FY2006 Annual Performance Plan & Congressional Justification | OCFO... http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/budget/2006/2006cj.htm
190R03007
http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/budget/2006/2006cj.htm
Last updated on Wednesday, November 28th, 2007.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
You are here: EPA Home OCFO Home Budget FY2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional
Justification
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan
and Congressional Justification
(EPA's Proposed Budget)
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader ExiTDisoiarmei. to view a number of files on this site
Click here for more information about Adobe Acrobat.
Table of Contents - Introduction and Overview (PDF) (12 pp, 92K)
Resource Summary Tables (PDF) (4 pp, 80K)
Goal and Objective Overview (PDF) (61 pp, 553K)
Science and Technology (PDF) (87 pp, 883K)
Environmental Program and Management (PDF) (198 pp, 1788K)
Superfund (PDF) (77 pp, 778K)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (PDF) (23 pp, 262K)
Oil Spill Response (PDF) (17 pp, 203K)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (PDF) (77 pp, 711K)
Program Performance and Assessment (PDF) (335 pp, 1.94MB)
Goal 1- Clean Air and Global Climate Change (PDF) (6 pp, 80K)
Goal 2- Clean and Safe Water (PDF) (7 pp, 77K)
Goal 3-Land Preservation and Restoration (PDF) (6 pp, 67K)
Goal 4-Healthy Communities and Ecosystems (PDF) (11 pp, 90K)
Goal 5-Compliance and Environmental Stewardship (PDF) (4 pp, 56K)
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS (PDF) (15 pp, 153K)
EPA USER FEE PROGRAM (PDF) (3 pp, 59K)
WORKING CAPITAL FUND (PDF) (2 pp, 54K)
ACRONYMS FOR STATUTORY AUTHORITIES (PDF) (5 pp, 49K)
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS (PDF) (11 pp, 223K)
I of 2
-------
Table of Contents - Introduction and Overview
EPA's Mission 1
Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Overview 1
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 1
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 2
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration 3
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 3
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 4
Homeland Security 5
Workforce 6
Organization of the Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification 6
Annual Performance Plan Components 6
-------
-------
EPA's Mission
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect and safeguard
human health and the environment, with a new focus on collaboration and partnerships with our
Geographic and Regional partners. This budget supports the Administration's commitment to
environmental results - increasing the pace of improvement and identifying new and better ways
to carry out our mission.
Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Overview
The EPA's FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification requests
$7.6 billion in discretionary budget authority and 17,631 Full Time Equivalents (FTE). This
request reflects the Agency's efforts to work with its partners toward protecting air, water, and
land, as well as providing for EPA's role in safeguarding the Nation from terrorist acts. The
request echoes the Administration's commitment to setting high environmental protection
standards, while focusing on results and performance, and achieving goals outlined in the
President's Management Agenda.
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health
and the environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing
partnerships with businesses and other sectors.
The FY 2006 EPA President's Budget implements the Clean Air and Global Climate
Change goal through national programs designed to provide healthier outdoor and indoor air for
all Americans, protect the stratospheric ozone layer, minimize the risks from radiation releases,
reduce greenhouse gas intensity, and enhance science and research. EPA's key clean air
programs - particulate matter, ozone, acid rain, air toxics, indoor air, radiation and stratospheric
ozone depletion - address some of the highest health and environmental risks faced by the
nation.
EPA's strategy for achieving clean outdoor air includes a comprehensive, multi-pollutant
approach that combines national and local measures, with implementation responsibilities carried
out by the most appropriate and effective level of government. To address the high priority of
reducing nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions, the Agency continues to promote the
enactment of the Clear Skies legislation that the Administration submitted to Congress in 2002.
Although Clear Skies is the more comprehensive and cost effective approach and therefore the
strongly preferred solution, the Administration is also pursuing a regulatory path that would
achieve many of the same benefits should legislation not be enacted. EPA has proposed the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which regulates the transport of power plant emissions of SO2
and NOx across state lines via a market-based approach similar to Clear Skies and the existing
Acid Rain program. Clean fuels and clean technologies are also an integral part of reducing
emissions from mobile sources. The FY 2006 President's Budget provides $15.0 million for the
Clean Diesel Initiative. EPA and a coalition of clean diesel interests will work together to
I/O- 1
-------
expand the retrofitting of diesel engines into new sectors by adopting a risk-based strategy,
targeting key places and working with specific use sectors to identify opportunities to accelerate
the adoption of cleaner technologies.
EPA's Climate Protection Programs will continue to contribute to the President's 18
percent greenhouse gas intensity reduction goal by 2012. A FY 2006 funding initiative for the
Climate Change Program is the Methane to Markets Partnership - a U.S. led international
initiative that promotes cost-effective, near-term methane recovery and use as a clean energy
source. The program provides for the development and implementation of methane projects in
developing countries and countries experiencing economic transition.
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and
their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and
recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants and wildlife.
The FY 2006 EPA President's Budget implements the Clean and Safe Water goal
through programs designed to provide improvements in the quality of surface waters and
drinking water. In FY 2006, EPA will work with States and tribes to continue to accomplish
measurable improvements in the safety of the nation's drinking water, and in the conditions of
rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. With the help of these partners, EPA expects to make
significant progress in these areas, as well as support a few more focused water initiatives.
During FY 2006, EPA, the States, and community water systems will build on past
successes while working toward the FY 2008 goal of assuring that 95 percent of the population
served by community water systems receives drinking water that meets all applicable standards.
To help ensure that water is safe to drink, the FY 2006 President's Budget requests $850 million
for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
In FY 2006, EPA will work with States to make continued progress toward the clean
water goals to implement core clean water programs, including innovations that apply programs
on a watershed basis, and to accelerate efforts to improve water quality on a watershed basis. To
protect and improve water quality, a top priority is to continue to support water quality
monitoring. The Agency's request expands the monitoring initiative begun in FY 2005 to
establish a nationwide monitoring network and expand the baseline water quality assessment to
lakes and streams. The initiative will allow EPA to establish scientifically defensible water
quality data and information essential for cleaning up and protecting the Nation's waters. To
support sustainable wastewater infrastructure, EPA will continue to provide annual capitalization
to the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF). The budget will allow EPA to meet the
Administration's Federal capitalization target of $6.8 billion total for 2004 - 2011 and enable the
CWSRF to eventually revolve at a level of $3.4 billion.
I/O-2
-------
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices
and cleaning up contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by release of
harmful substances.
The FY 2006 President's Budget implements the Land Preservation and Restoration goal
through continued promotion of the Land Revitalization Initiative, first established in 2003.
Revitalized land can be used in many beneficial ways, including the creation of public parks, the
restoration of ecological systems, the establishment of multi-purpose developments, and the
establishment of new businesses. Regardless of whether a property is an abandoned industrial
facility, a waste disposal area, a former gas station, or a Superfund site, this initiative helps to
ensure that reuse considerations are fully integrated into all EPA cleanup decisions and
programs. Through the One Clean-up Program, the Agency will also work with its partners and
stakeholders to enhance coordination, planning and communication across the full range of
Federal, State, Tribal and local clean-up programs to promote consistency and enhanced
effectiveness at site cleanups.
Enforcement activities are also critical to the Agency's ability to clean up the vast
majority of the nation's worst hazardous sites, by securing funding from Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs). The Agency will continue to encourage the establishment and use of Special
Accounts within the Superfund Trust Fund to finance cleanups. These accounts segregate site-
specific funds obtained from responsible parties that complete settlement agreements with EPA.
These funds create an incentive for other PRPs to perform work they might not be willing to
perform or used by the Agency to fund clean up. The result is the Agency can clean up more
sites and preserve appropriated Trust Fund dollars for sites without viable PRPs.
The FY 2006 President's Budget funds the Superfund Appropriation at $1.3 billion.
Within this total, the Superfund Remedial Program provides significant resources in EPA's effort
to preserve and restore land to productive use. In FY 2006, EPA anticipates completing
construction of remedies at 40 Superfund sites.
The FY 2006 President's Budget will also continue to promote the minimization of
waste. Through the Resource Conservation Challenge, a national effort has been launched to
challenge every American to prevent pollution and promote recycling and reuse, and conserve
energy and materials. In FY 2006, EPA's municipal solid waste program will implement a set of
coordinated strategies, including source reduction (also called waste prevention), recycling
(including composting), combustion with energy recovery, and landfilling.
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems
using integrated and comprehensive approaches and partner ships.
I/O-3
-------
The FY 2006 President's Budget implements the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
goal through a blend of regulatory, voluntary and incentive-based programs. Some
environmental issues are best resolved through multi-media, multi-stakeholder approaches. The
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal seeks to reduce risks through community and
geographically based programs: Brownfields, Wetlands protection, and our nation's great water
bodies programs such as the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay. Another focus is
on ensuring safer chemicals and pesticides, which impact all media. FY 2006 will be a key year
for the chemicals and pesticides programs as the Agency works to complete the final milestone
in the ten-year pesticide tolerance reassessment program, which ensures older food-use
pesticides meet the latest scientific standards for safety. Core research in this goal provides the
scientific basis for EPA's human health and ecosystem programs and explores cutting-edge
issues that may become the problems, or the solutions, of future environmental protection.
In FY 2006, vital community restoration of abandoned contaminated properties will
remain a priority as the Brownfields program continues at $210 million. The Great Lakes
program will meld multi-media and multi-stakeholder efforts to remedy pollution, with the Great
Lakes Legacy program increasing to $50 million to remediate sediment contaminated by
improperly managed old industrial chemicals, Toxic chemicals reduction is also the emphasis of
Community Action for a Renewed Environment projects, with an increase of $7 million, which
will offer many more communities the opportunity to improve their environment through
voluntary action. In the research area, over $5 million is requested for the Advanced Monitoring
Initiative to combine information technology with remote sensing capabilities, to allow faster,
more efficient response to changing environmental conditions such as forest fires or storm
events, as well as current ecosystems stressors in sensitive areas such as the Great lakes or the
Everglades.
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Improve environmental performance through compliance with environmental
requirements, preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship.
Protect human health and the environment by encouraging innovation and
providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that promote
environmental stewardship.
The FY 2006 President's Budget implements the Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship goal through technical assistance and education, inspection and enforcement;
encouraging innovation and pollution prevention; and through capacity-building and support for
tribal environmental programs. Compliance assistance and enforcement are critical components
of environmental protection. EPA supports the regulated community by assuring requirements
are clearly understood, and by helping industry identify cost-effective compliance options.
Compliance is maximized through assistance and incentives, and enforcement.
In 2004, the Agency achieved over one billion pounds in pollutant reduction through
enforcement actions. In FY 2006 EPA will further refine its 'smart enforcement' strategy that
combines inspection, enforcement and compliance assistance strategies. The EPA will assist the
regulated community in understanding and complying with environmental laws and regulations,
I/O-4
-------
and will reduce noncompliance through inspections, monitoring and ultimately through
enforcement, where needed. The Agency will respond to complaints from the public; strive to
secure a level economic playing field for law-abiding companies; and deter future violations.
