dis-
charge of almost 700 billion pounds of
pollutants each year.2''
LAND PRESERVATION
AND RESTORATION
DISCUSSION'

    In general, most of the activities associat-
ed with Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSW'ER) programs support EPA's
Item
Industry:
Capital
O&.M {net of cost savings)
Public sewerage and wastewater
treatment:
Capital
O&M
Regulation and monitoring and other
Research and development
Public electric utilities
Total
Total
CWA-Prompted
Public & Private
Spending
(Net of non-
CWA Spending)

$3,156.3
$2,608.2


$2,340.7
$4,401.8
$766.4
$133.0
$93.9
$13,5003
Federal
Contribution

$0.0
$0.0


$1,599.5
$0.0
$604.8
$55.5
$0.0
$2,259.8
Social Costs
Net of Federal
Contribution
("nonfederal
expenditures" )

$3,156.3
$2,608.2


$741.2
$4,401.8
$161.6
$77.5
$93.9
$11,240.5

-------
                                                                         Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
Goal 3. Programs included in the analysis
are: Superfund Emergency Response and Site
Remediation under the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR); Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Prevention, Technical Standards, arid
Corrective Action; Oil Spill Response;
Cleanup Program and Technical Standards
under the Office of Underground Storage
Tanks (OUST); Federal Facilities Restoration
and Reuse; activities of the Technology and
Innovations Office; 2002  Oil Pollution
Prevention Revisions;28 and Hazardous Waste
Combustion maximum  achievable control
technology (MACT) standards.29

   Three OSWER activities that support
other goals are activities implemented by the
Office of Brownfields Cleanup and
Redevelopment to  restore brownfields; chem-
ical facility planning and  preparedness under
the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act,'0 which is implemented
by the Chemical Emergency Preparedness
and Prevention Office;  and waste reduction
and resource efficiency  efforts managed by
the Office of Solid  Waste (OSW). The
brownfields and chemical facility activities
support EPA's Goal 4, which entails the
development and protection of healthy com-
munities  and ecosystems.  OSWER's waste
reduction initiatives assist in achieving EPA's
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship. It is important to note that
OSWER programs  also  contribute to the pro-
tection of water and air (i.e., by ensuring the
proper management and rapid cleanup of
volatile wastes and by encouraging pollution
prevention). The limitations of  available
data, however, prevent  the accurate assign-
ment of benefits  among multiple goals.
Ideally, a broad benefits analysis would start
with a discussion of what the benefits are and
then associate (multiple)  program activities
with those benefits.
    These estimates reflect the compilation
and interpretation of existing published data
sources that estimate regulatory costs and
benefits, adjusted to constant 2002 dollar
estimates using the Bureau of Economic
Analysis' (BEA) gross domestic product
(GDP) deflator.31 Consistent with the request
by OMB, OSWER uses a simplified defini-
tion of annual social costs that includes all
private and nonfederal public (i.e., state, trib-
al, and municipal) expenditures to
implement OSWER regulations and pro-
grams.32 Benefits include estimates of human
health and ecological  impacts that have been
avoided as a result of OSWER programs, esti-
mates of the costs avoided as a result of
regulations preventing releases (e.g., emer-
gency cleanup and response costs), and
estimates of economic welfare improvements
resulting from reduced waste-related pollu-
tion (e.g., quality of life).

    To estimate private sector social costs,
OSWER relied primarily on data from  the
1999 PACE survey, adjusted to remove cate-
gories and costs that are not in response to
OSWER programs. Where PACE data do not
address specific costs (e.g., non-manufactur-
ing industry hazardous waste management
and underground storage tank cleanup costs)
OSWER used available EPA data to estimate
costs.

    To estimate state and local government
costs, OSWER relied on the Environmental
Council of States' report, States Put Their
Money Where Their Environment Is (State
Environmental Spending},33 to estimate costs
associated with hazardous waste management
under RCRA; the Regulatory Impact  Analysis
for the Final Criteria for Municipal Solid  Waste
Landfills (Municipal Solid Waste  Landfill
RIA)34 to estimate state and local costs asso-
ciated with rionhazardous waste
management; the Association of  State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management

-------
2003-2008  EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
           State  (ride)
     Number of
 Facilities Affected
 Annual Pollutant
Loading Reductions
                                                                                        Annual Benefits
                                                                                        (Millions 2002  $)
     Water Quality Standards
     Great Lakes Water Quality
     Guidance (40 CFR 132)
     (OH,  IN, PA, Mi, MN, NY,
     WI) (GLI, final, 1995;
     assumed fully implemented
     by 2002)
     Ohio (GLI, final, 1995:
     assumed fully implemented
     2002) - case study
Michigan (GLI, final, 1995;
assumed fully implemented
by 2002) -case study
     Wisconsin (GLI, final, 1995;
     assumed fully implemented
     by 2002) -case study
     Idaho (ID WQS, final,
     1997; assumed fully imple-
     mented by 2002) (40 CFR
     131.3.3)
     Alabama (AL WQS Phase
     1, final, 1999; assumed fully
     implemented by 2002) (40
     CFR 131.34)
     California (CTR; 40 CFR
     131.38) final, 1999; assumed
     fully implemented by 2002)
Major municipal: 316

Major industrial: 272
Major municipal: 3

Major industrials: 2
                                 Major municipal: 18

                                 Major industrial: 10
Major municipal: 6

Major industrial: 13
Major municipals: 1

Major industrials: 5
Major municipals: 6

Major industrials: 5
Major municipals: 128

Major industrials: 56
5.8 million to 7.6 million
toxic pounds-equivalent
11,000 toxic pounds-
equivalent
                         135,000 toxic pounds-
                         equivalent
824,000 toxic pounds-
equivalent
14,772 to 70,000 toxic
pounds-equivalent
29,000 toxic pounds-
equivalent (does not
include BOD reductions)
1.1 million to 2.7 million
toxic pounds-equivalent
                                                                              Evaluated (human health-carcinogenic risks):
                                                                              $0.9 to $8.2

                                                                              Not evaluated: human health-systetnic risks,
                                                                              recreational fishing, commercial fishing,
                                                                              recreational swimming, recreational boating,
                                                                              nonconsumptive recreation, hunting, nonuse
                                                                             Evaluated (recreational fishing, recreational
                                                                             boating, waterskiing, sailboarding, and swim-
                                                                             ming, nonuse): $1.1*

                                                                             Not evaluated: human health
                         Evaluated (recreational fishing, wildlife view-
                         ing, waterfowl and other hunting,
                         commercial fishing, human health-carcino-
                         genic risks, nonuse): $4.9*

                         Not evaluated: human health-svstemic risks
                                                                              Evaluated (recreational fishing, wildlife view
                                                                              ing, commercial fishing, human
                                                                              health-carcinogenic risks, nonuse): $5.5*

                                                                              Not evaluated: human health-svstemic risks
                                                                             Not evaluated
                                                                             Not evaluated
                                                                             Evaluated (human health-carcinogenic risks,
                                                                             recreational angling-San Francisco Bay and
                                                                             freshwater, nonuse): $7.7 to $83.0

                                                                             Not evaluated: human health-systemic risks,
                                                                             recreational angling-other estuarine
                                                                             resources, recreational boating, swimming,
                                                                             and related in-stream and stream-side activi-
                                                                             ties, wildlife viewing, hunting

                                                                             Qualitative

                                                                             Evaluated: Nonuse (ecologic)

-------
                                                                                        Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
State (rule)
Number of
Facilities Affected
Annual Pollutant
Loading Reductions
Annual Benefits
(Millions 2002 $)
Effluent Limitation Guidelines
Centralized Waste
Treatment Effluent
Limitation Guidelines
(40 CFR Parts 136 and 437)
(Final rule published
December 22, 2000)
Commercial Hazardous
Waste Combustor
Subcategory (40 CFR Part
444) (Final rule published
January 27, 2000)
Landfills Point Source
Category (40 CFR Parts 136
and 445) (Final rule pub-
lished January 19, 2000)
Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Point Source
Category (40 CFR Part 442)
(Final rule published August
14,2000)
Pesticide Formulating,
Packaging, and Repackaging
Point Source Category (40
CFR Part 455) (Final rule
published November 6, 1996)
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Point Source Category (40
CFR Part 430) (Published
April 15, 1998 as part of the
"Cluster Rule")
Oil and Gas Extraction
(Synthetic- Based Drilling
Fluids) (40 CFR Part 43 5)
(Final rule published January
22, 2001)
223 facilities
8 facilities
143 facilities
692 facilities
2,600 facilities
96 mills
Gulf of Mexico:
1,047 shallow wells,
138 deep wells
Offshore California:
7 shallow wells, 0 deep
wells, Alaska: 6 shal-
low wells, 0 deep wells
9.7 million pounds of
conventional pollutant
9.3 million pounds of
toxic and nonconven-
tional pollutants
170,000 pounds of pollu-
tants
323,150 pounds of toxics
pollutants
600, 000 pounds of con-
ventional pollutants
20,979,069 pounds of
toxic pollutants
60,875 pounds of conven-
tional pollutants
25,574,670 pounds of non-
conventional pollutants
7,600,000 toxic pounds
AOX: 28,210kkg
Chloroform: 45kkg
Uioxin and
Furan: 125gm
118 million pounds of
cuttings per year
Reduced cancer risk: $0.08 - $0.45
Reduced Lead Health Bisk: $0.54 - $1.75
Reduced Non-Carcinogen Hazard: Unquantified
Improved Recreation Value: $1.35 - $3.84
Improved Intrinsic Value
(including ecological conditions) ; Unquantified
Reduced Eiosolid Contamination
at POTW Operation (Inhabition) : Unquantified
Recreational fishing $0.10 - $0.18
Nonuse (intrinsic) $0.05 - $0.18
Avoided cancer cases $0.02 - $0.10
POTXV Operation (Sludge) Unquantified
Reduced cancer risk $0.002 - $0.01
Recreational fishing 0
Cancer benefits $0.06 - $0.32
Recreational benefits $1.08 - $3.78
Nonuse benefits $0,54 - $1.84
Benefits not monetized: annuahzed costs are
less than $100 million
Human health: $2.3 - $25,3
Recreation angling: $2.3 -$21. 85
Reduced sludge disposal cost: $9.2 - $18.4
Cost savings: $52.8 million
NA = not applicable.
1. Benefit estimates updated to 2002 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.
* Represents midpoint of the estimated range.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
               Officials' Report Card on the Federal
               VST/LUST Program (Report Card)35 and
               OUST FY 2001 and 2002 End-of-Year Activity
               Reports (Activity Reports)36 to estimate state
               administrative costs associated with the
               underground storage tank (LIST) programs;
               and the Economic Analysis in Support of Final
               Rule on Risk Management Program Regulations
               for Chemical Accident Release Prevention,  as
               Required by Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act
               (EA of RMP Regulations)37 to estimate state
               and local costs  associated with chemical
               emergency preparedness and prevention,
               OSWER then adjusted these estimates to net
               out federal distributions through grants and
               cooperative agreements. To the extent possi-
               ble, costs are allocated among specific
               OSWER programs using available reports on
               office activity and existing  regulatory impact
               analyses (RIAs).

                   To estimate annual benefits, OSWER
               compiled benefits estimates from a number of
               existing published reports and adjusted them
               to constant 2002  dollars using BEA's GDP
               deflator.38'39 Where possible, OSWER used
               comprehensive program-level assessments of
               benefits (e.g., the Oil Spill  Program).40 The
               analysis in this  appendix estimates the total
               benefits of program regulations against a
               "without regulation" baseline. For programs
               that have not been able to  perform a compre-
               hensive assessment of benefits, OSWER used
               partial estimates of benefits based on assess-
               ments of specific regulations. RIAs provided
               a significant amount of information; our esti-
               mates draw from RIAs related to nine major
               OSWER regulations: the municipal solid
               waste landfill design criteria, RCRA
               Corrective Action, the five land disposal
               restriction regulations, and the technical
               standards for USTs.1ia™42  However, RIAs do
               not address benefits related to voluntary
               OSWER programs and initiatives, and, in
               many cases (e.g., RCRA) RIAs provide only
               a partial estimate of benefits because RIAs do
               not address voluntary or pre-compliance
               efforts that change the baseline.43 Several
other available publications assess the effec-
tiveness of various programs, and, in some
cases, individual program Web sites provide
additional information.

    We use monetary estimates of benefits
when available; however, for several types of
benefits, available data are not monetized. In
these cases, we identify or describe benefits
qualitatively. Due to limitations in environ-
mental modeling and economic
methodologies at the time that some of the
available studies were developed, a significant
portion of the benefits presented below are
not quantified. As a result, the monetized
and quantified benefits outlined below repre-
sent a lower bound estimate of the benefits
associated with OSWER programs under
Goal 3.
    Estimates of costs reflect a number of
uncertainties. Several of these are associated
with the 1999 PACE data, including that the
1999 PACE survey covers only a small num-
ber of non-manufacturing industries (i.e.,
mining and electric-power generation) in its
estimate of total costs. To address this issue,
OSWER used data on waste generation by
small quantity generators along with other
data to estimate cost for industries not cov-
ered in the 1999 PACE survey. Several
assumptions regarding the calculation of pri-
vate costs were also made, and these are
detailed in the supporting documents to this
appendix.

    A number of general and important
assumptions are reflected in the development
of the cost and benefit estimates:

    •   Representative Annual Costs: In
        general, these estimates assume that
        the most recent reports of public and
        private sector environmental expen-
        ditures are indicative of expenditures
        today and in the  near future. For

-------
                                                                  Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
private sector costs, the most recent
comprehensive data source is the
1999 PACE data; use of this data
source assumes that 1999 is "typical
year" for private sector costs.
Similarly, the use of 2002 state budg-
et estimates assumes that 2002 is
"typical year" for these costs.44

Baseline Practices: This report
addresses social costs and benefits
that would not have occurred in the
absence of OSWER programs.
Therefore, total social costs are
adjusted to exclude "baseline" expen-
ditures (e.g., trash removal)  that
would have occurred absent regula-
tion. In the case of benefits,
estimates generally  assume a "without
regulation baseline" and do not
require adjustment. However, esti-
mates based on RIAs address only
the benefits of incremental improve-
ments at facilities in response to
specific  rules and do not address any
additional benefits associated with
facilities that complied prior to rule
publication.

Voluntary Expenditures: A portion
of certain types of costs (e.g., brown-
fields redevelopment, pollution
prevention, and recycling) likely rep-
resent voluntary business investments
and do not necessarily result from
OSWER programs.  OSWER does not
generally attempt to remove volun-
tary expenses from cost estimates, but
does apply adjustments (i.e., offsets)
to reflect cost  savings and income
associated with recycling and pollu-
tion prevention. In addition, social
cost estimates  do not include brown-
fields restoration costs incurred by
real estate developers, both because
these costs  are difficult to identify
accurately and because some portion
of these costs represent business
    investments. Finally, we do not
    include costs incurred by the waste
    management industry because a sig-
    nificant portion of these costs is
    likely reflected in waste disposal costs
    reported in the PACE survey.

*   Non-monetized Benefits: Benefits
    estimates are in some cases several
    years old and do not capture recent
    advances in health and ecological
    science and economics that allow
    more comprehensive measures of the
    economic value of environmental
    changes. By not incorporating these
    advances, the available estimates
    likely understate known benefits that
    could be measured and valued today.
    Where known benefits cannot be
    monetized, they are described in
    quantitative or qualitative terms.

•   Non-characterized Ecological
    Benefits: We are unable to provide a
    comprehensive quantitative analysis
    of ecosystem services (e.g., a descrip-
    tion of the bio-physical functions
    preserved by OSWER programs, a
    discussion of the socially valuable
    services dependent on those func-
    tions, and an analysis of factors that
    contribute to the value  of those serv-
    ices). Methodological limitations to  a
    thorough assessment of  ecological
    benefits include lack of quantitative
    information on ecological impacts
    and lack of "market" data on ecosys-
    tem services.4' Ecosystem services are
    typically not traded in markets and
    have no revealed monetary value.
    Even when monetary estimates can
    be obtained, they require a great deal
    of data and tend to focus on only a
    subset of services. Available data did
    not support an effort of this scope.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                   As summarized in Table 7, total estimat-
               ed costs of programs under Goal 3 are
               approximately $7.7 billion. The largest con-
               tributors to estimated social costs are the
               RCRA Subtitle-C Prevention program ($1.9
               billion) and RCRA Subtitle-D Technical
               Standards ($2.3 billion). Superfund Site
               Remediation costs are estimated at about
               $1.2 billion. While most of these costs are
               allocated to the specific sets of programs list-
               ed in this section, approximately $1.5 billion
               are included in the total, but cannot be so
               allocated. These are listed as "OSW: Other"
               in the summary table.

                   Benefits of programs supporting Goal 3
               that can be monetized total  almost $6 billion
               and are also summarized in I able 7. These
               benefits include lower incidence of cancer
               and other ailments, avoided cleanup costs
               and product losses, increased recreational
               opportunities, and ecological improvements.
               The Technical Standards Program from
               OUST accounts for almost all of the mone-
               tized benefits in Goal 3; uncertainty in
               estimating the benefits of this rule  results in
               the range reported. However, many of the
               benefits of programs under this goal are not-
               monetized  in this report due to  the limita-
               tions described in the previous section. These
               non-monetized benefits are diverse and range
               from large numbers of reduced cancers and
               other health effects to the preservation of
               animal habitat and ground water. Non-mone-
               tized benefits are  detailed below for specific
               sets of programs.
                   The quantitative cost estimates of these
               programs are included in the analysis of
               RCRA Prevention and Technical Standards
                                                             and OUST Technical Standards, as indicated
                                                             in Table 7. These costs are not estimated sep-
                                                             arately.
    Current annualized costs of these pro-
grams total approximately $4.3 billion $2.3
billion of this total is associated with
Subtitle-D Technical Standards, while
Subtitle-C Prevention contributes about $1.9
billion of the total. The remaining $136 mil-
lion is associated with Subtitle-C Corrective
Action. State arid local costs associated with
the Corrective Action Program are not esti-
mated separately, but are included in the
other RCRA estimates.
    The costs of these OUST programs is
estimated at $917 million. The OUST
Cleanup Program accounts for $874 million
of this total, most of which are costs to state
and local governments. OUST Technical
Standards account for $42 million in estimat-
ed costs. Private cost estimates for the OUST
Technical Standards Program are not esti-
mated separately.
    The total quantified social costs for this
set of programs is around $1.2 billion, all of
which are from Superfund Site Remediation.
Most  of this cost, about $870 million, is to
the private sector. Costs associated with
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse fall
on state and local governments and are
believed to be minimal.
    Social costs for programs under OSWER's
Technology and Innovations Office are
believed to be minimal and are not included
quantitatively in the total.

-------
                                                                            Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
    Monetized benefits for Oil Spill Response
are estimated at $51 to $199 million, while
benefits from Superfund Emergency Response
are not estimated quantitatively. Non-mone-
tized benefits from these programs include
lower maintenance costs for drinking water
systems, reduced third-party damages, dimin-
ished cancer risk, improved ability to deter
terrorism and mitigate its consequences, and
the avoidance of uncertain or unanticipated
risks. Non-monetized benefits from
Office and Program
OERR: Superfund
Emergency Response
OERR: Oil Spill Response
OSW: RCRA Subtitle-C
Prevention
OSW: RCRA Subtitle-C
Corrective Action
OSW: RCRA Subtitle-D
Technical Standards
OSW: Other {recycling,
pollution prevention,
other expenditures and
payments)
OUST: Technical
Standards
OUST: Cleanup Program
OERR: Superfund Site
Remediation
Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse
Technology and
Innovations Office
Total Monetized
Costs & Benefits
State and Local Private Cost
Cost Estimate Estimate
Total Cost
Estimate
Included elsewhere in table
Included elsewhere in table
$179.8
Included with RCRA
Subtitle-C Prevention
$1,138
None
$42.6
$826.8
$319.7-$366.1
Minimal
None
$2,351.7 -
$2,388. lb
$1,693.8
$136.0
$1,116.8
$1,467.0
Included
in Total
$47.9
$872.9
None
Minimal
$5,334.4
$1,873.6
$136.0
$2,254.8
$1,467.0
$42.6
$874.6
$1,192.6 -
$1,239.0
Minimal
Minimal
$7,686.1 -
$7,722.5
Monetized
Benefits"
Not monetized
$51.2 -$119.5
Not monetized
Not monetized
Not monetized
Not monetized
$5,868.1
Not monetized
Not monetized
$12
Not monetized,
or reflected in
reduced costs
$5,931.3 -
$5,999.6
a  Does not include non-monetized benefits of USWER programs.
b  This total estimate includes an adjustment of $165.2 million to account for federal grants to support state and
   local waste programs.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
               Superfund Emergency Response arise from
               the relocation of 1,800 people away from
               pathways of exposure and the provision of
               safe drinking water to 9,100 people.
                   Benefits for RCRA Prevention,
               Corrective Action and Technical Standards
               Programs are diverse and substantial, but are
               not monetized. In total, the non-monetized
               benefits of these programs include 10 to 11
               fewer cases of cancer each year and approxi-
               mately 150 fewer cases of other illnesses.
               These may be conservative estimates of bene-
               fits. RCRA Corrective Actions may also lead
               to 102 fewer cancer cases per year and over
               98,000 reduced non-cancer illnesses.
               Additional benefits arise from long term pro-
               tection of ground water and land for future
               use, reduced ecological impacts from location
               of facilities, restoration of ecosystems,
               reduced releases of waste near sensitive sys-
               tems, and avoided costs of replacing
               contaminated drinking water.
                   Monetized benefits are estimated only for
               the OUST Technical Standards Program.
               These benefits total approximately $5.9 bil-
               lion, which accounts for most of the
               monetized benefits of Goal 3 programs. Other
               benefits include reduced cases of cancer and
               non-cancer health effects, as well as long-
               term protection of ground water. Benefits also
               arise from approximately 13,600 fewer tanks
               per year releasing pollutants into streams,
               particularly into small, vulnerable streams.
               Benefits from UST Cleanup are not mone-
               tized, but include avoided fires and
               explosions, reduced health risks from drink-
               ing water contamination, and long-term
               protection of ground water for future use.
    Benefits from these programs are not
monetized but include reduced cancer inci-
dences and mortality, fewer birth defects, and
reduced lead exposure and associated  health
effects. These programs also increase agricul-
tural productivity and restore ecosystems,
leading to improved water filtration, erosion
control, and enhanced recreational services.
These programs also improve regional land-
use patterns leading to preservation of open
spaces that would otherwise be developed
and to local revitalization.
    Benefits from programs under the
Technology and Innovations Office of
OSWER are reflected in reduced remediation
costs. Non-monetized benefits from these
programs include information from 120,000
documents per year distributed to stakehold-
ers and information to 14,000 individuals
reached monthly via  Tech Direct.  Additional
benefits result from training 6,100 federal and
state cleanup professionals per year and the
development and adoption of several tech-
nologies that quicken the pace and lower the
cost of site analysis and remediation.


GOAL  4;
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
DISCUSSION'

    This goal is supported by a wide variety
of EPA programs. As is the case for the other
goals, the estimates and discussion of social
costs and benefits we provide here cover only
a portion of the objectives included in Goal
4. The EPA programs under Goal 4 for which
we have some information on social costs
and/or benefits include:

-------
                                                                  Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
OSWER, (Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Office
(CEPPG) Risk Management Plan
Program, CEPPO implements provi-
sions of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Kriow Act,46
designed to prevent or ensure effec-
tive emergency response to chemical
spills, including any caused by acts  of
terrorism.

The Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances (GPPTS), Office of
Pesticide Programs (OP?.). OPP, with
assistance from its regional offices
and state and tribal partners, protects
human health and the environment
from unreasonable risks associated
with pesticide use, while ensuring
that human health and economic
welfare are protected from damages
caused by insects, weeds, and other
pathogens. OPP regulates pesticides
under two statutes. The Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)47 requires
that pesticides be registered
(licensed) by EPA before they may
be sold or distributed for use in the
United States and that they not
cause unreasonable adverse effects to
people or the environment when
used according to EPA-approved
label directions. Under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act
(FFDCA),48 as amended by the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA),4Q
EPA sets tolerances for pesticide
residues in food and must ensure that
there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to human health as a result of
pesticide residues in food.

OPPTS, Office of Pollution Prevention
ana Tbxi'c.S; Lead Safe Housing
Program. Lead-based paint used in
houses built prior to 1978 is the
largest remaining source of lead
exposure to Americans. Individuals,
especially children, can be exposed to
high levels of lead from deteriorating
lead-based paint or during remodel-
ing of older housing. The Residential
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction
Act of 1992''° added a significant new
section to the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA),'1 requiring
EPA to develop a series of regulations
concerning lead paint abatement,
including hazard identification, labo-
ratory procedures, training
requirements, and information pro-
grams. No EPA program requires that
any lead paint abatement be under-
taken, but the TSCA program does
ensure that all abatements that occur
are done correctly and safely.
and Toxics, Asbestos Regulations,
Long-term exposure to asbestos can
lead to fatal lung disease (asbestosis)
and cancer, among other respiratory
diseases. EPA's asbestos program for
schools,'"- which also includes guid-
ance for owners of other buildings,'3
regulates the inspection of in-place
asbestos insulation, as well as the
proper removal and disposal of
asbestos if necessary or during remod-
eling.

OPPTS, Office o/Pollution Prevention
and. Toxics, New Chemicals ProScan.
EPA's New Chemicals Program func-
tions as a  "gatekeeper" to ensure that
new chemicals being introduced into
commercial use in the United States
pose low risk or manage risk properly.
Entities considering manufacturing or
importing a new chemical must noti-
fy EPA of their intent by filing a
Pre-Manufacture Notice (PMN),
through which  they provide EPA
with information about the chemi-
cal's use, potential volume, possible
health risks, disposal practices, and
human exposures. EPA reviews the

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                       information in the PMN and deter-
                       mines what procedures manufacturers
                       must follow if they begin to manufac-
                       ture or import the chemical
                       commercially.

                       OFPTS, Office, of Pollution Prevention
                       and '!cedes, Existing Chemicals
                       Program. The Existing Chemicals
                       Program collects data on the toxicity,
                       health risk, safety, and exposure char-
                       acteristics of chemicals and mixtures
                       used in the United States. The
                       Inventory Update Rule (lUR)54
                       requires manufacturers and importers
                       of certain chemical substances
                       included on the TSCA Inventory to
                       report current data (in 4-year cycles)
                       on the production volume, plant site,
                       and site-limited status of these sub-
                       stances. Data not considered to be
                       confidential business information
                       (CBI) are made accessible to the
                       public. All the data, CBI and non-
                       CB1, are intended to provide input
                       for efforts to  evaluate and manage
                       risk from exposures to these chemi-
                       cals. Elements of the Existing
                       Chemicals Program addressed here
                       are the TSCA Inventory,55 which
                       contains data on the more than
                       75,000 chemicals in U.S. commerce,
                       and the Testing Program,56 which col-
                       lects human  health and
                       environmental data on chemicals for
                       which this information is Sacking.
                       The Testing Program  has a particular
                       focus on high production volume
                       chemicals (greater than 1 million
                       pounds/year) and the  Voluntary
                       Children's Chemical Exposure
                       Program (VCCEP),57 both voluntary
                       programs.

                       OS WEE, Office of Brownfielk
                       Cleanup and Redevelopment,
                       Brownfields Economic Redevelopment
                       Program. EPA's Brownfields Program
                       is designed to empower states, cities,
tribes, communities, and other stake-
holders in economic redevelopment
to work together in a timely manner
to prevent, assess, safely clean up,
and sustainably reuse brownfields.
The program identifies and addresses
barriers to cleanup and redevelop-
ment and provides financial and
technical assistance for brownfields
revitalization, including grants for
environmental assessment, cleanup,
and job training. Four broad activi-
ties serve as the program's
cornerstones; these include protect-
ing the environment, promoting
partnerships,  sustaining reuse, and
strengthening the marketplace.

Of}ice of  Environmental Information.,
'! cedes Release Inventory (TRl)
Program,  The TRI Program collects
annual reporting on toxic chemical
releases and other waste management
from facilities in manufacturing and
other industry sectors, as well as from
federal facilities. Section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-co-Know Act of 19865S requires
owners and operators of facilities that
manufacture, process, or otherwise
use any of the approximately 650 list-
ed toxic chemicals arid chemical
categories in  excess of applicable
threshold quantities to report annual-
ly to EPA.59 In addition, Section
6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act
of 199060 requires that facilities pro-
vide information on the quantities  of
the toxic chemicals in waste streams
ancl the efforts they have made to
reduce or eliminate those quantities.
Data gathered under these authorities
are available through a public data-
base maintained by EPA.61

-------
                                                                          Appendix 1:  Social Costs arid Benefits
    The estimates of social costs arid benefits
provided for this goal are derived mainly
from existing economic and other analyses.
Many of the estimates are not monetized and
are limited to a qualitative description of
social costs and benefits supplemented by
quantitative information. The specific analy-
ses used are described in the following
sections and more fully in the supporting
documents for this appendix.
    Due to a lack of data, many of the social
costs and benefits for Goal 4 are not mone-
tized. A variety of uncertainties and
limitations that are associated with the esti-
mates that do exist are described in  the
following sections. As previously noted, an
overwhelming limitation is that the estimates
we do have do not represent the full scope of
EPA programs that strive to achieve Goal 4.

SOCIAL COSTS
    The Economic Analysis in Support of the.
Final Rule on Risk Management Program
Regulations for Chemical Accident Release
Prevention, as Required by Section 112 (r) of
the Clean Air Act6' provides an estimate of
$113.1 million for private compliance costs
and $34.2 million for state and local govern-
ment compliance costs.63 Total social costs for
the Risk Management Plan Program are
$147.3 million.
    Nonfederal costs of pesticide regulation
may be imposed upon registrants (pesticide
manufacturers or formulators), state agencies,
pesticide users (most significantly, agricultur-
al and residential users), laborers, and
consumers. Ib estimate these costs, we gener-
ally relied upon average expenditures inferred
from a small number of case studies or esti-
mated in internal reports, multiplied by the
number of expected annual actions. Because
of the limited samples, estimates are subject
to a high degree of uncertainty. In some
cases, costs may be overestimated due to sam-
ple selection while the number of regulatory
actions is likely to be underestimated because
of the difficulty in distinguishing "voluntary"
industry actions due to regulations from
actions due to market forces and in determin-
ing how many uses may be effected by a
general regulation. OPP makes a large num-
ber of decisions annually, although the
impact of a particular decision may be quite
narrow. In 2002, OPP registered 26 new-
active ingredients (a.L), including antimicro-
bial substances, biopesticides, and
conventional and reduced risk pesticides; reg-
istered 720 new uses for registered a.L; and
received and evaluated 503 requests for emer-
gency exemptions to existing regulations.
OPP also reviewed 23 registered chemicals in
light of new health, safety, and environmen-
tal standards, each of which could have
registrations for over 50 specified  uses.64

    Because of the number and relatively
narrow scope of individual actions that OPP
takes  each year and the limited resources
available for impact assessments, OPP has
not previously estimated the total yearly bur-
den of regulatory activities of the  pesticide
programs. Available external studies have
largely evaluated the impacts of actions OPP
has never even considered, such as the total
ban on all organophosphate pesticides or all
herbicides.63 Therefore, estimates presented
here were derived especially for this appendix
using available studies within OPP, including
estimates of burden for specific data requests,
impact assessments for specific  regulations,
and unpublished analyses for proposed rule-
making. Details are available in the OPP
report on costs and benefits, from which this
summary is derived.66

       OPP estimates that the total net
yearly burden of pesticide programs is $378.4

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
               million, as summarized in Table 8. This total
               consists of $306.5 million in costs to regis-
               trants, $81.6 million to agricultural users, and
               around $3.3 million in annual costs to state
               agencies. Other users, laborers, and con-
               sumers face only nominal costs. Partly
               offsetting these costs are  allocations by
               Congress of about $13 million annually for
               the support of research and testing for prod-
               ucts used on minor  crops. Each of these
               subsets of costs is detailed in Table 8.