The agency also works to improve and encourage pollution prevention and sustainable
practices, helping industry move beyond compliance and become partners in protecting our
national resources and our citizens' health. EPA works with manufacturers to increase energy
efficiency, find environmentally preferable substitutes for chemicals of concern, and change
processes to reduce toxic waste. Innovative front end approaches also support state- and tribal-
level efforts to reduce pollution, leverage technology and increase communication through data
sharing and collaboration.
In FY 2006 EPA will continue to work with industrial sectors to set pollution reduction
goals, provide tools and technical assistance, and identify innovative strategies to reduce risks.
In the tribal GAP program, the Agency will support approximately 510 federally recognized
Tribes in assessing environmental conditions on their lands and building environmental
programs tailored to their needs. In addition, the tribal program is looking to information
technology solutions and will integrate 10 existing Agency data systems in using common
Identifier codes and data standards in 2006.
Homeland Security
Homeland security is a top priority for EPA and the nation. EPA plays a lead role in
protecting U.S. citizens and the environment from the effects of attacks that release chemical,
biological or radiological agents. Following the cleanup and decontamination efforts of 2001,
the Agency has focused on ensuring we have the tools and protocols needed to detect and
recover quickly from deliberate incidents. The emphasis for FY 2006 is on several areas:
decontamination of threat agents, protecting our water and food supplies, and ensuring trained
personnel and key lab capacities are in place to be drawn upon in the event of an emergency.
In FY 2006, the Agency request includes substantial new resources for these efforts. $44
million will support deployment of Water Sentinel, a pilot monitoring and surveillance program
that will promote early warning of intentional contamination events in drinking water systems.
Critical tools, training, and exercises will complement this project, in collaboration with State,
local communities and water utilities. The program includes resources to create the Water
Alliance for Threat Reduction to train and prepare our nation's drinking water systems operators.
Response to terrorist events calls for decontamination from many new hazards.
Environmental decontamination research and preparedness response will increase by $19.4
million and an additional $4 million is requested for the Safe Buildings research program. To
support EPA's water security and decontamination programs, new resources ($11.6 million) are
also requested for Environmental Laboratory Preparedness and Response (ELPR) activities.
ELPR will plan for certain fundamental laboratory network needs, such as, (1) identification of
labs, (2) appropriate connectivity between member labs, (3) standardized methods and
measurements for environmental samples of terrorism-related agents of concern, (4) training and
continuing education for member laboratories, (5) accreditation and accountability.
I/O-5
-------
Workforce
EPA values its world class workforce and its expertise enables us to meet our urgent
responsibilities across a broad range of national and local environmental issues. In 2006 we are
making a modest adjustment to EPA's workforce management strategy that will help us better
align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. A key step in this adjustment is improving the
alignment between the total number of positions authorized and on actual FTE utilization. As
such, EPA is reducing its Agency authorized FTE base by approximately 300 positions to
17,631, which is still above our current employee base and consistent with the Agency's historic
FTE levels. The result of these reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize
efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its programs and will not result in overall change in
the numbers of FTE at EPA. The program project descriptions provided later in this document,
provide the details of these changes.
Organization of the Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In response to Congressional request, EPA developed a Congressional Justification that
presents the budget in a more succinct, programmatic format. This is distinctly different from
past years. The new format provides information in a way that Congress actually reviews and
makes decisions on EPA resources. The most significant change is the focus of the Agency
program justifications at the program/project level. This format continues to allow us to
highlight the Agency's achievement in presenting an integrated performance plan and budget
request that reflects our strategic plan. There are distinct sections that address how programs are
performing to achieve the strategic goals and objectives.
Annual Performance Plan Components
EPA's Annual Performance Plan is integrated into the annual Budget request. To fully
explain the Agency=s resource needs, the Budget contains annual performance goals and
performance measures that the Agency uses to achieve its results. EPA submits a stand-alone
Annual Performance Plan to Congress to meet the concern expressed in GPRA that Aannual
plans not be voluminous presentations describing performance for every activity. The Annual
Performance Plan and reports are to inform, not overwhelm the reader.ฎ
Due to timing and ongoing work on the Agency's Operating Plan, resources from the FY
2005 Consolidated Appropriations Bill are not included in this document.
The total workyears represented in program project documents contained in the
Appropriation tabs represent all appropriations and not only the appropriation tab in which they
appear.
I/O-6
-------
Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification:
Chapters include:
Resource Summary Tables
Resources by Goal
Resources by Appropriation
Goal and Objective Overview (Goals 1-5)
Goal, Objective Statement
Resource Table by Goal and Appropriation
- FY 2006 Goal and Objective Overview Request
Program/Project by Appropriation (EPM, ST, STAG, IG, BF, SF, LUST & OIL)
Resources for Appropriation
Annotated Bill Language by Appropriation
- Resource Table by Appropriation, Program/Project
- Program/Project Fact Sheets (the following included within each factsheet)
Resource Chart ($s, FTEs)
Program/Project description
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Explanation of Change
Statutory Authorities
Program Performance and Assessment
PART
- OMB Report
- PART Implementation Report
Performance
- 6-year array of APGs, PMs and Baselines
- 6-year array of APGs, PMs and Baselines for Enabling Support Programs
- Efficiency Measures
- Description of Measure Development and Implementation Plans
Verification and Validation
Appendix
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies - Organized by Goal/Objective
Major Management Challenges - Organized by Goal/Objective
Special Analysis - Working Capital Fund
Special Analysis - User Fees
Carryover/Outlays by Appropriation Accounts
Acronym List for Statutory Authority
STAG Categorical Program Grants - Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
Program/Projects by Appropriations
Administrative Provisions
I/O-7
-------
-------
Index - Introduction and Overview
Brownfields 4 Wetlands 4
Climate Protection Program 2
-------
-------
Table of Contents - Resource Summary Tables
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY 1
Budget Authority / Obligations 1
Full-time Equivalents (FTE) 2
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Budget Authority / Obligations
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Obligations Pres. Bud. Request
Science & Technology $758,075.4 $689,185.0 $760,640.0
Environmental Program & Management $2,223,528.1 $2,316,958.0 $2,403,764.0*
Inspector General $36,785.0 $37,997.0 $36,955.0
Building and Facilities $43,871.0 $42,918.0 $40,218.0
Oil Spill Response $17,455.1 $16,425.0 $15,863.0
Superfund Program $1,276,070.4 $1,332,133.8 $1,235,192.1
IG Transfer $14,426.1 $13,138.6 $13,536.0
S&T Transfer $74,451.9 $36,143.6 $30,604.9
Hazardous Substance Superfund $1,364,948.4 $1,381,416.0 $1,279,333.0
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks $73,372.4 $72,545.0 $73,027.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants $3,908,696.0 $3,231,800.0 $2,960,800.0
TOTAL, EPA $8,426,731.4 $7,789,244.0 $7,570,600.0*
* The FY 2006 President's Budget includes $50M to be derived from changes to Toxics and Pesticides fees
proposed in subsequent legislation.
RT- 1
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Obligations Pres. Bud. Request
Science & Technology 2,424.2 2,460.5 2,438.1
Science and Tech. - Reim 2.7 3.0 3.0
Environmental Program & Management 10,985.2 11,271.0 11,048.1
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim 49.0 1.5 1.5
Inspector General 259.0 271.6 267.7
Oil Spill Response 89.0 100.0 99.2
Oil Spill Response - Reim 6.3 0.0 0.0
Superfund Program 3,082.3 3,128.8 3,131.2
IG Transfer 101.4 94.1 94.1
S&T Transfer 138.2 129.8 106.3
Hazardous Substance Superfund 3,321.9 3,352.7 3,331.6
Superfund Reimbursables 87.7 77.5 77.5
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 74.2 79.3 77.4
FEMA-Reim 5.8 0.0 0.0
WCF-REIMB 95.6 99.7 99.7
Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund 187.4 187.2 187.2
Pesticide Registration Fund 22.9 0.0 0.0
TOTAL, EPA 17,610.9 17,904.0 17,631.0*
* Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
RT-2
-------
Table of Contents - Goal and Objective Overview
GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY 1
Budget Authority / Obligations 1
Full-time Equivalents (FTE) 3
CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 5
Goal, Objective Summary 5
CLEAN AND SAFE WATER 13
Goal, Objective Summary 13
LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION 25
Goal, Objective Summary 25
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS 35
Goal, Objective Summary 35
COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP 50
Goal, Objective Summary 50
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Budget Authority / Obligations
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Obligations Pres. Bud. Request
Clean Air and Global Climate Change $932,373.4 $1,011,027.3 $968,882.7
Environmental Program & Management $446,488.0 $474,140.0 $487,626.0
Science & Technology $210,745.0 $205,636.0 $210,821.0
Building and Facilities $9,563.0 $9,604.0 $8,842.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants $257,744.0 $312,750.0 $252,750.0
Inspector General $4,641.0 $5,715.0 $5,459.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund $3,193.0 $3,182.0 $3,385.0
Clean and Safe Water $3,810,107.5 $2,944,875.7 $2,813,028.3
Environmental Program & Management $480,422.0 $484,351.0 $466,863.0
Science & Technology $134,224.0 $102,189.0 $155,305.0
Building and Facilities $6,410.0 $6,469.0 $6,200.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants $3,167,874.0 $2,333,033.0 $2,166,600.0
Inspector General $21,176.0 $18,833.0 $18,060.0
Land Preservation and Restoration $1,722,255.3 $1,805,990.8 $1,691,463.0
Environmental Program & Management $194,219.0 $209,150.0 $220,985.0
Science & Technology $14,945.0 $9,106.0 $14,006.0
Building and Facilities $5,203.0 $5,233.0 $4,933.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants $119,337.0 $144,350.0 $116,350.0
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks $73,372.0 $72,545.0 $73,027.0
Oil Spill Response $17,455.0 $16,425.0 $15,863.0
Inspector General $2,061.0 $2,506.0 $2,372.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund $1,295,662.0 $1,346,676.0 $1,243,927.0
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems $1,222,772.7 $1,292,007.7 $1,336,247.8
Environmental Program & Management $586,080.0 $641,214.0 $677,503.0*
Science & Technology $321,192.0 $321,794.0 $336,730.0
Building and Facilities $15,553.0 $14,993.0 $14,192.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants $249,715.0 $297,867.0 $292,300.0
G/O-1
-------
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,861.0
$44,372.0
$739,222.5
$516,319.0
$76,969.0
$7,142.0
$114,026.0
$3,046.0
$21,721.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$7,209.0
$8,931.0
$735,342.5
$508,103.0
$50,461.0
$6,618.0
$143,800.0
$3,734.0
$22,627.0
FY 2006
Request
$7,349.0
$8,174.0
$760,978.2
$550,786.0
$43,779.0
$6,051.0
$132,800.0
$3,715.0
$23,847.0
Total
3,426,731.4
$7,789,244.0
$7,570,600.0 *
* The FY 2006 President's Budget includes $50M to be derived from changes to Toxics and Pesticides fees
proposed in subsequent legislation. In FY 2005 the fees were $30M.