               Lead-Safe Housing

                   TSCA regulations set standards for lead
               paint abatement-related activities, including
               the proper identification of a lead-based
               paint risk, training requirements for abate-
               ment workers, abatement work practices, and
               the disposal of removed hazardous materials.
               In 2002, approximately 30,000 housing units
               underwent at least a screening for lead paint
               hazards, and 11,000 units underwent some
               sort of abatement. The total cost of these
               abatements was $111.4 million, including
               $92.4 million in direct abatement work prac-
               tice costs, $11.4 million for inspections and
               risk assessments, and $7.6 million for worker
               training.63
                   The current social costs of EPA's asbestos
               program for schools include periodic re-
               inspections, taking appropriate action to
               repair any deterioration, and the proper
               removal and disposal of asbestos products
               during renovation and remodeling. States
               must also maintain contractor and laboratory
               accreditation programs.
                   The private costs of the PMN program
               come from the firms' costs of preparing a
               notification, addressing any EPA concerns,
               and any costs associated with chemicals that
               are rejected as a result of the PMN process
               (0 in 2002) that would otherwise have been
commercially viable. There are no costs to
nonfederal government organizations. In
2001 (the last year with complete data) firms
submitted a total of 1,365 notices (including
PMNs and low volume, test market, and
polymer exemption notices). The average
cost of a pre-manufacturing notice to a  firm
was $27,000, while low volume and test mar-
ket exemption notices averaged $15,900 and
$6,600 respectively. The total cost to indus-
try of the pre-marmfacturirtg and exemption
notices was $31 million.'0

    Firms may also submit administrative
notices (including commencement notices,
withdrawals, etc.) that are in addition to the
aforementioned pre-manufacturing and
exemption notices. A total of 463 notices
beyond the basic PMN was filed in 2001.
Unit cost information is not available for
these  additional  notices.

    If EPA requested additional information
or imposed restrictions, firms that decide to
begin commercial production or use of a
chemical that has received restrictions bear
the cost of meeting the restrictions as well.
EPA does not have data available to estimate
the cost of restrictions on these chemicals.
    Chemical manufacturers and importers
that are required to report for the TSCA
IIJR incur costs as part of their reporting on
the production volume, plant site, arid status
of TSCA inventory chemicals. In 1998,
industry filed reports from 2,666 facilities,
with a total of over 26.000 separate chemical
reports. The estimated total cost to industry
of meeting the IUR reporting requirements
that year was $17.7 to $27.9 million, includ-
ing the cost of compliance determination,
rule familiarization, report preparation, and
record keeping. Because the IUR requires
facilities to submit the inventory information
only every 4 years, the cost in a typical year
are less. The armualized social costs are $4.6
to $7.3 million using a 3 percent discount

-------
                                                                         Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
rate, or $4.9 to $7.7 million using a 7 percent
discount rate.71

       In addition to reporting, chemical
suppliers incur costs for laboratory tests and
administrative activities. They are responsi-
ble for conducting laboratory tests on the
toxicity, risk, and exposure characteristics of
the chemicals. The majority of the test
results received by the Agency in 2002 were
submitted as part of the High Production
Volume Voluntary Challenge Program. The
costs of this program are borne by the compa-
nies that manufacture and use these
chemicals, with no costs to state or local gov-
ernments. Using data from the 2.000
Information Collection Request (ICR),72 the
total estimated cost of the program is $37.2
million in 2002, but this is believed to be
overstated. This estimate assumes each chem-
ical underwent full testing, while few of the
test plans submitted in 2002 contained com-
plete data sets.

   The total cost to industry was previously
estimated at $12.5 million in each of the
3 years (2002-2004) of the VCCEP pro-
gram.73 The volume of test result submissions
in 2002 was significantly Sower than assumed
in the proposed ICR. Only Tier 1 test results
were submitted for a single chemical in 2002.
The industry cost for this single submission,
per the proposed ICR, is estimated at
$70,747. Additional Tier 1 submissions were
received by EPA in spring 2003, indicating
that some effort and expense by other indus-
try sponsors occurred in 2002. Current data
do not allow the separation of cost compo-
nents, so these costs will be associated with
the 2003 submissions.
    Based on the limited data available
regarding brownfields costs, we assume that
at a minimum state brownfields budgets total
$214.2 million, which is equal to the amount
of grants ($170.5 million) and cooperative
agreement funding ($43.6 million) provided
by EPA in 2003. We  believe that state spend-
ing on brownfields is higher in reality (e.g.,
because federal grants may not be used for
certain activities, and some grants require
matching funds from state, tribal, or local
entities). However, we assume that the
remaining state and local costs of brownfields
redevelopment are included in the estimate
for Superfund site remediation (Goal 3).
Note that some state spending on site reme-
diation is likely associated with
state-designated sites that are not related to
OSWER programs.

TRI

    For the 2002 reporting year, EPA expects
that 24,308 facilities will file 88,117 Form R
reports and 5,451 facilities will file Form A
certification statements on 13,209
chemicals.74 Using the 2002 burden-hour esti-
mates from supporting statements for the TRI
ICR and loaded hourly wage rates derived
from data in the Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation report from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics as describee! in the
TRI ICRs, the 2002 social costs of TRI  are
estimated to be $115 million.7'
    In the 1996 Economic Analysis in Support
of the Final Rule on Risk Management Program
Regulations for Chemical Accident Release
Prevention, EPA used data from the
Accidental Release Information Program
database to monetize damages prevented by
the Risk Management Program. The
Economic Analysis estimated $202.3 million
in annual human health, property, and eco-
logical benefits. Ib estimate the effectiveness
of an additional dollar spent on risk manage-
ment activities, EPA assumed that doubling
spending reduces damages by 50 percent. In
addition, the Economic Analysis assesses the
probability of a catastrophic accident similar
to the 1984  incident in Bhopal, India using

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
Entity
Registrant (manufacturer)
State agency
User, agricultural
Total cost
Government subsidies
• registration support, minor crops
Net cost
Total Cost (millions)
$306.5
$3.3
$81.6
$391.4
$13.0
$378.4
                PBHODE PROSCANS' COSTS TO REGISTRANTS ($306,5 MILUON)
                Costs to registrants consist of re-registrations and new registrations. The total cost to registrants
                of OPP regulator/ requirements is estimated at $306,5 million annually. (For details on the data
                and methodologies used in the OPP estimates, see Wyatt and Widawsky, 2003.) This is  only 2,7
                percent of U.S. expenditures on pesticides, which in  1999 were $11.2 billion,*'
                *  ftp-Registration costs to the pesticide industry may be around $70.2 million annuaiiy "This
                  includes test costs of about $23 million per year ($1 million per chemical with 2.3 chemicals re-
                  registered per year between 2000 and 2002} and other re-registration costs (e,g,< meetings with
                  OPP officials, legal counsel, and other administrative costs) at just under $900,000 per chemi-
                  cal. Recent re-registration decisions  have involved special testing In 12 situations, with  costs
                  averaging around $100,000; and monitoring In 8 situations, with costs as much as $900,000 per
                  chemical. Finally, OPP levies maintenance fees on existing registrations that collected $ 17.0 mil-
                  lion in 2002,
                •  New Registrations cost registrants an estimated $236,3 million annually These costs are estimat-
                  ed separately for conventional and reduced-risk pesticides, biopesticides, and antimicrobials,
                  —  Conventional chemicals cost the  industry almost $ 100 million per year for testing to meet
                      GPP's data requirements, Roughly half that amount Is for the registration of about six new
                      conventional active ingredients each year, with testing costs of about $10.3  million for a
                      food-use chemical and averaging  about $4,3 million  for a non-food use chemical, These
                      costs are probably overstated,  since some tests or equivalent tests would likely be con-
                      ducted in the course of research and development  even  without regulation, OPP can
                      identify oniy three chemicals in the past 10 years that were denied registration, although
                      chemicals may not be registered  on every use site (eg,, crop) for which registration was
                      sought. Some chemicals are no doubt eliminated during research and development when
                      tests show the>' fail to pass the health and safety criteria. However, it is not clear that these
                      costs should be included in the social costs of regulation precisely because  they do not
                      meet health standards; certainly we have no way of measuring the comparative  benefits of
                      keeping such a chemical off the market. The rest of the costs are for registrations of new
                      products or new uses, which require  significantly less data, but for which there are many
                      more requests.

-------
                                                                          Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
  	  Reduced risk pesticides cost registrants about $677 million for testing. Reduced risk chemicals
       have fewer data requirements and are eligible for art expedited review About five new
       ingredients are registered each year, with average test, costs of about $6.5 million. Other reg-
       istration costs, mainly the paperwork burden, total approximately $ iS,S million.
  —  About 12 new biopesticides are registered each year, with reiativeiy low test costs of around
       $200,000 each, One or two plant-incorporated protectsnts are registered as well, at signifi-
       cant!)/ higher cost, in total, registrants incur costs of about $4.4 million annually. The
       equivalent cost for antimicrobials is about $37,3 million, about a third of which is for  new
       active ingredients. Cost per ingredient is around $5.5 miiilon for food uses and $2,5  million
       for non-tbod uses. Finally, OPP also collects $ ii,6 million dollars in fees to pay for the estab-
       lishment of tolerances, the maximum allowable residues that can be found on food products.

PESTICIDE PROGRAMS* COSTS TO STATE AGENCIES (ST3 MILLION)
State agencies face a relatively small annual burden from OPP regulations of around $33 miihon.
Costs are mainly associated with supporting special local registrations under Section 24C of FIFRA
and emergency exemptions from restrictions  under Section 18, The estimate is based on an annual
average of 350 local registration  requests that cost agencies  about $800 each, and an annual average
of 600 emergency exemptions that cost about $5,000 each  to prepare,

PBTICIDE PROGRAMS' COSTS TO .AGRICULTURAL USERS {$SU HIUJON)
Agricultural users may face costs of around $81.6 million annually This represents only 0.2 percent of
net farm income (gross value of production less operating expenses) in 2000, estimated by LAS,
Department of Agriculture "to be $46.4 billion,48 This total includes regulations for dietary reasons of
approximately $19,0 million, regulations to address occupational concerns of approximately $S7I mil-
lion,  and regulations for environmental concerns  of around $45.5 million. These figures are based on
average ex-ante estimates of impacts from a srnaii number of crop-chemical combinations, Estimates
of these anticipated impacts are  subject "to a high degree of uncertainty due to the limited available
information and widely varying conditions under which pesticides are regulated,

OTHER, UNQUANTIRED COSTS i=ROM PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
Other users, principally residential users, could face higher pest control costs as a result of pesticide
regulations, which may restnct their choices. Consumers and labor may also face higher food costs
and fewer employment opportunities due to changes In production systems resulting from pesticide
regulations. However, these impacts are likely to be small, Active ingredients make up only a small
proportion of the cost of household pest control products. Changes in pesticide use have little
impact on retail prices of agricultural commodities compared to the Influence of international prices,
and labor may well benefit from restrictions on labor-saving chemical inputs to production.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
               two different methods to calculate the proba-
               bility and recognizing that the lack of data
               on serious accidents is a source of uncertain-
               ty. The Economic Analysis does not  address
               ecological benefits or the value that people
               place on decreased risk of accidents and ter-
               rorist-related incidents.
                   The social benefits of pesticide regula-
               tions primarily accrue through reductions in
               risk to human health and the environment.
               The goal of OPP is to balance benefits of
               reducing pest damage to agricultural produc-
               tion,  human health, and the quality of life
               with  risks of inappropriate use of toxic mate-
               rials.  Testing pesticides for their impact on
               human health and the environment addresses
               a market information failure, whereby users
               and consumers would otherwise not  know
               the true extent of risks. As scientific knowl-
               edge  improves and social values change,
               re-evaluating previously registered pesticides
               offers a mechanism for OPP to continue to
               identify unacceptable levels of risk.

                   For dietary risk, including drinking water,
               benefits accrue to more than 220 million
               consumers of agricultural products and, in
               particular,  to the Nation's children.
               Children's lower body weight and specialized
               diet leads OPP to consider them explicitly
               when determining tolerable levels of residues.

                   The benefits of worker protection
               requirements and certification and training
               accrue to the more than 1.5 million  farm
               workers, including family labor as well as per-
               manent hired, seasonal, and migrant labor,
               who might otherwise be exposed to excessive
               levels of toxic chemicals. The primary bene-
               fits include reductions in illness of those
               exposed individuals, which impose health
               costs  and losses in wages and productivity.
               Unfortunately, measuring these reductions is
               complicated by difficulties in monitoring
               changes over time and statistically relating
               the changes to regulations. Incidents of work-
er sickness are documented, arid many more
effects go unreported, particularly among
migrant workers.

    The benefits of ecological resource pro-
tection accrue to commercial enterprises that
depend on the natural environment either
directly or indirectly (e.g., commercial fish-
eries, tourism industry, agriculture) and to
individuals through recreational value (e.g.,
sport fishermen, tourists) or existence value.
There may also be an option value, in that
future goods or services may result from pre-
serving the environment in the present. As
with dietary and occupational concerns, link-
ing regulations with data on reductions in
mortality and morbidity of wildlife is nearly
impossible, although incidents are document-
ed,  as in the cases of fish kills and bird
deaths.

    Pesticides are toxic chemicals, but the
benefits of their use accrue to agriculture and
other commercial enterprises from reducing
production costs, improving working condi-
tions, protecting plants and structures from
damage, and increasing productivity. Pest
control products are used throughout  industry
to maintain sanitary conditions and by gov-
ernments to ensure the public health.
Consumers benefit from a cheaper, plentiful,
and safe food supply. Benefits also accrue to
society in general with the availability of pes-
ticides and antimicrobials that protect health
and homes. However, the realization of these
benefits depends on smoothly functioning
markets,  which depend in turn on the avail-
ability of trustworthy information as to the
appropriate uses and safety of the end prod-
ucts. In the absence of federal regulations,
state governments would likely establish their
own regulations, which coulcl well prove
more costly to the regulated community.
Without the approval process granted by
EPA, pesticide and agricultural producers
could find their markets subject to the risks
and uncertainties of unfounded concerns.
Products may, in fact, face higher standards

-------
                                                                         Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
and require more exhaustive testing simply to
protect manufacturers from litigation. The
value of official assurances of a safe food sup-
ply to a well functioning market may well
exceed the costs of pesticide regulation.
    For the purposes of this exercise, only one
portion of the social benefits of lead abate-
ments has been monetized: the avoided loss of
IQ in young children. The quantified benefit
of avoiding lowered IQ includes both extra
educational costs and lower lifetime earnings
and is estimated using a value of a one point
avoided IQ loss of $8,675 (with 3 percent dis-
counting). The present value of the avoided
IQ damages in the  11,000 housing units abat-
ed in 2002 is  $171  million. The average
benefit per abatement is $15,352. The esti-
mate includes IQ benefits to children living
in the housing units at the time of abatement
as well as subsequent children living in that
unit in the future. The benefit estimates also
assume only 1 percent of the housing units
have children living in  them at the time of
abatement.'6 Additional health benefits that
are unquandfied include other neurological-
related benefits to children and all benefits to
adults living in the abated housing or who
conduct the abatements.
    The asbestos regulations reduce not only
the exposure and health risk during the nor-
mal use of the asbestos-containing products,
but also reduce the much higher exposures
and health risks associated with the eventual
removal and disposal of the asbestos materi-
als. Estimates are not currently available for
the amount or value of avoided health effects
of EPA's asbestos actions.
    While the costs of the PMN program
arise from a direct regulatory program, the
benefits arise through both direct regulatory
effects and pollution prevention-like effects.
The immediate public benefits of the PMN
program are realized as human health risks
and environmental damages that are avoided
from the restrictions or bans placed on new
chemicals. These restrictions may consist of
labeling requirements, specified workplace
practices,  disposal restrictions, etc., which are
established through the PMN program before
commercial production of the new chemical
begins. For the very few (0 in 2002) chemi-
cals that are found to pose an unreasonable
risk, the restriction may be a ban. In many
cases, manufacturers who submitted the
notices decide not to actually begin use of
the chemical once they receive the feedback
of the PMN review, often selecting more
environmentally benign products instead.
Additional benefits may arise if PMN chemi-
cals start to displace existing chemicals in the
marketplace, if the new chemical is less risky
than the older chemical. We are currently
analyzing  annual risk reduction data and
believe that the program has resulted in
reduced risks to the public in the 20 years
since its inception.
    The Existing Chemicals Program serves
to improve the quality and quantity of pub-
licly available toxic chemical information so
as to minimize information market failures.
Prior to these programs, the  information on
toxic chemicals that was available to citizens,
firms, or government organizations dealing
with toxic chemical issues was inconsistent.
The benefits  of these information collection
programs flow through their contribution in
risk assessment and risk  management to
reductions in risk to human health and the
environment. Having available current and
accurate information on these chemicals
enables government decision-makers and the
public to assess the risks from chemicals in
their communities, thus helping to support
rapid and informed decision-making at all
levels.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                                                             GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE
                   Using data from 142 sample brownfields
               sites, the report Public Policies and Private
               Decisions Affecting the Redevelopment of
               Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors,
               Relative Weights and Areal Differentials esti-
               mates that every acre of brownfields
               development preserves 4.5 acres of greenfield
               space/''' However, OSWER was unable to
               estimate the level of annual greenfield preser-
               vation attributable to brownfields, since no
               data are available on the amount of land
               redeveloped through brownfields programs on
               an annual basis. Additional benefits not esti-
               mated by the report include increased
               economic activity, human health improve-
               ments, restoration of ecosystems, improved
               regional land-use patterns, the preservation
               of open spaces that would otherwise be
               developed, and the avoided cost of infrastruc-
               ture associated with greenfield development.
                   The industries that have reported to TR1
               since its inception have reduced their on-
               and offsite releases of TRI chemicals by a
               total of 48 percent, or 1.55 billion pounds.'8
               The information reported to TRI increases
               knowledge of the levels  of toxic chemicals
               released to the environment and the poten-
               tial pathways of exposure, improving
               scientific understanding of the health and
               environmental risks of toxic chemicals;
               allows the public to make informed decisions
               on where  to work and live; enhances the
               ability of corporate leaders and purchasers to
               more accurately gauge a facility's potential
               environmental liabilities; provides reporting
               facilities with  information that can be used
               to save  money as well as to reduce emissions;
               and assists federal, state, and local authorities
               in making better decisions on acceptable lev-
               els of toxic chemicals in the environment.79
D1SCUSS3.0N

    Social costs and benefits related to
Goal 5 result primarily from two types of
EPA activities. First, EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) uses a mix of compliance assistance,
compliance incentives, monitoring, and
enforcement to address environmental risks
and patterns of noncompliance. These activi-
ties produce direct environmental benefits
that result in better protection of human
health and the environment, and they pro-
vide a general deterrent to noncompliance
that is the foundation of the Agency's regula-
tory and voluntary programs. In fact, the
activities of OECA allow the programs under
Goals 1 through 4  to often make the simpli-
fying assumption of full compliance and,
therefore, state the benefits associated with
full compliance. This would be a far from
realistic assumption without the activities of
both the media programs and the national
compliance and  enforcement program work-
ing in concert. In addition to general
monitoring arid enforcement activities, spe-
cific examples of OECA activities include:
        Supplemenial iimwonrne.ntal Projects
        (SEPs) that are negotiated with a
        defendant at the encl of a legal case;
        these projects can run the gamut from
        local community projects (such as
        planting trees or implementing water
        quality improvement programs in
        concert with a local environmental
        group) to more general projects such
        as voluntarily reducing emissions of
        certain pollutants or working cooper-
        atively with a state to use certain
        technologies to help improve state-
        wide environmental performance.