G/O-2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Obligations Pres. Bud. Request
Clean Air and Global Climate Change 2 644 3 2 760 2 2 658 1
Environmental Program & Management i 392 o 1 961 0 1 897 0
Science & Technology 672.o 702.0 679.0
Inspector General 33 0 41.0 40.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund \%Q \% Q \% Q
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim 20 00 00
Science and Tech. - Reim 30 39 30
FEMA-Reim 30 0.0 0.0
WCF-REIMB 21.0 35.0 22.0
Clean and Safe Water 2,904.0 3,088.5 2,916.9
Environmental Program & Management 2 256 0 2 448 0 2 250 0
Science & Technology 4710 489.0 519.0
Inspector General 149 0 135.0 131.0
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim ^39 o 0 00
WCF-REIMB 140 16.0 16.0
Land Preservation and Restoration 4 545 4 4 753 5 4 752 2
Environmental Program & Management i 177 Q i 259 0 1 237 0
Science & Technology 46 0 48.0 52.0
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 74 Q 79 o 77 0
Oil Spill Response 89.0 lOO.O 99.0
Inspector General 15 0 18.0 17.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund 3 132 Q 3 177 0 3 180 0
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim 59 o 0 00
Oil Spill Response - Reim 50 o 0 00
FEMA-Reim 30 0.0 0.0
Superfund Reimbursables 88 0 78 0 78 0
WCF-REIMB 1LO 4.0 12.0
G/O-3
-------
FY 2004
Obligations
3,825.4
2,444.0
1,021.0
41.0
187.0
59.0
16.0
23.0
34.0
3,590.8
3,216.0
213.0
21.0
112.0
12.0
16.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
3,844.8
2,535.0
998.0
52.0
187.0
42.0
0.0
0.0
31.0
3,446.9
3,068.0
222.0
27.0
116.0
0.0
14.0
FY 2006
Request
3,834.7
2,521.0*
1,018.0
53.0
187.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
35.0
3,469.3
3,143.0
170.0
27.0
114.0
0.0
15.0
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Inspector General
Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Pesticide Registration Fund
WCF-REIMB
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
WCF-REIMB
Total 17,610.9 17,904.0 17,631.0*
* Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
G/O-4
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the
environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships with
businesses and other sectors.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
Through 2010, working with partners, protect human health and the environment by
attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and reducing the risk from
toxic air pollutants.
By 2008, 22.6 million more Americans than in 1994 will be experiencing healthier indoor
air in homes, schools, and office buildings.
By 2010, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have
stopped declining and slowly begun the process of recovery, and the risk to human health
from overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, particularly among susceptible
subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
Through 2008, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be
prepared to minimize impacts to human health and the environment should unwanted
releases occur.
Through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 45 million metric tons
of carbon equivalents (MMTCE) annually to the President's 18 percent greenhouse gas
intensity improvement goal by 2012. (An additional 75 MMTCE to result from the
sustained growth in the climate programs are reflected in the Administration's business-
as-usual projection for greenhouse gas intensity improvement.)
Through 2010, provide and apply sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by
conducting leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and
characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 1.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority / Obligations
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air and Global Climate
Change
Healthier Outdoor Air
Healthier Indoor Air
Protect the Ozone Layer
Radiation
FY 2004
Obligations
$932,373.4
$588,929.9
$49,526.2
$19,542.4
$33,758.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,011,027.3
$660,428.2
$50,257.9
$22,760.6
$35,132.0
FY 2006
Request
$968,882.7
$612,802.7
$48,451.1
$20,573.9
$38,839.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($42,144.6)
($47,625.5)
($1,806.8)
($2,186.7)
$3,707.1
G/O-5
-------
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Enhance Science and Research
Total Workyears
FY 2004
Obligations
$105,114.1
$135,502.1
2,644.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$111,516.0
$130,932.6
2,760.2
FY 2006
Request
$114,922.6
$133,293.2
2,658.1
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$3,406.6
$2,360.7
-102.2
EPA implements the Clean Air and Global Climate Change goal through national programs
designed to provide healthier outdoor and indoor air for all Americans, protect the stratospheric
ozone layer, minimize the risks from radiation releases, reduce greenhouse gas intensity, and
enhance science and research. In implementing the goal, EPA carries out its responsibilities
through programs that include several common elements: setting risk-based priorities;
facilitating regulatory reform and market-based approaches; partnering with state, Tribal, and
local governments, non-governmental organizations, and industry; promoting energy efficiency;
and using sound science.
EPA's key clean air programs - particulate matter, ozone, acid rain, air toxics, indoor air,
radiation and stratospheric ozone depletion - address some of the highest health and
environmental risks faced by the Agency. These programs have achieved results. Every year,
state and Federal air pollution programs established under the Clean Air Act prevent tens of
thousands of premature mortalities, millions of incidences of chronic and acute illness, tens of
thousands of hospitalizations and emergency room visits, and millions of lost work days.
Between 1970 and 2003, gross domestic product (GDP) increased 176 percent, vehicle miles
traveled increased 155 percent, energy consumption increased 45 percent, and U.S. population
grew by 39 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air
pollutants dropped by 51 percent. The graphic below shows the decrease in emissions versus the
percentage growth in GDP, vehicle use, energy consumption, and population since 1970.
Comparison of Growth Areas and Emissions
200%
150% -
100% -
^^ Gross Domestic Product
50% -
Energy Consumption
-50% -
Aggregate Emissions
(Six Principal Pollutants)
70 80 90 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03
G/O-6
-------
The benefits of implementing the Clean Air Act exceed costs by a factor of six or seven to one,
as noted in OMB's report, Informing Regulatory Decisions. Based on EPA's estimates, Clean
Air Act costs have been relatively small compared to the dollar value of public health and
environmental benefits. For EPA's voluntary climate change programs, every EPA dollar spent
returns $75 in energy savings. To achieve the Clean Air and Global Climate Change goal, we
will use the following strategies:
Long term - We will make decisions today that increase the pace of environmental progress
and significantly enhance public health for generations to come.
Collaborate - We will achieve our goals through meaningful and productive interaction with
others who seek environmental progress and improved public health.
Enhance Economic Growth and Prosperity - Our actions will not compromise our
economic competitiveness, and will have benefits that justify their costs.
Strategically Focused and Performance-based - We will link our priorities to EPA 's 2003-
2008 Strategic Plan: Direction for the Future and measure our success by our
outcomes.
National standards, compliance and enforcement - We will set strong national standards,
assist with compliance, and bring the full force of the law consistently and fairly on
those who evade.
Markets, incentives and innovation - We will benefit from the power of markets and well-
crafted incentives to increase the velocity of progress, stimulate technological
innovation and reward performance.
Best science - We will generate, share and rely on the best-available scientific, engineering
and economic information to guide our endeavors.
Historically, environmental progress has been achieved largely by advances in environmental
technologies - including such advances as catalytic converters on cars and trucks, sulfur dioxide
(862) scrubbers, selective catalytic reduction for nitrogen oxides (NOX) removal, and
reformulated gasoline. EPA can foster demand for new and innovative, cost-effective
technologies by designing and promoting market-based strategies, such as the President's Clear
Skies Initiative cap-and-trade program, that create markets and provide incentives to develop the
most efficient, best-performing technologies. Technological innovation will continue to be the
foundation that will enable us to reach aggressive goals over the next 15 years that will match or
exceed the progress we have made in the past. Hundreds of new products are under
development, in testing, or coming to market that will further help meet air quality goals. Fuel
cells, hybrid vehicles, renewable fuels, and zero-emission power plants are only a few examples
of the new and emerging technologies that will help us achieve cleaner air for all Americans over
the next 15 years.
EPA's strategy for achieving clean outdoor air includes the President's Clear Skies Initiative - a
comprehensive, multi-pollutant approach that combines national and local measures, with
implementation responsibilities carried out by the most appropriate and effective level of
government. Air pollution sources with broad regional, national or global impact - emissions
from power plants and other large sources, pollution from motor vehicles and fuels, and
stratospheric ozone depletion - are often most effectively handled at the Federal level. A
national approach allows for the use of traditional, regulatory tools where appropriate, and
G/O-7
-------
enables EPA to implement innovative, market-based techniques such as emissions trading,
banking, and averaging, and other cost-effective national programs. These Federal programs
help states and Tribes both meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and reduce
public exposure to harmful levels of air toxics.
States, Tribes, and local agencies can best address the regional and local problems that remain
after Federal measures have been fully applied. Many of these approaches employ innovative
techniques, such as early action compacts, diesel retrofits and community-based approaches to
toxics that are well-suited to the local nature of many air-related problems. EPA works closely
with public- and private-sector partners and stakeholders to develop the analytical tools - such as
monitoring, modeling, and emission factors and inventories - that allow states, Tribes, and
localities to address these more localized problems.
To improve air quality and address the highest health and environmental risks, EPA will proceed
with Federal stationary and mobile source programs aimed at achieving large, nationwide, cost-
effective reductions in emissions of particulate matter (PM) and its contributors such as SO2,
NOX, and elemental and organic carbon; ozone-forming NOX; and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). In FY 2006, we will continue our progress towards healthier air by helping states,
Tribes, and localities meet ozone and particulate matter air quality standards by their attainment
dates under the Clean Air Act via the President's Clear Skies Initiative or, should legislation not
be enacted, through the Clean Air Interstate Rule. EPA is coordinating its efforts to implement
these standards with the Regional Haze rule to maximize the ability of the states, Tribes and
regulated community to respond to these requirements in an integrated fashion. Continued
research into air quality models and other tools will enable states and local areas to attain these
standards as cost-effectively as possible. Joint efforts with Canada and Mexico will address
transboundary air pollution in the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico border regions. In their efforts
to attain the standards, states and local areas will be able to take advantage of market-based
approaches.
While significant progress has been made under the existing Clean Air Act, further benefits
could be achieved faster, with more certainty, and at less cost to consumers through Clear Skies
- an Administration proposal that expands the current Acid Rain program to dramatically reduce
nationwide power plant emissions of 862 and NOX, as well as, for the first time ever, reduce
mercury emissions from power plants. Clear Skies would reduce emissions of these three
pollutants by nearly 70 percent while encouraging innovation and the deployment of cleaner,
more cost effective technologies. The Clear Skies legislation was submitted to Congress in 2002
and the Administration continues to promote its enactment.
Although Clear Skies is the more comprehensive and cost effective approach and therefore the
strongly preferred solution, the Administration is pursuing a regulatory path that would achieve
many of the same benefits should legislation not be enacted. EPA has proposed the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) which regulates the transport of power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx
across state lines via a market-based approach similar to Clear Skies. CAIR is projected to
reduce pollution from electrical power generation sources by close to 70% when fully
implemented.
G/O-8
-------
Both Clear Skies and CAIR call for utilities to utilize a cap and trade program modeled after
EPA's successful Acid Rain SC>2 Allowance Trading Program. The Acid Rain Program provides
incentives for operators of power plants to find the best, fastest, and most efficient ways to make
the required reductions in emissions as well as to do make reductions earlier than required.
One of EPA's highest priorities is meeting the fine particulate matter and ozone standards. This
will be achieved through implementation of Clear Skies or CAIR; the on-road and non-road
vehicle and fuels standards; and state, tribal, and local clean air programs. When combined with
emission reductions from the recently completed Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule and other
national control programs, the reductions resulting from Clear Skies or the final CAIR will allow
most areas of the country to meet the ozone and fine parti culate matter standards without having
to impose additional local controls. States rely on EPA for modeling, emissions factors and
other tools as they develop their clean air plans for particulate matter and ozone.