-------
                                                                         Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
    *  C.omphance Assistance Centers are
       Internet-based centers which make
       extensive compliance information
       available to the regulated community
       in order to help facilities come into
       environmental compliance without
       incurring the cost of a violation and
       subsequent legal action.

    •  The Audit and Self-Policing Policy pro-
       vides an incentive for regulated
       facilities to detect, disclose, and cor-
       rect environmental violations in
       exchange for a waiver or significant
       reduction in penalties, thereby
       encouraging facilities to come into
       compliance more quickly and with
       the use of fewer government
       resources and ultimately  reducing
       emissions.

    The second major type of EPA activity
related to Goal 5 is the various pollution pre-
vention programs within the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) and
OSW. The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990s0 recognized that one of the most effec-
tive ways of reducing public health risks from
exposure to toxic chemicals, as well as lower-
ing environmental risks, is to prevent
pollution from being created in the first
place. Rather than relying on traditional reg-
ulatory approaches, EPA's pollution
prevention programs use a broad array of
cooperative approaches, working closely with
industry, state and local governments, and
citizens who volunteer to work with EPA to
find better, smarter, and cleaner ways of
doing business.  Examples of EPA's pollution
prevention programs include:

    •  OPPT's Design for the Enwonmertt
       Program is a voluntary partnership
       program that works with individual
       industry sectors to develop and inte-
       grate cleaner, cheaper, and smarter
       environmental solutions into every-
       day business practices.
•  OPPJT's Green Chemistry Program pro-
   motes the research, development,
   and implementation of innovative
   chemical technologies that prevent
   pollution in both a scientifically
   sound and a cost-effective manner.

•  OPP'l '.$ Green Engineering Program
   promotes consideration of exposure,
   fate, and toxicity—in addition to the
   more traditional waste minimization
   concerns—in the design, commer-
   cialization, arid use of chemical
   products and the development of fea-
   sible, economical processes that
   minimize generation of pollution at
   the source.

«  OPPT's Hedtky 'Hospitals for the
   Environment Program is a voluntary
   program centered on reducing the
   amount of mercury used in hospitals
   ancl improving the  efficiency of han-
   dling hospital wastes in general.

•  OPPT's Environmentally Preferable.
   Purchasing Program  is a federal gov-
   ernment-wide program that
   encourages and assists  Executive
   agencies to prevent waste and pollu-
   tion by considering environmental
   impacts along with price, perform-
   ance, and other traditional factors
   when deciding what products and
   services to buy.
        i 's Foifcson rrevenfcon Grants
   comprises two programs: the
   Pollution Prevention Grant Program,
   which provides $5 million annually
   to states to help administer pollution
   prevention programs, and the
   Pollution Prevention Resource
   Exchange, which partially sponsors a
   consortium of eight regional pollution
   prevention information centers that
   provide pollution prevention infor-
   mation, networking opportunities,
   and other services to states and local
   governments and technical assistance
   to providers in their region.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                       OSYv's Voluntary Waste Reduction
                       Programs include efforts focused on
                       both hazardous waste and municipal
                       solid wastes. OSW's RCRA
                       Hazardous Waste Minimization
                       Program seeks to reduce the genera-
                       tion of hazardous waste in the iJnited
                       States, I lie program targets a list of
                       30 "priority chemicals" that	because
                       of their persistent bioaccumulation
                       potential and toxic ity	are of signifi-
                       cant concern when released to the
                       environment.31 Reductions of wastes
                       that contain one or more of these
                       chemicals are the focus of this pro-
                       gram.  EPA accomplishes waste
                       reduction goals through a combina-
                       tion of regulatory actions, voluntary
                       waste  reduction partnerships, and
                       technical support initiatives. EPA's
                       Hazardous Waste Minimization
                       Program tracks the progress toward
                       national reduction goals via the TRI
                       database. Municipal solid wastes are
                       similarly targeted through voluntary
                       programs for reductions in  waste rates
                       and increases in recycling.  Results  are
                       measured in terms of reduction in
                       waste  generation rates as compared to
                       growth in the economy.
               METHODOLOGY
                   The national enforcement and compli-
               ance assurance program imposes three main
               categories of costs: administrative and judi-
               cial penalties, injunctive relief, and SEPs.
               Not all of these costs qualify as social costs.
               Though penalties do impose a monetary bur-
               den on those required to pay them, they are a
               transfer payment and do not incur a social
               cost. Regulated entities involved in enforce-
               ment activities are required to pay injunctive
               relief to bring a facility back into compliance
               and redress environmental harm caused.
               Since injunctive relief is offsetting environ-
mental harm, or represents a cost that would
have been incurred if the facility had been in
compliance, it does not represent a social
cost attributable to the enforcement and
compliance program. Also, these costs are
included in the analyses of costs of programs
in Goals 1 through 4 to the extent those
analyses assumed 100 percent compliance.

    SEPs are voluntary projects undertaken
by violators  as part of the settlement of an
enforcement action. Examples of past SEPs
include upgrading  equipment or processes to
reduce the amount of pollution produced,
restoring habitats degraded by past noncom-
pliance, and agreeing to help  other facilities
reduce the amount of pollution they are pro-
ducing. Though not legally required to
perform a SEP, EPA may reduce the magni-
tude of a penalty if the violator agrees to
undertake an acceptable SEP. The cost of
SEPs amounted to  approximately $56 million
in 2002.
    As pollution prevention activities are
voluntary programs, private industries will
only participate if they expect to find ways to
reduce their costs and/or improve their prof-
itability. Therefore, one can expect there are
no net social costs of these programs, as
social costs are defined in this report.
Monetized estimates of social benefits attrib-
utable to these programs are not available. A
description of the social benefits of pollution
prevention programs along with quantitative
indicators of their success are summarized in
Goal 5's Social Benefits section.
    As noted above, the simplifying compli-
ance assumptions made in analyses for Goals
1 through 4 make it impossible to aggregate
the estimates of social costs and benefits
attributable to OECA's activities with those

-------
                                                                          Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
of the program offices,  [lie assistance and
incentive programs and the monitoring and
enforcement activities carried out by OECA
serve not only to bring facilities back into
compliance, but to deter and prevent facilities
from operating outside  the law. A social cost
for which we currently have no data is the
costs to states of state inspectors monitoring
for compliance with federal environmental
regulations,  although part of this cost is fund-
ed by EPA.82 We also are unable to provide
estimates of litigation fees/transaction costs
related to noncompliance. This involves costs
of attorney and other fees when a facility is
involved in  litigation over a violation of
environmental law. No general estimates are
available concerning the overall value of
national expenditures on these fees; however
a study done by RAND in 1991 reported that
transaction costs accounted for 19 percent of
outlays for five very large industrial firms
involved in  Superfund cleanups at 49 sites
nationwide.83 A subsequent RAND study-
found that transaction cost percentages were
much higher when including both large firms
and smaller  firms in the study sample.
Transaction cost share estimates ranged from
60 percent for firms with  annual revenues less
than $15 million to 15 percent for firms with
annual revenues between $100 million and
$1 billion,8'*

Polkit.ion Prevention Activities

    Data to assess either the costs or benefits
of pollution prevention activities are scarce.
Consequently, most of the information pre-
sented about these activities is qualitative.
Quantitative information is presented when-
ever it is available.

SOCIAL COSTS
    The annualized cost arising from SEPs
was approximately $56 million in 2002.
    Voluntary pollution prevention programs
are often thought of as win-win programs.
Private industry and/or municipalities will
only participate if they believe it is in their
own best interest. Industry and government
organizations are motivated to participate
because of the opportunity of finding ways to
increase profits or lower costs by creating
more output with fewer inputs, reducing dis-
posal of hazardous materials, increasing
worker protection and productivity, reducing
liability, improving public relations, or lower-
ing environmental compliance expenses.
    The direct human health and environ-
mental benefits of the federal air, water, and
hazardous waste laws are addressed in the
social benefits section for Goals 1 through 4.
However, the public benefits of clean air,
water, and land are only achieved through
regulated entities' compliance with environ-
mental laws. And compliance is achieved
through a system that depends on the activi-
ties of media (e.g., air, water, solid  waste)
programs and the national compliance  and
enforcement program working in concert.
The compliance assistance, compliance
incentive, monitoring, and enforcement
activities carried out by OECA serve not
only to bring facilities back into compliance,
but to deter and prevent facilities from oper-
ating outside the law.  Thus, a percentage of
the social benefits outlined in Goals  1
through 4 is attributable to the activities of
the national enforcement and compliance
assurance program.

    Although  enforcement activities clearly
have a positive effect  on compliance,83  it is
virtually impossible to estimate the percent-
age of benefits estimated by the media offices
(in Goals 1 through 4) that may be attributa-
ble to OECA activities. The effect of OECA

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
               activities is likely to vary across industry,
               media, and pollutant, which increases the
               difficulty of attributing the benefits of envi-
               ronmental improvements to those activities.
               For example, data from Gray and Deily86 sug-
               gests that EPA enforcement of air pollution
               regulations accounts for about one-third to
               one-half of compliance in the U.S. steel
               industry between 1980 and 1989, while
               results from Gray and Shadbegian87 suggest
               that compliance rates in the paper industry
               would be about 13 percent lower without
               EPA enforcement activity.

                   More generally, some of the reasons firms
               comply with environmental regulations is
               outside the realm of EPA control. For
               instance, firms may comply with environ-
               mental statutes to improve or simply
               maintain goodwill within the community in
               which they operate and with the consumers
               of their products or services. Private citizen
               or environmental interest  group legal actions
               against "dirty" firms are also a motivating fac-
               tor for firms to comply. It is difficult to
               disentangle the effect of enforcement activi-
               ties from these other considerations on firms'
               compliance behavior.

                   Social benefits also accrue to the public
               solely as the result of OECA activities. The
               environmental outcomes resulting from the
               conclusion of enforcement cases (e.g., pounds
               of pollutants reduced, ground water treated,
               and contaminated soil to be cleaned) are a
               direct result of enforcement activity and
               would not have been achieved in the absence
               of enforcement actions. During FY  2002, the
               compliance and enforcement program
               secured 261 million pounds of pollutants to
               be reduced through settled enforcement
               cases. In addition, enforcement cases resulted
               in 2.8 billion gallons of polluted ground
               water to be treated, 503 million pounds of
               contaminated soils to be cleaned up, 40,000
               acres of wetlands to be protected, arid 3.15
               million individuals served by drinking water-
               systems brought back into compliance.88
    OECA's Internet-based Compliance
Assistance Centers provide information to
help facilities achieve, maintain, and exceed
compliance requirements. Seventy-four per-
cent of the users of the Compliance
Assistance Centers report having made one
or more environmental improvements as a
result of that use.89 EPA's Audit and Self-
Policing Policy90 provides incentives for
regulated facilities to detect, disclose, and
correct environmental violations in exchange
for a waiver of or significant reduction in
penalties.  In FY 2002, more than 252 compa-
nies used the policy to resolve violations at
1,467 facilities.91 The social benefit of this
policy and the Compliance Assistance
Centers is that they help bring many facili-
ties into compliance that would otherwise  be
involved in a lengthy litigation process.
Therefore, facilities  achieve environmental
benefits sooner and  with the use of fewer
government resources.

    One other note is relevant concerning
enforcement cases. Although SEPs do impose
some social cost, they also produce signifi-
cant offsetting social benefits, which accrue
only in the presence of an enforcement
action. Regulated entities agree to undertake
SEPs because of pending enforcement activi-
ty. Consequently, those offsetting social
benefits are a direct result of enforcement as
well.

    Regarding enforcement and monitoring,
while there are costs associated with fines
and penalties, the benefit to society is the
resulting deterrent effect that this action has
upon negative corporate behavior. Chester
Bowles, head of the U.S. Office of Price
Administration during World War II,
observed that 20 percent of the population
would likely comply with any regulation, 5
percent would not comply, and the remaining
75 percent would go along with the regula-
tion as long as there was certainty that the
5 percent  would be caught and punished.
While Bowies' assertion may or may not be
true in terms of percentages, research on the

-------
                                                                        Appendix 1:  Social Costs arid Benefits
effects of enforcement seems to indicate that
some percentage of the regulated community
is motivated to stay in compliance as a result
of monitoring and enforcement activity. It is.
however, difficult to determine the degree of
this beneficial effect, and even more difficult
to determine what might be the effect of
marginal increases in enforcement levels. In
general, the research appears to show that
increased monitoring and enforcement deters
violations and improves environmental per-
formance.
    Social benefits arising from pollution pre-
vention programs include both private and
public components. Trie private components
include the net cost savings that motivate
industry, municipalities, or federal agencies to
participate in these voluntary programs. 'The
public components flow from the lowering of
exposure and risks from toxic chemicals. By-
helping develop and adopt pollution preven-
tion approaches throughout the  economy,
EPA is permanently lowering the risks from
toxic chemicals. We believe there are grow-
ing benefits from the pollution prevention
program and are working to develop
approaches to measure  impacts to human
health and environment. Examples of EPA's
pollution prevention programs, along with
indicators of their benefits, are listed below.

    •  OPPT's Design for the hnvirGmnent
        Program, Based on OPPT estimates,
       program partnerships have reached
       over 2 million workers at over
        170,000 facilities; evaluated over 500
       chemical substances; reduced diiso-
       cyanate exposure, formaldehyde use,
       lead and mercury use and exposure,
       perchloroethylene use, volatile
       organic compounds, hazardous air
       pollutants, and toxic chemical releas-
       es; arid conserved millions of gallons
       of water and BTUs of energy every
       year.
•  OPPJPs Green Chemistry Program.
   Twenty-eight firms have won Green
   Chemistry awards92 since the program
   began in 1996. Those who win a
   Green Chemistry Award anticipate
   added market power and improved
   public relations that such an award
   conveys. OFF I' records show that
   award winners eliminated
   114,103,260 pounds of hazardous
   substances, 2,131,000 gallons of haz-
   ardous substances, and 57,000,000
   pounds of carbon dioxide and saved
   55,000,000 gallons of water.
   Additional reductions occurred in
   2002 from the many other firms that
   actively participated in the Green
   Chemistry Program that year arid in
   prior years.