Clean fuels and clean technologies are an integral part of reducing emissions from mobile
sources. EPA promotes the use of clean fuels - especially hydrogen, alternative fuels, and near-
zero sulfur fuels - as well as cleaner technologies. Cost-effective national standards,
public/private partnerships, market incentives, and consumer education campaigns are some of
the tools that will be used to accomplish this. Opportunities exist to obtain significant reductions
from new non-road and existing diesel engines. The Agency will continue to work with engine
manufacturers and fuel producers to assure smooth implementation of the 2007 Clean Diesel
Program for trucks and buses. The Clean School Bus USA program has also led the Agency to
explore other avenues for retrofitting or replacing existing diesel engines.
In FY 2006, EPA and a coalition of clean diesel interests will work together to expand the
retrofitting of diesel engines into new sectors by adopting a risk-based strategy, targeting key
places and working with specific use sectors to identify opportunities to accelerate the adoption
of cleaner technologies and fuels. EPA will partner with a diverse group of stakeholders
including industry, state and local governments, public health officials and environmental
organizations to develop strategies for four sectors: construction, ports, freight, and school buses.
EPA's Clean Diesel Initiative will achieve immediate results by working with this coalition to
leverage Federal funds with private sector and state and local support. The Initiative will
complement regional approaches, including the West Coast Diesel Emissions Reduction
Collaborative, the Midwest Clean Diesel Corridors Initiative, and the Boston Breathes Better
Initiative.
The Clean Air Act includes a variety of provisions that address air toxics from all categories of
sources. The 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed in the Act are emitted from mobile
sources, major stationary sources and area stationary sources. EPA implements a two-phase
program to reduce emissions of air toxics from major stationary sources. In the first phase, EPA
set Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. In the second phase, which is
risk-based, EPA examines each MACT standard eight years after promulgation to determine if
the health risk remaining from each industrial category from is considered safe. Where
appropriate, EPA will develop more stringent residual risk standards to reduce cancer and non-
cancer health risks.
G/O-9
-------
The Indoor Air Program addresses indoor air quality problems by characterizing the risks of
indoor air pollutants to human health, developing techniques for reducing those risks, and
educating the public about what they can do to reduce their risks from indoor air. Through
voluntary partnerships with non-governmental and professional organizations, EPA educates and
encourages individuals, schools, industry, the health care community, and others to take action to
reduce health risks in indoor environments. EPA also uses technology-transfer to improve the
design, operation, and maintenance of buildings - including schools, homes, and workplaces - to
promote healthier indoor air.
EPA's Climate Protection Programs continues to contribute to the greenhouse gas reductions
required to meet the President's 18 percent greenhouse gas intensity reduction goal by 2012. For
more than a decade, businesses and organization have partnered with EPA through voluntary
climate protection programs to pursue common sense approaches. Energy Star and other
voluntary programs have increased the use of energy-efficient products and practices and
reduced emissions of carbon dioxide, as well as methane and other greenhouse gases with very
high global warming potentials. As these partnership programs spur investment in advanced
energy technologies and the purchase of energy-efficient products, they create emissions
reduction benefits that accrue over the lifetime of the investment or product.
Offering recognition for innovative solutions to commuting challenges faced by employers and
employees, Best Workplaces for Commuters is a public-private sector voluntary program
advocating employee commuter benefits. Established by the EPA and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), this program publicly recognizes employers whose commuter benefits
reach the National Standard of Excellence. Providing commuter benefits helps employers
address limited or expensive parking, reduce traffic congestion, improve employee recruiting and
retention, and minimize the environmental impacts associated with drive-alone commuting.
EPA continues to expand the ENERGY STAR program for energy efficiency in the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors. The Buildings Sector represents one of EPA's largest areas of
potential, and at the same time is one of its most successful. The Industrial Sector goals include
the Agency's work with state and local governments, and state and local governments' work
with industry to prevent greenhouse gas emissions. EPA will continue to build on the success of
the voluntary programs in the industrial sector, focusing on reducing CO2 emissions and
continuing the highly successful initiatives to reduce methane emissions and emissions of the
high global-warming-potential gases.
The SmartWay Transport Partnership is a national voluntary program developed by EPA and
freight industry representatives to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution and promotes
cleaner, more efficient ground freight transportation. By 2012, the Partnership aims to reduce as
much as 33 to 66 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and up to 200,000 tons
of nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions annually. Partners achieve goals by adopting improved
practices, processes and energy saving technologies that are cost effective, cleaner, more
efficient, and capable of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Under the Clean Automotive Technology (CAT) program, EPA works to: achieve ultra-low
pollution emissions; increase fuel efficiency; and reduce greenhouse gases. By promoting the
development of cost-effective technologies, the CAT program also encourages manufacturers to
produce cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles. The program encourages the
G/O-10
-------
commercialization of promising technologies by actively pursuing the transfer of EPA's
technologies into the private sector. EPA partners with industry to maximize the viability of
targeted technologies for commercial production through cooperative research and development
agreements.
An FY 2006 Climate Change Program initiative is the Methane to Markets Partnership - a U.S.
led international initiative that promotes cost-effective, near-term methane recovery and use as a
clean energy source. The Partnership has the potential to deliver by 2015 annual reductions in
methane emissions of up to 50 MMTCE or recovery of 500 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural
gas. The Methane to Markets Partnership builds on the success of EPA's domestic methane
voluntary programs by creating an international forum to promote methane recovery and use
projects in developing countries.
The benefits of increasing methane recovery and use include reduced global methane emissions,
enhanced economic growth, increased energy security, and improved local air quality. The
Partnership initially targets three major methane sources: landfills, underground coal mines, and
natural gas and oil systems. The Partnership will achieve its goals through collaboration among
developed countries, developing countries, and countries with economies in transition - together
with strong participation from the private sector, development banks, and other governmental
and non-governmental organizations.
EPA's Domestic Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program will implement the provisions of the
Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal
Protocol), which will lead to the reduction and control of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) in
the U.S. and lower health risks to the American public due to exposure to UV radiation. EPA
will focus its efforts on finding alternatives to methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting substance.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue upgrading the national radiation monitoring system. The
response time and data dissemination of the upgraded monitoring system would be significantly
better than that of the existing monitoring system, and the population coverage of the upgraded
system would be significantly better than the population coverage of the existing fixed
monitoring system as well as allowing for greater density of sampling locations near and
downwind from incidents and maintenance and calibration of deployable monitoring stations.
Additionally, EPA will equip up to two radiation teams with state-of-the-art radiation equipment
and technical tools to deploy to two simultaneous incidents in any part of the country. Each team
will be fully capable of providing timely and accurate information to support the Agency's
decontamination/disposal decision-making efforts. EPA will also augment existing applied
science radiological labs to meet emergency homeland security needs by developing
radiochemistry methods, refining analytical protocols, and conducting training. EPA will also
enhance lab response capability to ensure a minimal level of surge capacity for radiological
terrorism incidents.
Research
EPA's air research provides the scientific foundation the Agency needs to fulfill responsibilities
under the Clean Air Act: to make the air safe to breathe and protect human health and the
G/O-11
-------
environment. This research focuses on the NAAQS pollutants, as well as the HAPs identified in
the Act.
In FY 2006, NAAQS research will continue to strengthen the scientific basis for the periodic
review and implementation of air quality standards. This research is concentrated on PM, and
includes research on the other NAAQS pollutants on an as needed basis (for more information on
EPA's programs to reduce NAAQS pollutants, visit: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/air.htm). PM
research is aligned with the ten priority research topics for PM identified by the National
Research Council (NRC). The NRC has conducted four reviews of EPA's PM research since
1998 to ensure it is relevant to the highest priority research needs and to monitor research
performance.
Air toxics research will provide information on effects, exposure, and source characterization, as
well as other data to quantify existing emissions and to identify key pollutants and strategies for
cost-effective risk management. In FY 2006, research will focus on providing health hazard and
exposure methods, data, and models to enable the Agency to reduce uncertainty in risk
assessments, and the production of tools that enable national, regional, state, or local officials to
identify and implement cost-effective approaches to reduce risks from sources of air toxics.
EPA manages its air-related research programs according to the Administration's Investment
Criteria for Research and Development. The Agency's detailed, externally-reviewed multi-year
plans for its air toxics and NAAQS-related research programs describe clear goals and priorities,
and are periodically updated to reflect changes in science and resources. As part of the periodic
multi-year plan revisions, EPA is examining the design of each program to help identify its
outputs, customers, transfer needs, and short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes.
Beginning in FY 2005, EPA is implementing regular evaluations by independent and external
panels that provide prospective and retrospective review of program relevance, quality, and
performance, including the program's design and performance goals. The Agency's Board of
Scientific Counselors, the chosen mechanism for these reviews, will examine the particulate
matter research program in the second quarter of FY2005. The NAAQS program will be
reassessed by OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) in the spring of 2005.
In FY 2006, a portion of EPA's air research will be accomplished using a new approach to
applied research funding at EPA. This arrangement, based on the existing collaborative
framework between the media and research offices, is designed to ensure continued relevance
and quality of applied research at EPA. In FY 2006, funds will be provided to the Office of Air
and Radiation to use a fee-for-service arrangement with the Office of Research and Development
to obtain additional research focusing on the Agency's highest priority air research needs.
G/O-12
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic
ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide
healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including
protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal
and ocean waters.
Provide and apply a sound scientific 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.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority / Obligations
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean and Safe Water
Protect Human Health
Protect Water Quality
Enhance Science and Research
Total Workyears
FY 2004
Obligations
$3,810,107.5
$1,293,345.7
$2,382,542.5
$134,219.2
2,904.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$2,944,875.7
$1,169,287.4
$1,653,907.9
$121,680.5
3,088.5
FY 2006
Request
$2,813,028.3
$1,195,366.2
$1,483,516.9
$134,145.2
2,916.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($131,847.4)
$26,078.8
($170,391.0)
$12,464.8
-171.6
Over the 30 years since enactment of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts (CWA and
SDWA), government, citizens, and the private sector have worked together to make dramatic
progress in improving the quality of surface waters and drinking water.
Thirty years ago, much of the Nation's tap water had either very limited treatment (usually
disinfection) or no treatment at all. 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.
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting
America's Water. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
G/O-13
-------
Today, drinking water systems monitor and treat water to assure compliance with drinking water
standards covering a wide range of contaminants. In addition, we now protect sources of
drinking water through activities such as regulating underground injection of wastes. The
number of polluted waters has been reduced and many clean waters are even healthier. A
massive investment of Federal, state, and local funds resulted in a new generation of wastewater
treatment facilities able to provide "secondary" treatment or better. EPA has issued national
discharge regulations for over 50 industrial categories. In addition, sustained efforts to
implement "best management practices" have helped reduce runoff of pollutants from diffuse or
"nonpoint" sources.