•  OPPT's Green Engineering Program,
   Like other pollution prevention pro-
   grams, the Green Engineering
   Program produces both private and
   public benefits. Iri particular,  the pro-
   gram has produced a textbook and
   other instructional material to incor-
   porate environmental considerations
   into engineering curricula. Human
   health and environmental risk reduc-
   tion will become mainstreamed as
   students who are trained in the prin-
   ciples of Green Engineering move
   into the workforce and change the
   way firms design chemical processes.

*  OPPT's Healthy Hospitals for tk
   Enviroraneni Program.  The benefits of
   this program include reduced private
   costs (associated with toxic materi-
   als) to health care facilities, as well as
   public benefits arising from the
   decrease in human health and envi-
   ronmental risks from exposure to
   mercury and other toxic chemicals
   that may have been otherwise incin-
   erated and dispersed into the
   atmosphere. Private facilities could
   also be motivated by the possibility

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                       of improved public relations. Less fre-
                       quent and less intensive operation of
                       incinerators to dispose of regulated
                       wastes, including mercury, presents
                       less risk to the public and reduces the
                       amount of energy needed to operate
                       the incinerators.93

                   •   OPPT's EmrffonrfHintally Prsfe.rable-
                       Purchasing (EPP) Program. This pro-
                       gram's social benefits are the reduced
                       health  and  environmental risks from
                       decreased use and release of toxic
                       chemicals. In addition, once these
                       preferable products are available for
                       the federal  market, it becomes possi-
                       ble  for  manufacturers to also offer the
                       EPP products to other purchasers of
                       these goods and services, including
                       consumers, industry, arid other levels
                       of government. The increased manu-
                       facturing and purchase of "greener"
                       products will lead to a more sustain-
                       able standard of living and economy
                       that preserves scarce natural
                       resources like oil and clean water,
                       uses fewer toxic chemicals,  and gen-
                       erates less pollution within the
                       federal government.

                   •   OPPT's Pollution Prevention Grants.
                       Benefits include the aforementioned
                       private and public benefits that arise
                       from the adoption of pollution pre-
                       vention approaches. The pollution
                       prevention grants support states in
                       their outreach and technical assis-
                       tance efforts. A recent study of only
                       13 of the programs funded by the
                       Pollution Prevention Resource
                       Exchange found the program pro-
                       duced significant benefits. Quantified
                       private benefits of the 1.3 programs
                       include total cost savings of $32.8
                       million. In  addition, public benefits
                       through pollution prevention actions
                       included reductions of 39.8 million
                       pounds in air, 1.55 million pounds in
                       water, and 1.5 billion pounds of
waste generated. In addition,
resource conservation benefits were
8.8 million kWh of energy and 368.4
million gallons of water.94

OSW:s Voktmary Waste Reduction
Programs, These programs provide
social benefits in terms of reductions
in waste generation rates for both
hazardous waste and municipal solid
waste streams. Municipal waste gen-
eration is increasing at only half the
rate of GDP growth.9'1 Additionally,
there has been a 44 percent reduc-
tion in disposal of Waste
Minimization Priority Chemicals
between 1991 and 1998.96 Voluntary
waste reduction programs have also
helped to increase municipal waste
recycling on a per capita basis.9''
Waste generation reduction and
waste recycling have helped to bring
about long-term protection of ground
water and both scarce resources and
land for future use.

-------
                                                                                        Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
NOTKS

1.  U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2002. The President's Management Agenda. Washington, DC:
    Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/ry2002/mgmt.pdf.
2.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Planning and Evaluation. November 1990. Environmental
    Investments: The Cost, of a Clean Environment. EPA 230-11-90-083. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
    Printing Office.
3.  U.S. Census Bureau. November 2002. Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures: 1999. MA200(99).
    Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.census.gov/prod/
    2002pubs/ma200-99.pdf. Date of access: September 10, 2003.
4,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of the Administrator. November 2000. Guidelines for Preparing
    Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5.  42 U.S. Code § 7401 et seq.  [Nov. 15, 19903
6.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Policy, Planning, and
    Evaluation. October 1997. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, J970 to 1990: EPA Report to Congress.
    EPA 410-R-97-002. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Policy. November 1999.
    The Benefits and Costs of tlie Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2G1Q: EPA Report to Congress. EPA 410-R-99-001.
    Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7.  42 U.S. Code § 7401 et seq.  [Dec. 31, 1970]
8.  42 U.S. Code § 7401 el seq.  [Nov. 15, 1990]
9.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Policy, Planning, and
    Evaluation. October 1997. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990: EPA Report to Congress.
    EPA 410-R-97-002. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
1C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Policy. November 1999.
    The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010: EPA Report to Congress. EPA 410-R-99-001.
    Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. Public Law No. 104-182, 110 Stat. 1613 (Aug. 6, 1996)
12. 33 U.S. Code §§ 1251-1387
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Planning and Evaluation. November 1990. Environmental
    Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment. EPA 230-11-90-083. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
    Printing Office.
14. 47 Federal Register 9350 (December 24,  1975)
15. 44 Federal Register 68624, November 29, 1979)
16. This is likely an  underestimate of benefits, as these early rules were aimed at correcting gross public health
    concerns.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. A Retrospective Assessment of the Costs of the Clean Water Act:
    1972 to 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/
    ost/economics.
18. A Census of Governments is taken at 5-year intervals and covers three major subject fields—government
    organization, public employment, and government finance (U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division, May
    22 2003: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/index.html).
19. Our approach in estimating the federal contributions, which are not included in social cost estimates, was  to sub-
    tract the amounts provided toward state, local, and private spending in EPA's 2002 enacted water program
    budget. There are certain clean water grant programs, subsidies, or tax expenditures administered by federal
    agencies other than EPA (e.g., USDA conservation assistance, HUD, Rural Utilities Service and Economic
    Development Administration grants, or the tax deducibility of bond interest for pollution control investments)
    that may provide federal contributions toward state/local CWA  activities. However, we are uncertain how much

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                        of this spending may simply fund basic services or further CWA activities. Furthermore, we did not net out some
                        funds in EPA's water budget that are provided to state and local governments because state/local spending on
                        these items was not considered to be pursuant to an EPA mandate in the first place (i.e., since we do not count
                        state, local, or private spending on nonpoint source water pollution abatement as pursuant to an EPA program,
                        we do not need to net out the CWA Section 319 grants provided to assist states on nonpoint source activities).
                   20.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 2000. A Benefits Assessment of Water  Pollution Control Programs
                        Since 1972: Part 1, The Benefits of Point Source Controls for Conventional Pollutants in Rivers and Streams.
                        Washington, DC: U.S.  Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ost/
                        economics/assessment, pdf.
                   21.  40  Code, of Federal Regulations 131.36
                   22.  40  Code of Federal Regulations Part 122
                   23.  Generally speaking, our benefit estimates  represent the expected beneficial effects to the  lull national popula-
                        tion ("society"), making it reasonable to refer to the estimates as societal, or "social," benefit estimates. This is
                        not the case with the cost estimates. Instead, these estimates generally reflect an "impact analysis" heritage that
                        emphasizes the adverse  effect on a subpopulation of society,  typically the regulated community and its most
                        directly affected groups (e.g., state and local governments). Hence, a comparison of the benefit estimates  to the
                        cost estimates presented here is questionable since one estimate reflects an  impact on  the full population, while
                        the other estimate reflects an impact only on a subpopulation.
                        Another methodological concern relates to establishing the baselines for estimating the effects of SDWA and
                        CWA programs. To estimate the costs and benefits of SDWA programs, we used the economic analyses devel-
                        oped in support of 14 regulatory actions. To estimate the costs and benefits of CWA programs, we used as a
                        foundation two retrospective analyses conducted by EPA aimed at estimating the cumulative effects of the pro-
                        grams and added supplemental data and other information from other sources to provide  a more complete and
                        up-to-date impression of the effects of CWA programs.
                   24.  To  obtain basin-wide benefits for the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance (40 Code of Federal Regulations 132),
                        the average monetary benefit per toxic pound-equivalent reduced ($48) was computed across the three case
                        studies (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin), then multiplied by the estimated reduction in toxic pound-equivalents
                        for the basin as a whole (5.8 million to 7.6 million toxic pounds-equivalent). The estimate is only a partial esti-
                        mate of anticipated benefits because benefits from noncancer human health risk reductions could not be
                        monetized for the case studies.
                   25.  40  Code of Federal Regulations 131.38
                   26.  Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 136 and 437);
                        Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Subcategory (40 Code of Federal Regulations  Part 444); Landfills Point
                        Source Category (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 136 and 445); Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point
                        .Source Category (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 442); Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging
                        (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 455); Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 Code of
                        Federal Regulations Part  430); final Water Rule, and Oil and Gas Extraction (.Synthetic Based Drilling Fluids)
                        (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 435).
                   27.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 2002. A Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial.
                        Regulations: Effluent Limitations Guidelines,  Pretreatment Standards, and New Sources Performance Standards.
                        Washington, DC: U.S.  Government Printing Office. Available online at http://epa.gov/guide/strategy/
                        304mstrategy.pdf.
                   28.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002.  Economic Analysis for the Final Revisions to  the Oil Pollution
                        Prevention Regulation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
                   29.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste, Division of Economics, Methods, and  Risk
                        Analysis Division. July  23, 1999. Addendum to the Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Cither Impacts of
                        the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards:  Final Rule.
                   30.  42  U.S.  Code 11001 et seq. (1986)
                   31.  U.S. Department of Commerce. 2003. Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts Table
                        7.1. Quantity and Price  Indexes far Gross Domestic Product. Available online at http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/
                        nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=Y. Date of access: September 10, 2003.

-------
                                                                                          Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
32.  Welfare economics typically defines total social cost as the sum of the opportunity costs incurred by society as a
     result of regulations. These costs include direct costs to both private sector and government (net of any gains
     such as improved efficiency or sale of recycled products), as well as any additional social welfare losses, transi-
     tional costs, and indirect costs such as changes in product quality. Note that costs in each or these categories
     can be negative or can be offset by gains (e.g., transitional costs may be offset by increased demand for
     resources  for pollution control).
33.  Brown, Stephen. 2001. States Put Their Money Where Their Environment Is (State Environmental Spending).
     Environmental Council (if the States. Available online at http://www.sso.org/ecos/ECOStatesArticles/
     rsbrown.pdf. Date of access: September 10, 2003.
34.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste. 1990. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the final
     Criteria jor Mimic/pa! Solid Waste Landfills.  Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
35.  Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) Tanks
     Subcommittee.1998. Report Card on the Federal IJST/WST Program.
36.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency. Office of Underground Storage Tanks. December 23, 2002.
     Memorandum: }'Y 2002 End-of-Year Activity Report.
37.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency. May 1996. Economic Analysis in Support of the Final Rule on Risk
     Management Program Regulations for Chemical Accident Release Prevention, as Required by Section 112 (r) of the
     Clean Air Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available  (inline at
     http://yosemite.epa,gov/EE/epa/ria.nsf/vwRef/S.96.4+A?OpenDocument. Date  of access: September 3, 2003.
38.  U.S. Department of Commerce. 2003. Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts Table
     7.1. Quantity and Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product. Available online at http://www.bea.gov/liea/dn/
     nipaweb/Select [able.asp ?Selected=Y.  Date of access: September 10, 2003.
39.  Ideally, a  comprehensive analysis would rely on current and future projections  rather than past analyses.
     However, we are limited by the  availability of such analyses. Some current and future projections are available
     and were  consulted for this report (for example: Probst, et al. 2003.  Superfund's Future: What Will It Cost?
     Resources for the Future, Washington, DC). However, the bulk of available data are retrospective or older pro-
     jections of costs and benefits.
40.  EPA is in the process of preparing an analysis of Superlund program benefits. This report is not yet ready for
     publication, but monetized estimates of Superfund benefits may be available in the near future.
41.  P. Balserak, "Analysis (if the Efficiency of the Environmental Protection Agency's Land Disposal  Restrictions
     Program" (M.S. thesis, George Mason University, 1996).
42.  Although certain RIAs provide  monetized  estimates of human health benefits, EPA does not present these esti-
     mates here because those quantified represent a very small portion of the total health benefits provided by
     OSWER and would, therefore, provide a misleading estimate.  RIAs assess only incremental benefits of specific
     rules and, in many cases, are limited to outdated understanding of health effects. To monetize the public health
     benefits accurately, one would have to revisit the approach used in the RIAs to update their estimates and
     address the benefits that are not reflected.
43.  There are also a number of voluntary  OSWER programs and initiatives not addressed (e.g. WasteWise,
     Resource  Conservation Challenge, and  Product Stewardship Partnerships). While the costs associated with
     activities  under  these programs are likely reflected in the PACE data, benefits associated with these efforts have
     not been  calculated.
44.  There are three  exceptions to this assumption. First, 1999 PACE data likely reflect one-time charges for UST
     replacements to meet the 1998 deadline for compliance with technical standards. These replacement cost  esti-
     mates have, therefore, been replaced with general estimates of recent UST activities. Second, the 1999
     Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT standards are not reflected in 1999 PACE estimates. Although imple-
     mentation or these standards has been delayed through legal review. OSWER adjusts the PACE-based social
     cost estimates to include the costs and benefits of the rule since some facilities are already taking action in
     anticipation of the finalized rule. Finally, cost savings  associated with the 2002 Oil Pollution Prevention and
     Response revisions are not included in 1999 PACE data. OSWER includes these savings of $11 million in our
     estimate.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                  45.  EPA is currently working to improve the methods for valuing the protecting ecological systems and services and
                       is convening a Science Advisory Panel as part of "a comprehensive effort that will improve the methods used
                       to value the benefits of protecting ecological systems and services to facilitate Agency decisions concerning the
                       protection and restoration of ecosystems." (Federal Register: March 7, 2003 (Volume  68, Number 45), 11082-
                       11084, 11083).
                  47.  Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roderiticide Act, 7 U.S. Code s/s 136 et seq. (1996), Public Law 92-516
                       (1972). Available online at: http://www4-law.cornell.edU/uscode/7/ch6.ht:ml.
                  48.  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S. Code 301, Public Law 106-540, (December 8,
                       2000). Available online at: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm.
                  49.  Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), Public Law 104-170, (August 3, 1996). Available online at:
                       http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/fqpa/gpogate.pdf.
                  50.  Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, Public Lav; 102-550. Available online at:
                       http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/regs/leatilex.pdf.
                  51.  Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Public Law 94-469. Available online at: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/
                       u scode/15 ,/ch 5 3 .htm 1.
                  52.  Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act of 1990, Public Law 101-637. Available online at:
                       http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/asbestos/200240CFR763.pdf.
                  53.  Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986, Public Law 99-519. Available online at:
                       http://www4-law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/ch53schll.html.
                  54.  Inventory Update Rule (IUR), Federal Register: January 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 4); 40 Code of Federal
                       Regulations Parts 9, 710, and 723, TSCA Inventory Update Rule Amendments. Available online at
                       http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2003/January/Day-07/t32909.htm.
                  55.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New Chemicals  Program, TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory Web
                       Site, http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/riewchems/invntory.htm. Date of access: September 4, 2003.
                  56.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chemical Information Collection and Data  Development (Testing)
                       Web Site, http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/index.htm. Date of access: September 4, 2003.
                  57.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) Web
                       Site, http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/vccep. Date of access: September 4, 2003.
                  58.  Public Law 99-499
                  59.  40 Code of Federal Regulations 372
                  60.  Public Law 101-508
                  61.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of Environmental Information. August 2002. 2000 Toxics
                       Release Inventory (TRl). Public Data Release. EPA 260-R-02-003. Washington, DC: U.S.  Government Printing
                       Office.
                  62.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1996. Economic Analysis in Support of the Final Rule on Risk
                       Management Program Regulations for Chemical Accident Release Prevention, as Required by Section  112 (r) of the
                       Clean Air Act. Washington, DC. Available online at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE/epa/ria.nsf/vwRef/
                       S.96.4+A?OpenDocument: EPA National Center for Environmental Economics Web Site. Date of access:
                       September 3, 2003.
                  63.  Costs are reported in  1996 dollars. An inflation factor of  1.1046 is used to arrive at the 2002 estimate.
                  64.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2003. Promoting Safety for America's Future, Office of Pesticide
                       Programs FY 2002 Annual Report. EPA735-R-03-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
                  65.  Gianessi, L.. and S. Sankula. April 2003. The Value of Herbicides in U.S. Crop Production. Washington, DC:
                       National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.
                       Knutson, R., and D. Smith. April 1999. Impacts of Eliminating Organophosphates and Carbamates from Crop
                       Production: Agricultural, and Food Policy Center Working Paper 99-2. Department of Agricultural Economics,
                       Texas A.&M University.