Cleaner, safer water has renewed recreational, ecological, and economic interests in communities
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 hunting.2 Each year, more than 180 million people visit the shore for
recreation.3 In 2001, sportspersons spent a total of $70 billion- $35.6 billion on fishing, $20.6
billion on hunting, and $13.8 million on items used for both hunting and fishing. Wildlife
watchers spent an additional $38.4 billion on their activities around the home and on trips away
from home.4 The commercial fishing industry, which also requires clean water and healthy
wetlands, contributed $28.6 billion to the economy in 2001.5 The Cuyahoga River, which once
caught fire, is now busy with boats and harbor businesses that generate substantial revenue for
the City of Cleveland. The Willamette River in Oregon has been restored to provide swimming,
fishing, and water sports. Even Lake Erie, once infamous for its dead fish, now supports a $600
million per year fishing industry.6
Although we have made much progress and this progress has had important economic as well as
human health and environmental benefits, there is still work to be done to realize the vision of
clean rivers, lakes, streams and coastal areas and safe water to drink. In Fiscal Year 2006, EPA
will work with States and Tribes to continue accomplishing measurable improvements in the
safely of the nation's drinking water and in the condition of rivers, lakes and coastal waters.
This Overview summarizes key environmental and public health goals and describes the general
strategies EPA proposes to implement to accomplish these goals. With the help of States, Tribes
and other partners, EPA expects to make significant progress toward protecting human health
and improving water quality by 2008, including -
Water Safe to Drink: increase the rate of compliance with drinking water standards
from 93% to 95%;
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat: reduce the percentage of the water miles/acres identified
by States or Tribes as having fish consumption advisories in 2002 where increased
2 Travel Industry Association of America. Tourism for America, 11th 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. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Fisheries of the U.S. 2001. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
6 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting
America's Water. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
G/O-14
-------
consumption of safe fish is allowed, (485,205 river miles, 11,277,276 lake acres) while
increasing the percentage of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states that are
approved or conditionally approved for use from 77% to 91%;
Water Safe for Swimming: increase the percentage of the stream miles and lake acres
identified by States in 2000 as having water quality unsafe for swimming where water
quality that is restored to allow swimming. (90,000 stream miles, 2.6 million lake acres);
Cleaner Water and Healthy Watersheds: restore polluted waters so that, of the 2,262
major watersheds across the Nation, at least 600 have few remaining problems (i.e., at
least 80% of assessed waters meet State water quality standards (WQS)) and show
improvement in 200 watersheds; and
Healthy Coastal Waters: show steady improvement in seven specific indicators of the
health of each of the four major coastal ecosystems around the country.
The clean and safe water goals are closely related to goals established in Goal 4 of the Agency
Strategic Plan related to improvements in wetlands, estuaries, targeted geographic programs
such as the waters of the Mexico Border region, the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the
Gulf of Mexico. The key strategies that EPA plans to implement in FY 2006 to make progress
toward the public health and environmental goals identified in the Strategic Plan are briefly
described below.
Water Safe to Drink
For almost 30 years, protecting the Nation's public health through safe drinking water has been
the shared responsibility of EPA, the States, and over 53,000 community water systems (CWSs)7
nationwide that supply drinking water to more than 260 million Americans (approximately 90%
of the U.S. population). Within this time span, safe drinking water standards have been
established and are being implemented for 91 microbial, chemical, and radiological
contaminants. Forty-nine States have adopted primary authority for enforcing their drinking
water programs. Additionally, CWS operators are better informed and trained to both treat
contaminants and prevent them from entering the source of their drinking water supplies.
During 2006, EPA, the States, and CWSs will build on these successes while working toward the
2008 goal of assuring that 95 percent of the population served by CWSs receives drinking water
that meets all applicable standards. Collectively, these core areas and other interrelated
elements of the national safe drinking water program form a balanced, integrated framework that
comprises the multiple barrier approach to protecting public health from unsafe drinking water.
At the national level, implementation of this approach is expected to result in significant progress
toward the public health goals described above. EPA has identified key activities within five
core program areas that are critical to ensuring safe drinking water. The core program areas are
described below:
7 Although the Safe Drinking Water Act applies to 159,796 public water systems nationwide (as of January 2004), which include
schools, hospitals, factories, campgrounds, motels, gas stations, etc. that have their own water system, this implementation plan
focuses only on CWSs. A CWS is a public water system that provides water to the same population year-round. As of January
2004, there were 52,838 CWSs.
G/O-15
-------
Drinking Water Standards
During FY 2006, EPA will continue to assess the need for new or revised drinking water
standards based on available data on health effects, occurrence, risks of exposure, analytical
(detection) methods, as well as information on technologies to prevent, detect, or remove specific
contaminants. Specifically, EPA will:
* Determine whether to regulate at least five unregulated contaminants on the second
contaminant candidate list (CCL) and, through the Six-Year Review of existing
regulations, whether a revision to an existing standard is warranted;
* Continue analysis to prepare the Agency' s third CCL;
* Continue the comprehensive Lead and Copper Rule Review that began in 2004;
ป Develop revisions to the Total Coliform Rule (TCR); and
ป Consider additional protections of drinking water distribution systems.
Drinking Water Implementation
During FY 2006, EPA will support State efforts to meet existing and new drinking water
standards including the Cryptosporidium8, Disinfection9 (Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule), and Ground Water Rules. EPA will be responsible for directly implementing
the early monitoring requirements under these rules. In addition, initial monitoring requirements
under the revised arsenic rule and revised radionuclides rule will be underway. EPA and the
states will use the following tools to encourage compliance:
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program Grants: These grants provide
assistance to implement and enforce National Primary Drinking Water Regulations to
ensure the safety of the Nation's drinking water resources and to protect public health
Sanitary Surveys: Sanitary surveys are on-site reviews of the water sources, facilities,
equipment, operation, and maintenance of public water systems. All States are to be in
compliance with requirements to conduct sanitary surveys at CWSs once every three
years starting in 2004.
Data Access, Quality, and Reliability: EPA will complete the modernization of the
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), which serves as the primary source
of national information on compliance with all health-based, regulatory requirements of
SDWA.
Promotion of Sustainable Management of Drinking Water Infrastructure
The Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF), established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, offers low interest loans to help public water systems across the nation make
improvements and upgrades to their water infrastructure, or other activities that build system
capacity. In FY 2006, the DWSRF program will provide an estimated 600 more loans. EPA will
also work with States to increase the percentage of loan agreements made each year that return a
system to compliance, estimated to be 30% of loan agreements in 2002.
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
9 Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
G/O-16
-------
Protection of Sources of Drinking Water
In FY 2006, EPA will work with States and water systems to improve protection of sources of
drinking water in two key areas.
Voluntary Source Water Protection Strategies: EPA will promote the concepts of a
multiple barriers approach to drinking water program management and will work with
States to track, to the extent feasible, the development and implementation of source
water protection strategies. EPA has set a goal of increasing the number of source water
areas (both surface and ground water) for community water systems that have minimized
risk to public health from an estimated baseline of 5% of all areas in 2002 to 20% in FY
2006.
Underground Injection Control: EPA works with States to regulate injection of
hazardous substances and other waste to prevent contamination of underground sources
of drinking water. In FY 2006, EPA will continue to focus on shallow wells (Class V) in
source water areas. EPA and the States will work to assure that all identified Class V
motor vehicle waste disposal wells are closed by 2008. EPA and States will also work to
assure that 100 percent of Class I, II, III and V wells that are identified in violation are
addressed.
Assurance that Critical Water Infrastructure Is Secure
In FY 2006, EPA will continue its lead Federal Agency responsibility in supporting States and
water utilities to secure their water infrastructure from terrorist threats and other intentional
harm. In addition, due to its new responsibilities under Homeland Security Presidential
Directives 7 and 9, EPA will support the water sector in implementing protective measures and
in launching a new and innovative drinking water surveillance and monitoring program. The
Agency will also provide critical tools, training, and exercises that will help utilities detect,
prevent, and respond to threats.
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
Across the U.S., States and Tribes have issued fish consumption advisories for a range of
persistent, bioaccumulative contaminants covering more than 840,000 river miles and!4 million
lake acres as of 2003.10 The EPA Strategic Plan calls for improving the quality of water and
sediments to allow increased consumption of fish and shellfish. EPA's national approach to
meeting safe fish and shellfish goals is described below.
Safe Fish
Most of the current fish consumption advisories issued by states are for mercury, PCBs, and
dioxin. EPA is emphasizing strategic partnerships within the Agency to address these pollutants.
EPA's water program is also addressing remaining controllable sources offish exposure to these
chemicals. The Agency is:
10 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. Fact Sheet: National Listing of Fish Advisories. EPA-823-
F-04-016. August 2004. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/factsheet.pdf
G/O-17
-------
developing mercury fish tissue criteria implementation guidance to ensure new criteria
are incorporated into WQS and implemented in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits
working with states to improve their advisory programs with particular emphasis on
periodic re-sampling of previously tested waters that are under advisory
working to identify emerging contaminants to ensure that routes offish exposure to new,
emerging contaminants are addressed early, before they become a new reason for waters
coming under advisory
Safe Shellfish
Success in achieving the shellfish goals relies on implementation of CWA programs that are
focused on sources causing shellfish acres to be closed. Important new technologies include
pathogen source tracking, new indicators of pathogen contamination and predictive correlations
between environmental stressors and their effects. Once critical areas and sources are identified,
core program authorities, including expanded monitoring, development of TMDLs, and revision
of discharge permit limits can be applied to improve conditions.
In addition, a wide range of clean water programs that apply throughout the country will
generally reduce pathogen levels in key waters. For example, work to control Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs), to reduce discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, to
reduce storm water runoff, and to reduce nonpoint pollution will contribute to restoration of
shellfish uses.
Finally, success in achieving the shellfish goal also depends on the efforts of other agencies. For
example, EPA is working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
Food and Drug Administration to improve data and data management on contaminated and
closed shellfishing areas.
Water Safe for Swimming
Recreational waters, especially beaches in coastal areas and the Great Lakes, provide recreational
opportunities for millions of Americans. Swimming in some recreational waters, however, can
pose a risk of illness as a result of exposure to microbial pathogens. In November 2004, EPA
established more protective health-based WQSs for bacteria for those States and Territories
bordering Great Lakes or ocean waters that had not yet adopted standards in accordance with the
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000, an important step to further
protect the quality of the nation's coastal recreation waters.11 For FY 2006, EPA's national
strategy for improving the safety of recreational waters will include these key elements:
1' United States Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register; November 16, 2004; Volume 69, Number 220; pages
67217 - 67243. Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters. Available on the Interenet at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2004/November/Day-16/w25303.htm
G/O-18
-------
Improve Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
Another important element of the strategy for improving the safety of recreational waters is
improving monitoring of public beaches and notifying the public of unsafe conditions. EPA is
working with States to implement the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
Act and requests grant funding of $10 million to States to carry out this work. EPA expects that
all Tier 1 public beaches will be monitored and managed under the BEACH Act in FY 2006 and
that states and localities will be taking actions where possible and appropriate to address sources
of unsafe conditions that result in the closure of beaches.
Identify Unsafe Recreational Waters and Begin Restoration
A key component of the strategy to restore waters unsafe for swimming is to identify the specific
waters that are unsafe and develop plans to accomplish the needed restoration. An important part
of this work is to maintain strong progress toward development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) based on the schedules established by States in conjunction with EPA. In a related
effort, the Agency will better focus compliance assistance and, where necessary, enforcement
resources on unsafe recreational waters. In addition, working with communities that have
frequent wet weather discharges (which are a major source of pathogens) to ensure progress to
reduce the frequency of these discharges is one of the Agency's national enforcement priorities
for FY 2005 through 2007.
Reduce Pathogen Levels in Recreational Waters Generally
In addition to focusing on waters that are unsafe for swimming today, EPA, States and Tribes
will work in FY 2006 to reduce the overall level of pathogens discharged to recreational waters
using three key approaches:
reduce pollution from CSOs;
address major sources discharging pathogens under the permit program; and
improve management of septic systems.
Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
A significant investment of the National Water Program resources is under the CWA, which
directly support efforts to restore and improve the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams. In FY
2006, EPA will work with States to make continued progress toward the clean water goals
identified in the Strategic Plan by using a two-part strategy:
implement core clean water programs, including innovations that apply programs on a
watershed basis; and
accelerate efforts to improve water quality on a watershed basis.
G/O-19
-------
Implement Core Clean Water Programs:
To protect and improve water quality on a watershed basis in FY 2006, EPA, in partnership with
States and Tribes, needs to continue to focus the work on integrating the six key program areas
that form the foundation of the water program. Core water program work includes:
Strengthen Water Quality Standards: The top priority for the criteria and standards
program in FY 2006 is the continued implementation of the Water Quality Standards and
Criteria Strategy, developed in cooperation with States, Tribes, and the public in 2003.
The Standards Strategy prioritizes key strategic actions EPA and the states need to
complete in order to strengthen the WQS program to guide assessment and restoration
efforts. This Strategy calls for EPA to continue work in developing scientific "criteria
documents" for key water pollutants, including implementation protocols and methods.
In addition, the Strategy identifies key efforts to strengthen the program, including
developing nutrient criteria, adopting biological criteria, approving state WQS in a more
timely manner, and providing technical and scientific support to the states and Tribes in
conducting Use Attainability Analyses and developing site-specific criteria. Finally, EPA
will work with States and Tribes to ensure the effective operation and administration of
the standards program.
Improve Water Quality Monitoring: Scientifically defensible water quality data and
information is essential for cleaning up and protecting the Nation's waters. Federal and
state water quality monitoring and assessment programs, the underpinnings of all aspects
of the watershed approach, need strengthening. Information about the condition of
waterbodies is critical to sound water quality protection decisions. A top priority for FY
2006 is to continue to support States in developing monitoring programs consistent with
national monitoring guidance published in 2003, including State participation in efforts to
develop statistically valid monitoring networks and State support of the national
STORET water quality database.
Develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Related Plans: Development of
TMDLs for an impaired waterbody is a critical tool for meeting water restoration goals.
In FY 2006, EPA will compare States' progress in developing TMDLs against the
approved schedules. The purpose is to determine whether states will achieve the goal of
being 100 percent on pace each year to meet State schedules or straight-line rates that
ensure that the national policy of TMDL completion within 13 years of listing is met.
Control Nonpoint Source Pollution on a Watershed Basis: Polluted runoff from
nonpoint sources is the largest single cause of water pollution. In FY 2006, EPA will
focus grants to States under Section 319 of the CWA to expand efforts to manage
nonpoint pollution on a watershed basis through the development and implementation of
watershed plans. Special emphasis will be placed on restoring impaired waters on a
watershed basis.
Strengthen NPDES Permit Program: The NPDES program requires point sources
discharging to water bodies to have permits. In FY 2006, EPA will work with States to
use the "Permitting for Environmental Results Strategy" to address concerns about the
G/O-20
-------
workload for issuing permits and the health of State NPDES programs. The Strategy
focuses limited resources on the most critical environmental problems and addresses
program efficiency and integrity, including activities to streamline permit issuance and
assessments of State programs and permit quality.
Support Sustainable Wastewater Infrastructure: The Clean Water State Revolving
Funds (CWSRFs) provide low-interest loans to help finance wastewater treatment
facilities and other water quality projects. Recognizing the substantial remaining need
for wastewater infrastructure, EPA will continue to provide significant annual
capitalization to CWSRFs in FY 2006. Another important approach to closing the gap
between the need for clean water projects and available funding is to use sustainable
management systems to prolong the lives of existing systems. EPA will work to
encourage rate structures that lead to full cost pricing and other conservation measures.
Accelerate Watershed Protection
Strong execution of core CWA programs alone is not sufficient to maintain and accelerate
progress toward cleaner water and accomplish the water quality improvements called for in the
Strategic Plan. About a decade ago, EPA embraced the watershed approach, focusing on multi-
stakeholder and multi-program efforts within hydrologically defined boundaries, as a better way
to address water quality problems. In FY 2006, EPA will accelerate watershed protection by
working in three key areas:
Core Programs Organized by Watershed: In addition to development of watershed
based plans, discussed below, core programs can be implemented on a watershed basis.
Some examples in practice as a result of innovations developed by State, EPA Regions,
and others are development of TMDLs and NPDES permits on a watershed basis and
implementing water quality "trading" programs within a watershed.
Local Watershed Protection Efforts: EPA is developing national tools, training, and
technical assistance that will help community partnerships to be more effective at
improving watershed health. For FY 2006, EPA will expand support for protection of key
watersheds by building on the success of the Watershed Initiative (now called the
Targeted Watershed Grants Program - see Goal 4}.
Apply an Adaptive Management Framework: The best way to achieve progress in
improving and protecting waters and watersheds is by applying an adaptive management
approach to better understand the problems, set challenging but realistic goals, and
address opportunities associated with developing programs and building partnerships at
the watershed level. In FY 2006, EPA will continue to work with States and Tribes to
apply an adaptive management framework to identify the specific mix of watershed tools
that best suit local needs and conditions. Each State and EPA Region will work to define
the extent to which implementation of watershed approaches should be accelerated over
the coming years in order to meet the watershed/waterbody restoration and improvement
goals for 2008 in the EPA Strategic Plan.
G/O-21
-------
Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters
Coastal waters are among the most productive ecosystems on Earth, but they are also among the
most threatened ecosystems, largely as a result of rapidly increasing growth and development.
About half of the U.S. population now lives in coastal areas and coastal counties are growing
three times faster than counties elsewhere in the Nation. The work described here will be
closely coordinated with the implementation of the National Estuary Program (described in Goal
4). For FY 2006, EPA's national strategy for improving the condition of coastal and ocean
waters will include the following key elements:
Reduce Vessel Discharges
EPA will also focus on enhancing regulation of discharges of pollution from vessels. Key work
for FY 2006 includes developing standards for cruise ships operating in Alaskan waters;
cooperating with the Department of Defense to develop discharge standards for certain armed
forces vessels; and assessing the effectiveness of current regulations for marine sanitation
devices.
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. 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. In FY 2006, EPA and COE will continue to
focus resources on improving how disposal of dredged material is managed, including evaluating
disposal sites, designating and monitoring the sites. EPA will also review and concur on the
disposal permits issued by COE.
Manage Invasive Species
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 ballast water
from ships. In FY 2006, EPA will assist 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. In addition, EPA will work to develop improved measures for monitoring the
rate of increase of invasive species.
Address International Activities
Internationally, our objective is to protect the environmental quality of U.S. coastal and ocean
waters. U.S. waters are subject to international sources of pollution and EPA's international
efforts in this area are focused on the development and implementation of international standards
necessary to address transboundary sources of pollution, pollution effecting shared ecosystems,
and the introduction of non-indigenous species introduced through maritime shipping. To reach
these ends we are seeking to reduce the successful introduction of invasive species to U.S. waters
through the negotiation of effective international standards addressing ballast water discharges,
G/O-22
-------
harmful anti-foulants, and air emissions from ships. In addition, we are isolating high-level
radioactive wastes in Northwest Russia that threaten the health of shared natural resources in the
Arctic ecosystem. Achievement of the objective and strategic targets will enhance U.S. water
quality, human health, and help stabilize aquatic ecosystems in North America.
Research
EPA's drinking water and water quality research programs conduct leading edge, problem-driven
research to provide a sound scientific foundation for Federal regulatory decision-making. These
efforts will result in strengthened public health and aquatic ecosystem protection by providing
data methods, models, assessments, and technologies for EPA program and regional offices, as
well as state and local authorities.
The drinking water research program will focus on filling key data gaps and developing
analytical detection methods for measuring the occurrence of chemical and microbial
contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) and developing and evaluating cost-
effective treatment technologies for removing pathogens from water supplies while minimizing
microbial/disinfection by-product (M/DBP) formation. The water quality research program will
provide approaches and methods the Agency and its partners need to develop and apply criteria
to support designated uses, tools to diagnose and assess impairment in aquatic systems, and tools
to restore and protect aquatic systems.
In FY 2006, important areas of research emphasis will include: 1) arsenic treatment technologies
for the removal of arsenic from small community drinking water systems; 2) immune response
associated with exposures to waterborne pathogens (e.g., Cryptosporidium, Norwalk virus) and
chemicals (e.g., arsenic, disinfection byproducts) that may contaminate drinking water; 3) habitat
alteration; 4) treatment and contaminant transport and fate from biosolids; 5) reproductive health
effects associated with exposures to DBFs; and 6) improved detection methods for
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in effluents.
EPA manages its water-related research programs according to the Administration's Investment
Criteria for Research and Development. The Agency's detailed, externally-reviewed multi-year
plans for its drinking water and water quality research programs describe clear goals and
priorities, and are periodically updated to reflect changes in science and resources. As part of the
periodic multi-year plan revisions, EPA is examining the design of each program to help identify
its outputs, customers, transfer needs, and short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes.
Beginning in FY 2005, EPA is implementing regular evaluations by independent and external
panels that provide prospective and retrospective review of program relevance, quality, and
performance, including the program's design and performance goals. The Agency's Board of
Scientific Counselors, the chosen mechanism for these reviews, will examine the drinking water
research program in the second quarter of FY 2005. EPA's Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
grants program is also managed according to the Investment Criteria for Research and
Development, ensuring the quality of its extramural research through a competitive, peer-
reviewed awards process. The STAR program engages the Nation's best scientists to provide
high quality, innovative research and solutions to protect human health and the environment.
G/O-23
-------
In FY 2006, a portion of EPA's water research will be accomplished using a new approach to
applied research funding at EPA. This arrangement, based on the existing collaborative
framework between the media and research offices, is designed to ensure continued relevance
and quality of applied research at EPA. In FY 2006, funds will be provided to the Office of
Water to use a fee-for-service arrangement with the Office of Research and Development to
obtain additional research focusing on the Agency's highest priority water research needs.
G/O-24
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up
contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by releases of harmful substances.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
By 2008, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing
recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products at facilities
in ways that prevent releases.
By 2008, control the risks to human health and the environment by mitigating the impact
of accidental or intentional releases and by cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites
or properties to appropriate levels.