-------
                                                                                       Appendix 1: Social Costs arid Benefits
66. Wyatt, T., and D. Widawsky. July 24, 2003. Social Cost Report for OPP's 2003 Strategic Plan. Washington, DC:
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (Unpublished draft).
67. Donaldson, D., T. Kiely and A. Gruhe. August 2002. Pesticide Industry Sales ami Usage: 1998 and 1999 Market
    Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Biological and Economic Analysis
    Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
68. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. Agricultural Statistics, 2002. Washington, DC: National Agricultural
    Statistics Service.
69. Number of abatements in 2002 from current OPPT estimates; abatement costs from US EPA, TSCA §403 Lead
    Eased Paint Standards Economic Analysis, adjusted to  2002 dollars using the GDP price index.
70. EPA ICR No. 574.11 (OMB Control No. 2070-0012): Premanufacture Review Reporting and Exemption
    Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting and Recordkeeping
    Requirements for Chemical Substances; Supporting Statement (May 5, 2000), and EPA data on PMN submis-
    sions filed in 2001, adjusted to 2002 dollars using the GDP price index.
71. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2002. Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Final
    Rule. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at:
    http://cascade.epa.gov/RightSite/getcontent/Tempfile.pdf;DMW_OBJECTID=090007d4800ff957&DMW_FORMAT=pdf

72. TSCA Existing Chemical Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Test Data
    Submissions, EPA ICR #1139.06; OMB Control #2070-0033  (2000).
73. Proposed ICR Supporting Statement for Data Submissions for the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation
    Program (VCCEP). Available online at http://cascade.epa.gov/RightSite/getcontent/
    Tempfile.Pdf?DMW_OBJECTID=090007d480098bd9&DMW_FORMAT=pdf.
74. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. December. Supporting
    Statement for Information Collection Request for TRI Reporting Form R. EPA #1363.12 and OMB #2070-
    0093.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. December. Supporting
    Statement for Information Collection Request for TRI Reporting Form A. EPA #1704.06 and OMB #2070-
    0143.
75. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. December. Supporting
    .Statement for Information Collection Request for TRI Reporting Form R. EPA #1363.12 and OMB #2070-
    0093.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. December. Supporting
    Statement for Information Collection Request for TRI Reporting Form A. EPA #1704.06 and OMB #2070-
    0143.
76. Average benefits/abatement from TSCA §402/404 Training & Certification Program for Lead-Based Paint
    Activities Economic Analysis (1996) adjusted to 2002 dollars using the GDP price index.
77. Deason, Jonathan P.,  George W. Sherk, and Gary Carroll, 2001. Public Policies and Private Decisions .Affecting the
    Redevelopment of Erownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors, Relative Weights and Areal Differentials. Washington,
    DC: George Washington University and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at
    http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eeem/Brownfields/index.htm.
78. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. November 2000.
    Case Conclusion Data Sheet: Training Booklet, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available online
    at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning/caseconc.pdf. Date of access: September 10,
    2003.
79. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. December 2002. Supporting
    Statement for Information Collection Request for TRI Reporting Form R. EPA #1363.12 and OMB #2070-
    0093.
80. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S. Code 13101-13109, Public Law 101-508, 1990. Available online at
    http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2home/p2policy/actl990.htm.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
                   81.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. June 2002. Municipal Solid Waste in the United
                       States: 2000 Facts and Figures. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oftice.
                   82.  About 23 percent of total state environmental spending was funded by EPA in 2000 and so would not count as
                       a social cost as defined  in this appendix (Brown, R. Steven and Michael J. Keifer. 200.3. "EGOS budget survey:
                       budgets are bruised, but still strong." ECOStafes: The Journal of die Environmental Council of the States. Summer:
                       10-15).
                   83.  Dixon, Lloyd, Deborah Dresner, and James Hammitt. 1993. Private-Sector Cleanup Expenditures and Transaction
                       Costs at 18 Super/und Sites.  RAND.
                   84.  Dixon, Lloyd, Deborah Dresner, and James Hammitt. 1993. Private-Sector Cleanup Expenditures and Transaction
                       Costs at 18 Superfund Sites.  RAND.
                   85.  Nadeau, L. 1997. EPA effectiveness at reducing the duration of plant-level noncompliance. journal of
                       Environmental Economics and Management 34: 54-78.
                       Laplante, B. and P. Rilstone. 1996. Environmental inspections and emissions in the pulp and paper industry in
                       Quebec. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31:19-36.
                       Gray, W. and M.E. Deily. 1996. Compliance and enforcement: Air pollution regulation in the U.S. steel indus-
                       try. Journal of Environmental Economics and. Management 31: 96-111.
                       Magat, W.A. and K. Viscusi. 1990. Effectiveness of the EPA's regulatory enforcement: The case of industrial
                       effluent standards. Journal of Law and Economics 33 (3): 331-360.
                   86.  Gray, W. and M.E. Deily. 1996. Compliance and enforcement: Air pollution regulation in the U.S. steel indus-
                       try. Journal of Environmental Economics arid" Management 31: 96-111.
                   87.  Gray, W. and R.  Shadbegian. 2003. When and why do plants comply? Paper mills in the 1980s. Unpublished
                       manuscript.
                   88.  Data are  derived from EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) database, which tracks informa-
                       tion from the Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/
                       planning/data/index, html.
                   89.  Data collected from exit surveys completed by users of the National Compliance Assistance Centers. Available
                       online at http://www.assistancecenters.net.
                   90.  For more information on EPA's Audit Policy, visit EPA's Compliance Incentives and Auditing/Audit Policy
                       Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/auditing/auditpolicy.html.
                   91.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. November 2000.
                       Case Conclusion Data Sheet: Training Booklet. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available online
                       at http://w\v\v.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning/caseconc.pdf. Date of access: September 10,
                       2003.
                   92.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Presidential, Green Chemistry Challenge Award. Recipients. EPA
                       744-K-02-002. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/
                       greenchemistry/docs/award_recipients_l996_2002.pdf. Date of access: September 3, 2003.
                   93.  Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E) Web Site: http://www.h2e-online.org/index.cfm.
                   94.  National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. January 2003. An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth Over 159 Billion
                       Pounds of Cure: A Decade of Pollution Prevention Results J990-2000. Available online at http://www.p2.org/
                       p2results/2418_historyfinal.pdf. Date of access: September 10, 2003.
                   95.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. June 2002. Municipal Solid Waste in the United
                       States: 2000 Facts and Figures. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
                   96.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. August 2002. 2000 Toxics
                       Release Inventory (TRI). Public Data Release. EPA 260-R-02-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
                       Office.
                   97.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. June 2002. Municipal Solid Waste in the United
                       States: 2000 Facts and Figures. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

-------
    o

o

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
APPENDIX 2i
                                  PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
                   EPA's program evaluations are internal
               assessments of our programs' success in meet-
               ing their goals and objectives. Program
               evaluation goes beyond strict performance
               measurement by also answering the questions
               "why" and "how" a program achieved what it
               did, helping us to determine what is working
               well and what is not. EPA program managers
               and staff use program evaluations to identify
               areas needing improvement, more effective
               strategies for achieving established goals, and
               ways to improve data collection or better
               measure program results.
                  KVTH OP
                          Q
                      An Assessment of Water Quality
                      Standards Review and Development
                      Process (EPA's Office of Science and
                      Technology, 2000).' The Office of
                      Water (OW) assessed a select number
                      of states' processes for developing
                      water quality standards and EPA
                      regional offices' efforts to review
                      them. The results of the assessment
                      contributed to this Strategic PJan by
                      helping establish new draft Program
                      Activity Measures for developing
                      clear, consistent national guidance on
                      water quality criteria and standards;
                      formulating a multi-year Strategy for
                      Water Quality Standards and Criteria;
                      and improving coordination among
                      EPA, states, and federal agencies.

                      Assessing the. TMDL Approach to
                      Water Quafifry IV-anagernent (National
                      Academy of Sciences, National
                      Research Council, 2001). The U.S.
                      Congress directed EPA to contract
                      with the National Academy of
                      Sciences' National Research Council
                      to review  the quality of the science
                                                     used to develop total maximum daily
                                                     loads (TMDLs). The study found
                                                     that programs should make changes
                                                     to better account for scientific uncer-
                                                     tainties, improve water quality
                                                     standards and monitoring programs,
                                                     arid base management decisions on
                                                     new information as it becomes avail-
                                                     able. Most importantly, this study
                                                     (along with our own understanding
                                                     of current state programs) helped
                                                     support our strategic thrust to place
                                                     more emphasis on working with
                                                     states to upgrade their ambient water
                                                     quality  monitoring and assessment.

                                                     2002 National Estuary Program (NEP)
                                                     Implementation Review (EPA's Office
                                                     of Wetlands, Oceans, and
                                                     Watersheds, 2002). This review
                                                     assessed the progress made by 19 of 28
                                                     NEPs in implementing their
                                                     Comprehensive Conservation
                                                     Management Plans developed under
                                                     Section 320 of the Clean Water Act
                                                     (CWA). The findings are used to
                                                     determine whether an estuary pro-
                                                     gram is eligible for continued funding
                                                     under Section 320. The review pro-
                                                     vided a comprehensive evaluation of
                                                     progress in meeting programmatic
                                                     objectives as well as environmental
                                                     improvement in the estuaries. In par-
                                                     ticular,  it  assessed the ability of the
                                                     NEPs to restore and protect habitat,
                                                     which resulted in a measure for habi-
                                                     tat protection. Key elements in the
                                                     review were an assessment of how pri-
                                                     ority action plans are implemented
                                                     and who is going to pay, which result-
                                                     ed in our  including finance plans and
                                                     leveraging goals in this Strategic Plan.

                                                     A Review  oj Statewide Watershed
                                                     Management Approaches (EPA's
                                                     Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
                                                     Watersheds, 2002). OW evaluated
                                                     eight states' experiences with different

-------
                                                                      Appendix 2: Program Evaluations
models of the statewide watershed
management approach. The study
focused on the impact of the water-
shed approach on federal and state
program management and coordina-
tion, public involvement, arid the
implementation of six core programs
under the CWA and Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). Specific influ-
ences of this program evaluation on
this Strategic Plan include: develop-
ment of strategic goals that must be
attained through contributions from
programs that, historically, have been
managed separately; development of
integrated measures reflecting linkages
between water protection activities
arid water quality monitoring arid
TMDL programs; and establishment
of a new ecosystern-based goal within
the Strategic Plan hierarchy,

Regulation and Innovation in the
Cherrdcal Industry. The Joint Research
Center of the European Commission
concluded that risk-based testing reg-
ulations, such as those employed  in
the United States, appear to provide
more incentives to innovate than do
other approaches, such as those used
in the European Union. EPA was
encouraged by this study to continue
its strategy of emphasizing risk-based
screening of new and existing chemi-
cals.  This approach is reflected
throughout the Agency's strategic
architecture for measuring and assess-
ing program effectiveness.

Lireat Lakes Program tivakiations.  The
Great Lakes Strategy and its updated
Lakewide Management  Plans include
contributions from the State of the
Lakes Ecosystem conferences and
reports by EPA's Inspector General,
the General Accounting Office
(GAO), and the International Joint
Commission. Together, the Strategy
and the Lakewide Management Plans
set forth the goals, objectives, and
   targets for environmental progress at
   the Great Lakes—basin-wide and at
   individual Great Lake basins. They
   also involve substantial public partic-
   ipation. Select indicators from the
   State of the Lakes Ecosystem confer-
   ences (e.g.,  coastal wetlands,
   phosphorus concentrations, sediment
   contamination, benthic health, fish
   tissue contamination, beach closures,
   drinking-water quality, and air toxics
   deposition)  served as the basis for
   Great Lakes sub-objective targets.

*  Environmental Protection: EPA Should
   Strengthen Its Efforts to Measure and
   Encourage Pollution Prevention (GAO-
   01-283). This February 2001 GAO
   report examined how extensively
   companies have adopted pollution
   prevention strategies and the major
   factors that  either encourage or dis-
   courage private-sector decisions to
   employ such strategies. GAO con-
   cluded that  improved data collection
   and  measurement are critical needs,
   stating: "EPA officials note that the
   limitations of available data inhibit
   both their ability to ascertain the
   extent to which companies use pollu-
   tion prevention practices, and their
   attempt to target efforts to further
   encourage these practices." GAO's
   recommendations focused on the
   need for EPA to clarify source-reduc-
   tion reporting requirements and to
   obtain accurate data on the quantity
   of emissions reduced. In response to
   this  study, EPA has taken steps to
   improve its  ability to measure emis-
   sion reductions from sources of
   pollution. As a result of these actions,
   performance goals in this Strategic
   Plan for the first time are composed of
   specific measurable targets for pollu-
   tion prevention, expressed in terms of
   the quantity of waste reduced (e.g.,
   "By  2008, reduce waste minimization
   priority list chemicals in hazardous

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                       waste streams reported by businesses
                       to the Toxic Release Inventory by 50
                       percent from 1991 levels").

                   «   NPDES Performance Analysis. Focused
                       on die National Pollutant Discharge
                       Elimination System (NPDES)
                       "majors" universe—a component of
                       the national enforcement and compli-
                       ance assurance program—this study
                       determined rates of significant non-
                       compliance at major NPDES facilities
                       and assessed the timeliness and appro-
                       priateness of enforcement actions
                       taken to address significant noncorn-
                       pliance. The evaluation measured the
                       program's success in meeting four key
                       objectives: (1) protecting human
                       health and the environment, (2)
                       achieving appropriate levels of com-
                       pliance, (3) achieving appropriate
                       levels of enforcement activity, and
                       (4) changing regulated community's
                       behavior. The evaluation also dis-
                       cussed such factors potentially
                       influencing results as data gaps, state
                       requirements for data collection, lev-
                       els of enforcement activity, existing
                       policies on NPDES majors, and guid-
                       ance issued on permit limits. The
                       information provided by this perform-
                       ance analysis helped senior managers
                       make program adjustments to achieve
                       results that will contribute to the
                       compliance objective under Goal 5.
                       EPA will structure future analyses on
                       this pilot performance analysis.


               PROPOSED RJTORE PROGRAM
                        JA
               GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR
                       Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is
   working with the National Academy
   of Sciences (NAS) to investigate:
   (1) changes in emission of pollutants
   regulated under the new source review-
   program; (2) impacts on human
   health; (3) pollution control and pre-
   vention technologies installed in
   facilities covered under the rule after
   its effective date;  (4) changes in oper-
   ational efficiencies,  including energy
   efficiency, at affected facilities; and
   (5) other relevant data. This study
   and the April 2003  NAS report,
   Breath of Fresh Air: Reviving the New
   Source Review Program,2 will be used
   to improve the new source review and
   prevention of significant deterioration
   programs. (FY 2003-2004)
*  Carbon Monoxide and Cold Weather
   Inversions. At Congress's request,3
   NAS conducted an independent
   study of carbon monoxide (CO)
   episodes in meteorological and topo-
   graphical problem areas to address
   potential approaches for predicting,
   assessing, and managing high con-
   centrations of CO.  In its 2002
   interim report,4 which focused on the
   CO problem in Fairbanks, Alaska,
   NAS found that Fairbanks has made
   great progress  in reducing violations
   of the CO National Ambient Air
   Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
   has worked effectively to reduce CO
   emissions. NAS provided recommen-
   dations that, if implemented, will
   help Fairbanks further reduce CO
   NAAQS violations. The final report,
   Managing Carbon Monoxide Pollution,'
   more broadly addresses CO problems
   in other areas and will be used to
   help areas in nonattainment with the
   health-based CO standard identify
   and evaluate strategies for achieving
   clean air. (FY 2003-2004)
«  Health Benefits of Air Pollution
   Regulations.  Section 812 of the Clean
   Air Act requires EPA to report to

-------
                                                                         Appendix 2: Program Evaluations
   Congress on the incremental human
   health and environmental benefits
   and costs of new control strategies
   and technologies.6 Our report to
   Congress will analyze the actual emis-
   sion reductions beyond existing
   practice and effects on human health,
   quality-of-life, arid the environment,
   and it will incorporate the results of a
   recent NAS evaluation of the eco-
   nomic methods EPA uses to estimate
   the health benefits of its air pollution
   regulations.'' (In that report, NAS
   concluded that EPA's benefits analy-
   ses do provide valuable information
   to policymakers and the public, and
   that, generally, the Agency has  used a
   reasonable approach to estimate
   health benefits.) OAR expects to sub-
   mit the analytic blueprint for its study
   to the Science Advisory Board for
   review by the end of 2003. (FY  2003
   and beyoncl)

•  Community'Based Projects. Pilot proj-
   ects are underway in such cities as
   Charlotte, North Carolina to assess
   the effectiveness and usefulness of air
   pollution regulatory requirements.
   Communities will use the evaluation
   results to set priorities for risks not
   addressed by the regulatory programs.
   (FY 2003-2007)

•  Permit issuance, Pursuant to the
   March 2002 Office of Inspector
   General (OIG) report on permit
   issuance8 and OAR's action plan for
   addressing each of OIG's recommen-
   dations,9 OAR will evaluate the Title
   V permit program and how well state
   permitting authorities are imple-
   menting their permitting regulations.
   The results of the evaluations will be
   used to improve state permitting pro-
   grams. (Summer 2003-FY 2006)

«  2007 Highway Progress Review. As
   part of rule promulgation, OAR will
   comprehensively review progress
made by the heavy-duty (HD) diesel
engine industry (e.g., engine manu-
facturers and emission-control
technology vendors) in developing
technologies to meet the HD 2007
emission standards.10 OAR represen-
tatives will visit technical research
centers and meet with engineers from
all of the major manufacturers for
briefings on technical progress and
business plans  to comply with the
2007  emission standards. These visits
will enable OAR to evaluate  indus-
try's progress and factor results into
next steps for implementing these
rules. (FY 2003-2007)

Diesel Desulfurization Progress  Review.
To assist in implementing the rules,
OAR will review the HD diesel
engine industry's progress in employ-
ing existing desulrurization
technologies and developing new
technologies to produce 15  ppm sul-
fur diesel fuel.  OAR reviewers will
visit companies, participate in con-
ference calls, and study information
submitted to meet the HD 2007 pro-
gram's registration and reporting
requirements.11 (FY 2003-2007)

Impact Evaluation of ENERGY
STAR®' for the.  Cornrnercki Seclor.
OAR is studying the extent to which
EPA's ENERGY STAR® program has
reduced energy use or intensity in the
commercial sector.12 The evaluation
will use information from the Energy
Information Agency (ElA)  on
state-level electric-utility energy
consumption/intensity as well as data
from the Commercial Building
Energy Consumption Survey on
energy consumption by commercial
buildings. Market-driven effects will
be distinguished from ENERGY
STAR® program effects using cross-
sectional and/or time-series
econometric models. (FY 2003-2004)

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                   *   Impact Evaluation of ENERGY
                       STAR® for the Industrial Sector. OAR
                       is also studying the extent to which
                       EPA's ENERGY STAR® program has
                       reduced energy use or intensity in the
                       industrial sector. The evaluation,
                       which will distinguish market effects
                       from program effects, will involve
                       processing and analyzing many pub-
                       licly available time-series and cross-
                       sectional databases, such as those
                       that EIA and the U.S. Census
                       Bureau maintain. Commercially
                       available databases may also be
                       required for analyzing industry- or
                       firm-specific trends. (FY 2004-2005)

               GOAL 21  CLEAN
               AND SAFE WATER

                   *   A Study of Public Awareness of
                       Required Consumer Confidence Reports
                       (OCRs)  by Public Water Supplies of
                       Varying Sizes, This study would
                       involve national survey research, or
                       focus group research,  to examine how
                       CCRs have impacted awareness of
                       drinking-water quality. (FY 2003)

                   *   Evaluation of Effectiveness of
                       Siate/RŁgional Water Monitoring
                       Councih. The purpose of this
                       project is to determine the factors
                       that contribute to an effective water
                       monitoring council. The project will
                       assess nine monitoring councils
                       through a  combinations of literature
                       reviews and interviews. (FY 2003)

                   «   An Assessment of State NPDES
                       Program Integrity and Regional
                       Oversight.  This evaluation will assess
                       the  factors that contribute to the
                       weaknesses and vulnerabilities, as
                       well as strengths, of state NPDES
                       programs.  It will also  analyze to what
                       extent EPA regional offices have ade-
                       quate tools to effectively oversee and
                       assess the integrity of state programs.
                       The project approach will include
reviewing information on state legal
authorities and regional evaluations
as well as site visits to selected state
and regional offices. (FY 2003-2004)
Art, Evaluation of the Water Quality
Analytical Methods Program. Project
includes support for development and
promulgation of analytical methods
under the CWA13 and review of the
alternate test procedure approval
process. Evaluation will address con-
cerns related to technical issues,
resources, and coordination among
EPA's Office of Research and
Development, Office of Grounclwater
and Drinking Water, and regional
offices. (FY 2003-2004)

An Evaluation of the Non-Point Source
Pollution  Control Program. Evaluation
will assess whether CWA section 319
funds are being spent in a way that
(a) will result in protection and
restoration of watersheds from non-
point source pollution and (b)
effectively leverage other available
federal, state, and local funds for pro-
tection and restoration of watersheds.
The  study will specifically  address
how well the states are implementing
EPA's FY 2002 and 2003 319 guide-
lines regarding the use of incremental
section 319 funds to develop water-
shed-based plans and implement
them to restore 303(d)-listed waters.
Evaluation methods will include a
review of program documents and
interviews with selected regions,
states, and local  project managers.
(FY' 2004)
A Review of State 303(d) .Lists and
Methodologies. This project will
review the 2002  lists of impaired
waters  approved  by the regions and
compare  them with the 1998/2000
list to (a) evaluate whether more or
fewer waters were listed, (b) catego-
rize the reasons for listing fewer
waters, and (c) evaluate whether

-------
                                                                            Appendix 2: Program Evaluations
       methodologies provided with the lists
       were more or less detailed.
       Methodology will include review of
       documents and discussions with
       regions. (FY 2004)

    •  An Evaluation of State Implementation
       of Water Quality Standards. As a fol-
       low-up to the  assessment of the water
       quality standards development and
       review process conducted by OW in
       FY 2001, OW plans to evaluate
       whether water quality standards are
       being implemented effectively in
       assessments, permits, TMDLs, and
       drinking-water source protection.
       (FY 2005-2006)

    «  An Assess ment of the.  Effectiveness of
       the Cn-Site/Decentralized  Treatment
       Guidelines and other program activities
       in Achieving Public Health and
       Environmental Results, This
       project will look at the On-Site/
       Decentralized  Treatment Guidelines
       and other program activities to deter-
       mine their effectiveness in achieving
       public health and environmental
       benefits. (FY 2005-2006)

    «  A Regional Evaluation of State Drinking
       Water Programs, The proposed project
       is designed to be a process/implemen-
       tation evaluation on the effectiveness
       of state programs as they implement
       the SDWA. The project will involve
       site visits in selected  states and would
       be integrated with existing annual
       Data Verifications and Drinking
       Water State Revolving Fund evalua-
       tions. (FY 2006)

GOAL, 3: LAND PRESERVATION
AND RESTORATION

    *  Evaluation of the ECRA Waste
       Generator Program, '[his impact eval-
       uation will assess the effectiveness of
       the Resource Conservation and
       Recovery Act  (RCRA) regulatory-
program for hazardous waste genera-
tors. EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assistance  (OECA) will work with
the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials and EPA Region 1 on this
project. (FY" 2004-2006)

Evaluation of the Impacts arid
Effectiveness of Waste Recycling
Incentives. EPA will study cases of reg-
ulatory relief initiatives to evaluate
their success in increasing recycling of
hazardous waste. The results of this
impact evaluation will help to direct
the Resource Conservation
Challenge, one of EPA's priority pro-
grams. (FY 2004-2006)

Evaluation of the  Effectiveness of the
Interagency Open Dump Cleanup
Program for Tribes. This impact eval-
uation will assess the effectiveness of
developing solid and hazardous waste
management programs in Indian
country by reviewing program results,
changes in waste management, and
the effectiveness of interagency rela-
tionships and implementation
mechanisms. (FY 2004-2006)

Evaluation of the  impacts/Benefits of
Community Involvement in Superfund
Risk Assessment Process. This evalua-
tion will assess the extent to which
public involvement in risk assess-
ment at Superfund sites has improved
and how Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response initiatives  have
contributed to community involve-
ment. (FY 2004-2006)

Evaluation of Superfund Allocation of
Human Capital Resources and the Need
for Redistribution/Realkjcaiion. This
process  evaluation will examine the
human capital resource requirements
for implementing the Superfund
program and will assess the need for

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                      redistributing, reallocating, or mak-
                      ing other changes to manage the
                      program's human capital nationwide.
                      (FY 2004-2006)

                      Evaluation of Factors influencing
                      Performance in Underground Storage
                      Tank Program. Information provided
                      by this process evaluation will help
                      explain why we have missed or
                      exceeded performance goals such as
                      cleanups completed, backlogs
                      reduced, or reductions in releases.
                      (FY 2004-2006)
                      Preparedness, Prevention, and Response.
                      Planning Requirements. To prevent and
                      prepare for releases of oil and haz-
                      ardous materials, facilities might be
                      asked to meet multiple requirements
                      for spill prevention and emergency
                      response plans.1'* This evaluation will
                      identify potential redundancies,
                      inconsistencies, and/or inefficiencies
                      among the multiple requirements and
                      opportunities to ameliorate those
                      problems. (FY 2004-2006)

               GOAL 4s HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
               AND ECOSYSTEMS

                   «  Pre-Manufacture Notice Review
                      Program. EPA will assess the perform-
                      ance of the Pre-Manufacture Notice
                      Review Program, one of our largest
                      and most visible chemicals programs,
                      in meeting its zero-tolerance risk-
                      based performance goal, given an
                      increasing demand for adopting addi-
                      tional review criteria, an aging work
                      force, and declining contract fund-
                      ing. (FY 2003-2004)
                   •  An Assessment of the. Effectiveness of
                      Participatory Processes in Achieving
                      Environmental Results . EPA will
                      determine the effectiveness of the
                      National Estuary Program, the
                      Fisheries Management Council, and
       other relevant models in achieving
       and maintaining ecological protec-
       tion. (FY 2005)

    «  An Evaluation of State Wetland
       Protection Programs. The Agency will
       evaluate factors that lead states and
       tribes to develop and implement no-
       net-loss programs for all wetlands/
       waters (including wetlands and waters
       that are not regulated by the CWA),
       barriers to those programs, and ways
       to overcome barriers. (FY 2006)

    *  Great Lakes Programs. The
       International Joint Commission will
       evaluate the progress of Great Lakes
       programs every 2 years (FY 2004,
       2006, and 2008). Progress will also be
       assessed through State of the Lakes
       Ecosystem Conferences.
       (FY 2003, 2005, and 2007)

    *  Reduced'Risk Initiative for
       (Conventional Pesticides, EPA will con-
       duct this program evaluation to
       determine the market share that each
       approved reduced-risk pesticide has
       gained in its respective crop/site, to
       identify the extent to which reduced-
       risk pesticides have displaced other
       pesticides in the market, and to sug-
       gest factors contributing to the
       success or failure of these pesticides
       in the marketplace. (FY  2004)

GOAL 5s COMPLIANCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

    *  Wet Weather Performance Analysis. To
       complement its 2003 NPDES
       Performance Analysis (described in
       the Goal 2 section of this appendix),
       EPA's OECA will evaluate the
       Agency's wet weather program areas
       (which encompass combined animal
       feeding operations, combined sewer
       and sanitary sewer overflows, and
       storm water). Because both wet
       weather areas and NPDES majors are

-------
                                                                     Appendix 2: Program Evaluations
 regulated under CWA, resource con-
 straints can necessitate trade-offs
 between NPDES and wet weather
 inspections. Analyzing the perform-
 ance of the wet weather program will
 help determine whether these trade-
 offs are appropriate. (FY 2003-2004)
 RCRA Permit Evad?.rs. RCRA permit
 evaders, one of the Agency's national
 enforcement priorities, may (1) fail
 to make proper hazardous waste
 determinations, (2) operate haz-
 ardous waste treatment units without
 appropriate permits, and
 (3) dispose of hazardous  wastes ille-
 gally and unsafely. EPA's Office of
 Enforcement and Compliance
 Assistance will examine enforcement
 arid compliance assurance efforts
 directed toward RCRA permit
 evaders and determine the extent to
 which these efforts are improving
 compliance and affecting environ-
 mental and human health
 conditions. (FY 2004)

3S-AGENCY  ANI3 SUPPORT-
5RAM EVALUATIONS

 Research. EPA is exploring options
 for periodic evaluations of Agency
 research programs. Beginning in FY
 2005  (with possible pilot evaluations
 in FY 2004), independent and  exter-
 nal panels will regularly  review-
 research programs' relevance, quality,
 and performance to date, in accor-
 dance with the Office of
 Management and Budget's (OMB)
 Investment Criteria for Research ancl
 Development.15 Evaluators will deter-
 mine whether  EPA research programs
 have complete plans with clear goals
 and priorities;  articulate  potential
 public benefits; relate  to national,
 scientific, and  customer needs; award
 funds competitively or otherwise
 demonstrate justifiable funding
   mechanisms; and identify appropriate
   output and outcome measures, sched-
   ules, and decision points. Evaluators
   will also examine program designs to
   determine the appropriateness of the
   program's short-, intermediate-, and
   long-term goals and its strategy for
   attaining them. Recommendations
   resulting from these reviews will help
   EPA improve the design and man-
   agement of its research programs and
   measure progress, as required under
   the Government Performance and
   Results Act.'6

•  Assessment of Implementation of the
   Agency:s Quality System. Every EPA
   organization that maintains environ-
   mental data must implement a
   quality system to plan and document
   its quality assurance activities. EPA's
   quality systems include preparation of
   a Quality Management Plan (QMP),
   which must be approved by the
   Agency's Office of Environmental
   Information (OEI). On a 5-year
   schedule, OEI assesses QMPs for
   conformance to our quality systems
   and to ensure that the Agency is col-
   lecting ancl using appropriate.
   high-quality data for decision-mak-
   ing. (Several assessments are planned
   through 2006.)