Through 2008, provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by
conducting leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and
characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 3.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority / Obligations
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Land Preservation and Restoration
Preserve Land
Restore Land
Enhance Science and Research
Total Workyears
FY 2004
Obligations
$1,722,255.3
$200,414.0
$1,450,870.8
$70,970.5
4,646.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,805,990.8
$239,585.1
$1,509,152.0
$57,253.7
4,763.6
FY 2006
Request
$1,691,463.0
$216,930.9
$1,416,681.8
$57,850.4
4,752.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($114,527.7)
($22,654.2)
($92,470.2)
$596.7
-11.4
Left uncontrolled, hazardous and nonhazardous wastes on the land can migrate to the air,
groundwater, and surface water, contaminating drinking water supplies, causing acute illnesses
or chronic diseases, and threatening healthy ecosystems in urban, rural, and suburban areas.
Hazardous substances can kill living organisms in lakes and rivers, destroy vegetation in
contaminated areas, cause major reproductive complications in wildlife, and otherwise limit the
ability of an ecosystem to survive.
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 implementing prevention programs, improving response capabilities, and
G/O-25
-------
maximizing the effectiveness of response and cleanup actions. This approach will help to ensure
that human health and the environment are protected and that land is returned to beneficial use.
EPA will work to preserve and restore the land with the most effective waste management and
cleanup methods available. EPA will use a hierarchy of approaches to protect the land: reducing
waste at its source, recycling waste, and managing waste effectively by preventing spills and
releases of toxic materials, and cleaning up contaminated properties. 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 (CERCLA, or
Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provide the legal
authority for most of EPA's 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 and Tribes to address risks
associated with leaking underground storage tanks and with the generation and management of
hazardous and nonhazardous wastes at industrial facilities.
EPA also uses authorities provided under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 to protect against spills and releases of hazardous materials. Controlling the many
risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances presents a significant
challenge to protecting the land. EPA's approach integrates prevention, preparedness, and
response activities to minimize these risks. Spill prevention activities keep harmful substances
from being released to the environment. Improving its readiness to respond to emergencies
through training, development of clear authorities, and provision of proper equipment will ensure
that EPA is adequately prepared to minimize contamination and harm to the environment when
spills do occur.
Four themes characterize EPA's land program activities under Goal 3: Revitalization; One
Cleanup Program; Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery; and Homeland
Security.
Revitalization: EPA and its partners are restoring contaminated land to make it economically
productive or available as green space. Like the Agency's Brownfields program included
under Goal 4, these revitalization efforts complement the Agency's traditional cleanup
programs, and enable affected communities to reuse contaminated lands in beneficial ways.
EPA is developing performance measures to assess its success in restoring and revitalizing
sites under all its cleanup programs.
One Cleanup Program: Through the One Cleanup Program, the Agency is looking across its
programs to bring consistency and enhanced effectiveness to site cleanups. The Agency will
work with its partners and stakeholders to enhance coordination, planning, and
communication across the full range of Federal, State, tribal, and local cleanup programs.
This effort will improve the pace, efficiency, and effectiveness of site cleanups, as well as
more fully integrate land reuse and continued use into cleanup programs. The Agency will
promote information technologies that describe waste site cleanup and revitalization
G/O-26
-------
information in ways that keep the public and stakeholders fully informed. Finally, the
Agency will develop environmental outcome performance measures that report progress
among all cleanup programs, such as the number of acres able to be reused after site cleanup.
A crucial element to this effort is a national dialogue, currently underway, on the future of
Superfund and other EPA waste cleanup programs. A crucial element to this effort is a
national dialogue, currently underway, on the future of Superfund and other EPA cleanup
programs.
Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery: EPA's strategy for reducing waste
generation and increasing recycling is based on (1) establishing and expanding partnerships
with businesses, industries, States, communities, and consumers; (2) stimulating
infrastructure development, environmentally responsible behavior by product manufacturers,
users, and disposers ("product stewardship"), and new technologies; and (3) helping
businesses, government, institutions, and consumers through education, outreach, training,
and technical assistance.
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Homeland Security: EPA has a major role in
reducing the risk to human health and the environment posed by accidental or intentional
releases of harmful substances and oil. EPA will continue to improve its capability to
effectively prepare for and respond to these incidents, working closely with other Federal
agencies within the National Response System.
Controlling Risks to Human Health and the Environment at Contaminated Sites
EPA and its partners work to clean up contaminated land to levels sufficient to control risks to
human health and the environment and to return the land to productive use. The Agency's
cleanup activities, some new and some well-established, include removing contaminated soil,
capping or containing contamination in place, pumping and treating groundwater, and
bioremediation.
EPA uses a variety of tools to accomplish cleanups: permits, enforcement actions, consent
agreements, Federal facility agreements, and many other mechanisms. As part of EPA's One
Cleanup Program Initiative, programs at all levels of government will work together to ensure
that appropriate cleanup tools are used; that resources, activities, and results are coordinated with
partners and stakeholders and communicated to the public effectively; and that cleanups are
protective and contribute to community revitalization. The Agency's two major cleanup
programs, Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action, now rely on similar human health and
groundwater protection environmental indicators. Through the One Cleanup Program Initiative,
EPA is working to coordinate across all of its cleanup programs, while maintaining the flexibility
needed to accommodate differences in program authorities and approaches.
EPA fulfills its cleanup and waste management responsibilities on tribal lands by acknowledging
tribal sovereignty and recognizing tribal governments as being the most appropriate authorities
for setting standards, making policy decisions, and managing programs consistent with Agency
standards and regulations. EPA and its partners follow four key steps to accomplish cleanups
and control risks to human health and the environment: assessment, stabilization, selection of
G/O-27
-------
appropriate remedies, and implementation of remedies. EPA will continue to work with its
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.
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 continues to forge
partnerships and develop outreach and education strategies.
To meet its objective to control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated
properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other action, and to make land available for
reuse, EPA intends to achieve the following results in FY 2006:
Make 500 final site-assessment decisions under Superfund;
Control all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination to at or
below health-based levels for current land and/or groundwater use conditions at 10 of the
Superfund human exposure sites;
Control the migration of contaminated groundwater through engineered remedies or
natural processes at 10 of the Superfund groundwater exposure sites;
Select final remedies (cleanup targets) at 20 Superfund sites; and
Complete construction of remedies at 40 Superfund sites.
EPA's enforcement program is critical to the Agency's ability to cleanup the vast majority of the
nation's worst hazardous waste sites. This program secures cleanups from Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) at EPA's priority sites. The PRPs perform approximately 70% of the
long-term cleanups and EPA uses appropriated dollars to pay for the other 30% of the long-term
cleanups. If PRPs do not perform a cleanup, and EPA uses appropriated dollars to clean up sites,
the enforcement program recovers EPA's expenditures from the PRPs.
The Agency has also been encouraging the establishment and use of Special Accounts within the
Superfund Trust Fund. These accounts segregate site-specific funds obtained from responsible
parties that complete settlement agreements with EPA. These funds can be provided as an
incentive for other PRPs to perform work they might not be willing to perform or used by the
Agency to fund cleanup. The result is the Agency can clean up more sites and allows the
Agency to preserve appropriated Trust Fund dollars for other sites without viable PRPs.
This program pursues an "enforcement first" policy to ensure that sites for which there are viable
responsible parties are cleaned up by those parties. In tandem with this approach, various
reforms have been implemented to increase fairness, reduce transaction costs, and promote
economic redevelopment. Enforcement maximizes PRP participation in cleanups while
promoting fairness in the enforcement process, and recovering costs from PRPs when EPA
expends funds. For more information regarding EPA's enforcement program, and its various
components, please refer to www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/.
G/O-28
-------
In FY 2006, the Agency will negotiate remedial design/remedial action cleanup agreements and
removal agreements at contaminated properties. Where negotiations fail, the Agency will either
take unilateral enforcement actions to require PRP cleanup or use appropriated dollars to
remediate sites. When appropriated dollars are used to clean up sites, the program will recover
this money from the PRPs. The Agency will also continue its efforts to establish and use Special
Accounts to facilitate clean up.
By pursuing cost recovery settlements, the program promotes the principle that polluters should
perform or pay for cleanups preserves the Superfund Trust Fund resources for site remediation
where there is no known or viable PRP. The Agency's expenditures will be recouped through
administrative actions, CERCLA section 107 case referrals, and through settlements reached
with the use of alternative dispute resolution.
EPA's financial management offices provide a full array of support services to the Superfund
program including managing oversight billing for Superfund site cleanups and financial cost
recovery.
Encouraging Land Revitalization and Reuse
The goals of the Land Revitalization Initiative are to restore and return contaminated, and
potentially contaminated, properties to beneficial use for America's communities; to ensure that
cleanups protect public health and the environment and that anticipated future uses are fully
considered in all cleanup decisions; and to remove unintended barriers to the restoration and
beneficial reuse of contaminated properties. To achieve this mission, EPA has been working
over the last two years to develop a comprehensive approach to revitalization, and has developed
and implemented a wide range of demonstration projects, redevelopment tools, and educational
efforts. The Agency is also forming partnerships with States, Tribes, other Federal agencies,
local governments, communities, landowners, lenders, developers, and parties potentially
responsible for contamination that can help bring about reuse of formerly contaminated sites.
Usable land 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 returning 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 economic and social
benefits.
Reducing and Recycling Waste
Preventing pollution before it is generated and poses harm is often less costly than cleanup and
remediation. Source reduction and recycling programs can increase resource and energy
efficiencies and thereby reduce pressures on the environment. RCRA directs EPA to minimize
the amount of waste generated and to improve recovery and conservation of materials through
recycling. To this end, EPA builds on partnerships with other Federal agencies; state, tribal, and
local governments; business and industry; and non-governmental organizations. These voluntary
G/O-29
-------
partnerships provide information sharing, recognition, and assistance to improve practices in
both public and private sectors.
EPA launched the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) as a major national effort to find
flexible, yet more protective ways to conserve our valuable natural resources through waste
reduction, energy recovery and recycling. Through the RCC, EPA challenges every American to
prevent pollution and promote recycling and reuse, and conserve energy and materials. The
RCC programs foster source reduction and recycling in business, industry, and government;
encourage local adoption of economic incentives that further source reduction and recycling;
reduce hazardous wastes containing priority chemicals; promote waste-based industries that
concurrently create jobs; foster cost-effective recycling programs in communities and Tribes;
enhance markets for recycled materials by increasing procurement of recycled-content products;
encourage innovative practices that result in more cost-effective source reduction and recycling;
implement the President's Climate Change Action Plan; and provide information to assess and
track progress in reaching national goals.
Reducing waste generation has clear benefits in combating the ever-growing stream of municipal
solid waste (MSW). MSW includes waste generated from residences, commercial
establishments, institutions, and industrial non-process operations. Annual generation of MSW
grew steadily from 88 million to 232 million tons between 1960 and 2000.* In FY 2006, EPA's
municipal solid waste program will implement a set of coordinated strategies, including source
reduction (also called waste prevention), recycling (including composting), combustion with
energy recovery, and landfilling. Preference will be given to strategies that maximize the
diversion of waste from disposal, with source reduction (including reuse) as the highest priority.