•  Assessing1 EPA databases. The Agency
   will continue to assess and map sev-
   eral of its databases to ensure that
   the data are transparent and suffi-
   cient (suitable) to answer specific
   questions or inform decisions.
   Suitability assessments will describe
   characteristics of databases for both
   primary and secondary uses and may
   include information on coverage,
   spatial and temporal characteristics,
   consistency within data systems, abil-
   ity to link to other systems, accuracy,
   limitations, access, and documenta-
   tion. (FY 2004)

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                      OK j Evaluations. EPA's O1G provides
                      independent audit, evaluation, and
                      investigative products and advisory
                      services to promote economy, effi-
                      ciency, and effectiveness and to
                      prevent and detect fraud, waste, arid
                      abuse in EPA programs and opera-
                      tions. O1G has developed a
                      multi-year plan that translates EPA's
                      five strategic goals into component
                      media areas or "tracks" (Air, Water,
                      Land, Cross-Media, and Good
                      Government).1'' O1G will conduct
                      studies within each track to answer
                      key questions and provide informa-
                      tion on the extent to which the
                      Agency is achieving desired results
                      and benefits of environmental pro-
                      grams, as envisioned by the
                      Administration and Congress.
                      Planned OIG program evaluations
                      include: Under Goal 1, Participate
                      Matter, Ozone, and Air Toxics; under
                      Goal 2, Drinking Water, Watershed
                      Protection, arid Pollutant Loadings;
                      Under Goal 3, Superfund,
                      Brownfields, and Resource
                      Conservation and Recovery Act;
                      under Goal 4, Environmental Justice
                      arid Homeland Security; under
                      Goal 5, Compliance Assistance and
                      Enforcement arid Environmental
                      Stewardship; and, as part of cross-
                      goal efforts,  Financial  Management,
                      Information Resources Management,
                      Program Management, Assistance
                      Agreements, Contracts, arid Energy
                      Conservation/Green Power.
purpose, design, strategic planning, manage-
ment, results, and accountability to
determine overall effectiveness. PART is an
accountability tool that OMB and federal
agencies use to determine the strengths and
weaknesses of federal programs, with a partic-
ular focus on results that individual programs
produce. At the conclusion of the assess-
ment, OMB prepares summaries and
recommendations for setting priorities and
making funding decisions.18

   Approximately 27 percent of EPA's pro-
grams (by budget amount) were  assessed
during the FY 2004 budget formulation
process. Once a program is assessed using the
PART, it is reassessed annually thereafter.
Thus an additional 24 percent of EPA's pro-
grams are being assessed during the FY 2005
process. An additional 20 percent will be
added in fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008,
until 100 percent of EPA's programs are
assessed in FY 2008 and every year thereafter.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Air Toxics
Nonpoint Source
Superfund Removal
Drinking Water SRF
Pesticides Registration
Pesticides Reregistration
New Chemicals
Existing Chemicals
Tribal GAP
Civil Enforcement
                   As part of the fiscal year 2004 budget
               process, OMB introduced a new instru-
               ment—the Program Assessment Rating Tool
               (PART)—for assessing government programs'
RCRA Corrective Action
RCRA State Grants
Ecosystem Research
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF)
Criminal Enforcement
PM Research

-------
                                                                                            Appendix 2: Program Evaluations
NOTES

1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. February 20, 2003.
    N'PDE.S Majors Performance Analysis. Internal document.
2.   National Academy of Public Administration. April, 2003. A Breath of Fresh Air: Reviving the New Source Review
    Program.
3.   Senate Report, 106-410, p. 81, Conference Report, 106-988, p. 121.
4-   National Academy of Sciences. 2002. The Ongoing Challenge of Managing Carbon Monoxide Pollution in
    Fairbanks, Alaska.
5.   National Academy of Sciences. 2003. Managing Carbon Monoxide Pollution in Meteorological and
    Topographical Problem Areas.
6.   Clean Air Act, Title 1, .Section 112. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caall2.txt, EPA Clean Air
    Act Web Site. Date of access: September 8, 2003.
    Clean Air Act Amendments, Title 1 (42 U.S.C. 7401-75Ma), Clean Air Act Amendments, Title II (42 U.S.C.
    7521-7590), Clean Air Act Amendments, Title IV(42 U.S.C. 7651-7661f), Clean Air Act Amendments, Title
    IX (42 U.S.C. 7403-7404).
7.   National Academy of Sciences. 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations.
8.   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General. March 29, 2002. Air: h'PA and State Progress in
    Issuing Titie V Permits  (Report No. 2002-P-0008).
9.   Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/permits/oig-actionplan.pdf.
10. See EPA's Tier 2 / Gasoline Sulfur Final Rulemaking. (February  10, 2000) Regulator;; Impact Analysis, Chapter VII:
    Benefit-Cost Analysis.  (EPA 420-R-99-023, December 22, 1999) Available online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
    regs/ld-hwy/tier-2/frm/ria/chvii.pdf
    See also EPA's Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements.
    (December 21, 2000). Chapter VII: Benefit-Cost Analysis. Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA420-R-00-026,
    December 2000 ) Available online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/frm/ria-vii.pdf
11. See EPA's Tier 2 /' Gasoline Sulfur Final Ruiemaking. (February  10, 2000) Regulator} Impact Analysis. Chapter VII:
    Bene/it-Cost Analysis.  (EPA 420-R-99-023, December 22, 1999) Available online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
    regs/ld-hwy/tier-2/frrn/ria/chvii.pdf
    See also EPA's Heavy AJitty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements.
    (December 21, 2000). Chapter VII: Benefit-Cost Analysis. Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA420-R-00-026,
    December 2000 ) Available online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/frm/ria-vii.pdf
12. For more information, see http://www.energystar.gov/.
13. Clean Water Act, 40 Code of Federal Regulations,  Part 122.
14. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 264, Subpart D; Part 265,
    Subpart D; and Part 279.52.
    EPA's Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (40  CFR part 112)
    USCG-FRP (49 CFR part 194)
    DOT/RSPA-FRP (49  CFR part 194)
    OSHA Emergency Action Plans (29 CFR 1910.38(a))  and Process Safety (29 CFR 1910.119)
    OSHA HAZWOPER (29 CFR 1910.120)
    CAA RMP (40 CFR part 68)
15. John H. Marburger, III and Mitchell E.  Daniels, Memorandum lor the Heads of Executive Departments and
    Agencies, June 5, 2003, pages 5-10. Available online at http://www.ostp.gov/html/OSTP-OMB%20Memo.pdf:
    Executive Office of the President or the United States, Office of Science and Technology Policy Web Site.
    Washington, DC.

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                   16.  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law 103-162 (August 1993).
                   17.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Inspector General. Mu'li-Year Plan, Fiscal 2003-2005.
                       Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. EPA-350-R-03-002. Available online at
                       http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/ereadingroom/MultiYearPlan2003-2005.pdf
                   18.  Description adapted from: Office of Management and Budget, The Executive 'Office  of the President. 2003.
                       Perfortnar.ee and Management Assessments, Budget of the United States Government, FY 2004. Washington, DC:
                       U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://wvvvv.whitehouse.gov/omh/budget.

-------

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                   Consultation with EPA's federal, state,
               and tribal government partners and with our
               many stakeholders is integral to the Agency's
               strategic planning and vital  to achieving our
               goals and objectives. Because we anticipated
               substantial revision to the goals and objec-
               tives presented in our 2000 plan, EPA
               launched an extensive national consultation
               effort to ensure that our many partners and
               stakeholders were offered opportunities to
               participate during each phase of the develop-
               ment of our 2003 Strategic Plan.

                   The leaders of EPA's five strategic archi-
               tecture workgroups (one for each of our
               goals)  and the Agency national and regional
               managers organized meetings, participated in
               conferences, and presented briefings to
               ensure that our partners and stakeholders
               fully understood our process for developing
               our Strategic Plan and had the opportunity to
               participate. We distributed our proposed
               strategic architecture—goals, objectives,  and
               sub-objectives	and subsequently the full-
               text draft of the Strategic Plan to hundreds of
               our partners and stakeholders, including
               other federal agencies, states, more than  550
               Indian tribes, environmental and industry
               groups, and academic and public policy
               groups. We posted information on EPA's
               Internet site arid solicited input, providing
               groups and individuals several options for
               submitting comments to the Agency. We
               carefully considered all of the comments  we
               received at each stage of the development
               process.

                   This appendix presents a chronology of
               major activities we  conducted to consult with
               parties interested in or likely to be affected
               by EPA's Strategic Plan. It briefly highlights
               our consultation with the U.S. Congress  and
               with our state and tribal partners, and it
               includes a list of all organizations and federal
               agencies we contacted to solicit input as  we
               developed this Strategic Pian.'
On October 16, 2002, EPA hosted a
national meeting of Agency staff
with organizations representing our
partners and stakeholders to gather
views on the challenges and opportu-
nities we will face in protecting
human health and the environment
during the coming years. Participants
were asked to identify some of the
problems and issues that EPA and its
partners will need to address within
each of its five goal areas.
Approximately 125 people attended,
representing such diverse groups as
the U.S. Congress, other federal
agencies, states, tribes, local govern-
ments, environmental groups, public
policy and academic organizations,
and the regulated community.
EPA incorporated some of the input
gathered during the October meeting
in the draft strategic architecture
that we released for public review
and comment on Dece mber 31,
2002. We provided the draft archi-
tecture, which included our goals,
objectives, and  sub-objectives, to
states and state organizations; tribes;
other federal agencies; members of
environmental, academic, and public
policy groups; and  representatives of
the regulated community. We also
posted the draft architecture on
EPA's Internet site and provided  a
mechanism for reviewers to submit
comments electronically. The
Agency solicited comments through
January 31, 2003.

-------
                                                                   Appendix 3: Summary of Consultation Efforts
                           Draft
       In March 2003, EPA provided a full-
       text draft of its Strategic Plan to states
       through the Environmental Council
       of States (ECOS); to the more than
       550 federally recognized tribes; to
       other federal agencies; and to more
       than 200  business, industry, environ-
       mental, and public policy groups for a
       45-day public review period. EPA
       also posted the full-text draft Strategic
       Plan on its Internet site and provided
       a mechanism for electronic com-
       ment. During the comment period,
       EPA senior managers took advantage
       of meetings and conferences to
       obtain perspectives of various con-
       stituencies, including states, tribes,
       and other organizations. Discussion
       focused on the  Agency's proposed
       objectives and  targets and the means
       and strategies presented for achieving
       these goals.
    Much of EPA's consultation and coordi-
nation with its state partners was conducted
through the Agency's collaboration with
ECOS, the national association of state and
territorial environmental commissioners.
Throughout the development of this Strategic
Plan, ECOS assisted the Agency by providing
information and materials for review to indi-
vidual state agencies. In particular, EPA
worked closely with the ECOS Planning
Committee to solicit state perspectives and
to consider state input that we used  to help
frame the goals, objectives,  and strategies
presented in our 2003 Strategic Plan.
    In June 2002, EPA staff participated in
two large tribal conferences, the National
Tribal Environmental Council meeting and
the National Conference on Environmental
Management, to discuss the revision of EPA's
Strategic Plan, These meetings, which brought
together tribal leaders and senior tribal envi-
ronmental managers from across the country,
provided the Agency a forum from which to
solicit tribal perspectives on the most press-
ing and important environmental challenges
we will face in Indian country and Alaskan
Native villages in the years ahead. EPA con-
tinued to consult with tribes at the national
and regional levels throughout the develop-
ment of the Strategic Plan. The Agency
communicated with tribes individually and
through coordinated  efforts led by the Iribal
Caucus and the Tribal Operations
Committee.
    EPA began its consultation with
Congress in Fall  2002. We invited
Congressional staff representing individual
Members and authorizing and appropriating
committees to our National Meeting of
Partners and  Stakeholders, and two staff
members from the Senate Environment ancl
Public Works Committee appeared on a
panel which opened the facilitated plenary
session of the meeting. During the afternoon.
Congressional staff participated in smaller
group discussions of EPA's proposed new
strategic goals and raised issues of specific
interest arid concern.

    In December and January, we provided
chairmen and ranking minority Members of
these committees, their staffs, and interested
Members with copies of our draft strategic
goals, objectives, and sub-objectives. We sent
the full-text draft of the Agency's Strategic
Plan to Members and Congressional staff on
March 18, 2003. Congressional contacts were
encouraged to submit comments on these
documents electronically, via the comments

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
               link on EPA's Internet site, by telephone, or
               by mail.

                   On May 1, 2003, EPA staff met with
               interested Senate and House staff (hosted by
               the Senate Environment and Public Works
               Committee) to discuss issues arising from
their review of the full-text draft. EPA man-
agers and goal team leaders carefully
considered Congressional comments as they
finalized the Agency's goals, objectives, and
sub-objectives and developed the strategies
that are presented in this Strategic Plan.
                   In preparing our 2003 Strategic Plan, EPA consulted with several hundred organizations and
               individuals. In addition to the state and tribal groups mentioned above, EPA provided draft
               documents to and solicited input from the following organizations.
               Air and Waste Management Association
               Alaska Federation of Natives, Incorporated
               Alternatives for Community and
                   Environment
               American Association for the Advancement
                   of Science
               American Chemical Council
               American Chemical Society Task Force on
                   Environmental Research
               American Farm Bureau Federation
               American Farmland Trust
               American Fisheries Society
               American Forest and Paper Association
               American Forests
               American Industrial Health Council
               American Lung Association
               American Petroleum Institute
               American Public Health Association
               American Recreation Coalition
               American Rivers
               American Society of Civil Engineers
               American Society of Heating, Refrigeration,
                   and Air Conditioning Engineers
               American Society of Science & Engineering
               American Water Works Association
               Association of American Pesticide Control
                   Officials
               Association of State and Interstate Water
                   Pollution Control Administrators
               Association of State Drinking Water
                   Administrators
Association of State and Territorial Health
    Officials
Association of State and Territorial Solid
    Waste Management Officials
Businesses for Social Responsibility-
Business Roundtable
California Department of Pesticide
    Regulation
Center for Biological Diversity-
Center for Health, Environment and Justice
Center for International Environmental Law
Center for Plant Conservation
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
Children's Defense Fund
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority-
Citizens for a Sound Economy-
Clean Water Action
Clean Water Network
Coalition for Effective Environmental
    Information
Coalition for Environmentally Responsible
    Economics
Conservation International
Corporate Environmental Enforcement
    Council, Incorporated
Council for Excellence in Government
Council of Energy Resource Tribes
Council of State Governments
Council on Environmental Quality
Defenders of Wildlife
Doris Day Animal League
Ducks Unlimited, Incorporated

-------
                                                                  Appendix 3: Summary of Consultation Efforts
Duke University
Earth Island Institute
Earth] ustice
Earth] ustice Legal Defense Fund
Electric Power Research Institute
Endangered Species Coalition
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Environmental Defense
Environmental Health Coalition
Environmental justice Fund
Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Working Group
Forest Guardians
Friends of the Earth
Fund for Animals
G.E. Energy and Environmental Research
    Corporation
Global Environment & Technology
    Foundation
Greenpeace
Heritage Foundation
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
H. John Heinz III Center for Science,
    Economics, and the Environment
Indigenous Environmental Network
INFORM, Inc.
Institute for Advanced Study
Inter-Tribal Timber Council
International City/County Management
    Association
International Institute for Energy
    Conservation
International Wood Products Association
Intertribal Agriculture Council
IUCN US Multilateral Office
Izaak Walton League of America
Land Trust Alliance
Law Engineering and Environmental
    Services, Inc.
Maine Department of Agriculture
Mercatus Center
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Mni Cose Inter-Iribal Water Rights
National Academies
National Academy of Public Administration,
    Center for the Economy and the
    Environment
National Advisory Council for
    Environmental Policy and Technology
National Association of Attorneys General
National Association of Conservation
    Districts
N ational Association of Home Builders
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Schools of Public
    Affairs and Administration
National Association of State Departments
    of Agriculture
National Association of State Universities
    and Land Grant Colleges
National Audubon Society
National Congress of American Indians
National Council for Science and the
    Environment
National Environmental Policy Institute
National Environmental Trust
National Federation of Independent Business
National Fish and Wildlife Council
National Fisheries Institute
National Governors Association
National Mining Association
National Parks Conservation Association
National Petroleum Council
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable
National Recreation ancl Park Association
National Tribal Environmental Council
National Tribal Development Association
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nelson Institute of Environmental
    Medicine/NY University,
    School of Medicine
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oceana
Ocean Conservancy
OMB Watch
Pan American Health Organization
People for the Ethical Treatment  of Animals
Performance Track Participants Association
Quinault Indian Nation
RAND Environmental Science and Policy
    Center
Resources for the Future

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
               River N etwork
               Rocky Mountain Institute
               Scenic America
               Sierra Club
               Society of Toxicology
               Soil Science Society of America
               Southern Organizing Center for Economic
                  and Social Justice
               State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
                  Administrators/Association of Local Air
                  Pollution Control Officials
               Sustainable Ecosystems Institute
               The Nature Conservancy
               Tennessee Valley Authority
               Tribal Pesticide Program Council
               Tribal Association on Solid Waste and
                  Emergency Response
               Trust for Public Land
               Urban Ecology Institute/Boston College
               Union of Concerned Scientists
               University of Delaware
               University of Maryland
               U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)
               U.S. Chamber of Commerce
               West Harlem Environmental Action
               Western Governors' Association
               Wilderness Society
               Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Council
               Woodrow Wilson School/Princeton
                  University
               World Resources Institute
               World Wildlife Fund
               Worldwatch Institute
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
General Services Administration
Geological Survey, Department of the
    Interior
National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
    Administration
National Science Foundation
Office of Science Technology and Policy
Small Business Administration
1.   For a discussion of EPA's consultation and
    coordination with other federal agencies, see
    Appendix 4: Coordination Between EPA. and
    Other Federal Agencies.
               Agency for International Development
               Consumer Product Safety Commission
               Department of Agriculture
               Department of Commerce
               Department of Defense
               Department of Education
               Department of Energy
               Department of Health and Human Services
               Department of Housing and Urban
                   Development
               Department of the Interior
               Department of justice
               Department of Labor

-------
APPENDIX 4:

-------
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Pian—Direction for the Future
                   The chart below identifies areas of continued cooperation or coordination with other
               federal agencies according to EPA's goals.
                Agriculture
                Army Corp of Engineers
                Commerce
                Consumer Product Safety Commission
                Defense
                Education
                Energy
                Federal Emergency Management Agency
                General Services Administration
                Health and Human Services
                Homeland Security-
                Housing and Urban Development
                Interior
                Justice
                Labor
                National Aeronautics and Space
                Administration
                National Science Foundation
                Nuclear Regulatory Commission
                Office of Science and Technology Policy
                Small Business Administration
                State
                Transportation
                Treasury
                Tennessee Valley Authority
                US Agency for International Development
                US Trade Representative
               Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
               Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
               Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

-------

-------

-------