To meet its objective for reducing materials use through product and process redesign, and
increasing materials and energy recovery from wastes otherwise requiring disposal, EPA intends
to achieve the following results in FY 2006:
Maintain the national average municipal solid waste generation rate at no more than 4.5
pounds per person per day; and
Divert 33.4 percent (80 million tons) of municipal solid waste from landfilling and
combustion.
Recognizing that some hazardous wastes cannot be completely eliminated or recycled, the
RCRA program works to reduce exposure to hazardous wastes by maintaining a cradle-to-grave
approach to waste management. The program's primary focus is to prevent hazardous releases
from RCRA facilities and reduce emissions from hazardous waste combustion through a
combination of regulations, permits and voluntary standards. State program authorization
provides the States with primary RCRA implementation and enforcement authority; reduces
overlapping and dual implementation by the States and EPA; provides the regulated community
with one set of regulations; reduces overall Federal enforcement presence in the States; and can
1 US Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures, Executive
Summary, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, October 2003. Available online at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/msw99.htm. Last updated November 5, 2003.
G/O-30
-------
provide the opportunity for some of the newer, less-stringent RCRA regulations to be
implemented by the States. To date, 48 States, Guam, and the District of Columbia are
authorized to issue permits. Strong state partnerships, the authorization of States for all portions
of the RCRA hazardous waste program, including regulations that address waste management
issues contained in permits, and results-oriented state oversight are important goals.
In managing petroleum products properly, EPA works with States, Tribes and Intertribal
Consortia to prevent, detect, and correct leaks into the environment from federally regulated
underground storage tanks (USTs) containing petroleum and hazardous substances. Achieving
significant improvements in release prevention and detection requires a sustained emphasis by
both EPA and its partners. Because States are the primary enforcers of the UST program
requirements, EPA has adopted a decentralized approach to UST program implementation by
building and supporting strong state and local programs. Concerns about the use of fuel
oxygenates (e.g., methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE) in gasoline further underscores EPA's
and the States' emphasis on promoting compliance with all UST requirements. EPA provides
technical information, forums for information exchanges and training opportunities to States,
Tribes and Intertribal Consortia to encourage program development and/or implementation of the
UST program.
To meet its objective for reducing releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes
and petroleum products properly, EPA intends to achieve the following results in FY 2006:
Prevent releases from RCRA hazardous waste management facilities by increasing the
number of facilities with permits or other approved controls by 2.5 percent over the FY 2005
level. At the end of FY 2004, 86 percent of the facilities had permits or other approved
controls;2
Increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance with
both release detection and release prevention (spill, overfill, and corrosion protection)
requirements to 66 percent of the estimated universe of approximately 256,000 facilities; and
Reduce the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to 10,000 or fewer. (Between FY
1999 and FY 2004, confirmed releases averaged 12,641).
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Homeland Security
EPA will continue to improve its emergency preparedness and response capability, particularly
in terms of homeland security. 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 multi-agency National Response System (NRS), EPA evaluates and responds to
thousands of releases annually. EPA's primary role in the NRS is to serve as the Federal On-
Scene Coordinator (OSC) for spills and releases in the inland zone. As a result of NRS efforts,
many major oil spills and releases of hazardous substances have been contained, minimizing the
adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
2 Approximately 2,750 hazardous waste management facilities are currently regulated under RCRA. EPA plans to reassess this
universe in FY 2006.
G/O-31
-------
An important component of EPA's land strategy is to prevent oil spills from reaching our
Nation's waters. Under the Oil Pollution Act, the Agency requires certain facilities (defined in
40 CFR 112.2) to develop and implement spill prevention, control, and countermeasure (SPCC)
plans. Compliance with these requirements reduces the number of oil spills that reach navigable
waters and prevents detrimental effects on human health and the environment should a spill
occur.
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 and earthquakes, to large-scale
terrorist events.
EPA will work to improve its capability to respond effectively to incidents that may involve
harmful chemical, oil, biological, and radiological substances. The Agency will explore
improvements in field and personal protection equipment and response training and exercises;
review response data provided in the "after-action" reports prepared by EPA emergency
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 operations.
Responding to small and large-scale disasters is one of EPA's traditional responsibilities
supported by the OSCs, the Environmental Response Team (ERT), and the National
Decontamination Team (NDT). The Agency's crucial role in responding to the World Trade
Center and Pentagon attacks, the decontamination of anthrax and ricin in a U.S. Senate Office
Building, and the response to the Columbia shuttle disaster have further defined the nation's
expectations of EPA's emergency response capabilities.
The FY 2006 President's Budget request includes additional funding to enable EPA to improve
the capabilities of EPA's responders through procurement of state-of-the-art equipment, develop
a new Environmental Laboratory Preparedness and Response (ELPR) program to strengthen
such lab capabilities, support readiness for pre-deployments to national security special events,
and develop decontamination protocols.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to implement its homeland security plans and procedures and
meet its responsibilities to respond to major hazardous substance, oil, weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) or nationally significant terrorist incidents. EPA will prepare for the
possibility of simultaneous attacks on more than one target and will implement the National
Approach to Response (NAR), which is EPA's internal multi-faceted mechanism to effectively
manage and conduct responses to nationally significant events. The NDT will improve its
specialized decontamination capabilities to address chemical and biological and/or radiological
agents in both environmental and building contamination situations. The ERT will provide
training and specialized scientific, technical, and health and safety support to EPA's responders.
To meet its objective to reduce and control the risks posed by accidental or intentional releases of
harmful substances by improving our Nation's capability to prepare for and respond more
effectively to these emergencies, EPA intends to achieve the following results in FY 2006:
G/O-32
-------
Improve the Agency's emergency preparedness by achieving and maintaining the capability
to respond to simultaneous large-scale emergencies and by improving response readiness by
10 percent from the previous year using the core emergency response criteria;
Respond to 350 hazardous substance releases and 300 oil spills; and
Inspect or conduct exercises or drills at approximately 100 oil storage facilities required to
have Facility Response Plans.
Enhancing Science and Research to Restore and Preserve Land
The FY 2006 land research program supports the Agency's objective of reducing or controlling
potential risks to human health and the environment at contaminated waste sites by accelerating
scientifically-defensible and cost-effective decisions for cleanup at complex sites, mining sites,
marine spills, and Brownfields in accordance with CERCLA. These research efforts will
improve the range and scientific foundation for contaminated sediment remedy selection options
by improving risk characterization and site characterization, and increasing understanding of
different remedial options, in order to optimize environmental and human health protection and
the cost-effectiveness of remedial decisions.
Funding for the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program will be reduced,
existing contracts will be closed out, and the program will be terminated in FY 2006. As the
Superfund program has matured, innovative approaches evaluated through the SITE program and
other mechanisms have become standard tools for remediation. Additionally, the business of
environmental remediation has matured and the private sector now offers many more
opportunities for vendors to promote their products and systems.
Multimedia decision-making and waste management constitute the two major areas of research
under RCRA in FY 2006, as the Agency works toward preventing releases through proper
facility management. Multimedia research will focus on resource conservation (e.g., electronic
waste recycling and waste-derived products), corrective action, and multimedia modeling.
Research will enhance sustainability by providing technical reports and technical support on
methods to improve industrial and municipal waste management. Waste management research
continues to advance multimedia modeling and uncertainty/sensitivity analyses methodologies
that support core RCRA program needs as well as emerging RCRA resource conservation needs.
EPA manages its research to support land preservation and remediation programs according to
the Administration's Investment Criteria for Research and Development. The Agency's detailed,
externally-reviewed multi-year plans for its Contaminated Sites and RCRA-related research
programs describe clear goals and priorities, and are periodically updated to reflect changes in
science and resources. As part of the periodic multi-year plan revisions, EPA is examining the
design of each program to help identify its outputs, customers, transfer needs, and short-,
intermediate-, and long-term outcomes. Beginning in FY 2005, EPA is implementing regular
evaluations by independent and external panels that provide prospective and retrospective review
of program relevance, quality, and performance, including the program's design and
G/O-33
-------
performance goals. The Agency's Board of Scientific Counselors, the chosen mechanism for
these reviews, will examine the land protection and restoration research program in 2005.
In FY 2006, a portion of EPA's land preservation and restoration research will be accomplished
using a new approach to applied research funding at EPA. This arrangement, based on the
existing collaborative framework between the media and research offices, is designed to ensure
continued relevance and quality of applied research at EPA. In FY 2006, funds will be provided
to the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to use a fee-for-service arrangement with
the Office of Research and Development to obtain additional research focusing on the Agency's
highest priority land preservation and restoration research needs.
G/O-34
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated
and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered biological organism
risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
Enhance the Nation's capability to prevent, detect, protect, and recover from acts of
terror.
Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of protecting,
sustaining, and restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by
conducting leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and
characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 4.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority / Obligations
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Communities
Ecosystems
Enhance Science and Research
Total Workyears
FY 2004
Obligations
$1,222,772.7
$364,699.2
$282,939.8
$155,528.1
$419,605.6
3,825.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,292,007.7
$366,759.0
$324,792.2
$205,463.2
$394,993.3
3,844.8
FY 2006
Request
$1,336,247.8
$392,044.8
$325,437.0
$203,902.9
$414,863.1
3,834.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$44,240.1
$25,285.8
$644.8
($1,560.2)
$19,869.8
-10.1
To promote healthy communities and ecosystems, EPA must bring together a variety of
programs, tools, approaches and resources. The support of a multitude of stakeholders, along
with strong partnerships with Federal, state, tribal and local governments, are necessary to
achieve the Agency's goal of protecting, sustaining or restoring healthy communities and
ecosystems.
G/O-35
-------
A key component of this goal is protecting human health and the environment by identifying,
assessing, and reducing the potential risks presented by the thousands of chemicals and
pesticides on which our society and economy have come to depend.
EPA must also address the emerging challenges posed by a growing array of biological
organismsnaturally occurring and, increasingly, genetically engineeredthat are being used in
industrial and agricultural processes.
Biological agents are potential weapons that could be exploited by terrorists against the United
States. EPA's pesticides antimicrobial program has been very responsive to addressing this
threat. Antimicrobials play an important role in public health and safety. EPA is conducting
comprehensive scientific assessments and developing test protocols to determine product safety
and efficacy of products used against chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, and
registering products as necessary.
EPA programs under this Goal have many indirect benefits. For example, each year the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) New Chemicals program reviews and manages the potential
risks from approximately 1,800 new chemicals and 40 products of biotechnology that enter the
marketplace. This new chemical review process not only protects the public from the possible
immediate threats of harmful chemicals, but it has also contributed to changing the behavior of
the chemical industry, making industry more aware and responsible for the impact these
chemicals have on human health and the environment.
Americans come into daily contact with any number of chemicals that entered the market before
the New Chemicals Program was established in 1978, yet relatively little is known about many
of their potential impacts. Obtaining basic hazard testing information on large volume chemicals
is one focus of EPA's work in the Existing Chemicals program. The voluntary High Production
Volume program challenges industry to develop chemical hazard data critical to enabling EPA,
States, Tribes, and the public to screen chemicals already in commerce for any risks they may be
posing. EPA's responsibility for managing the known risks of other chemicals centers on
reducing exposure through proper handling or disposal.
The Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) Program was designed by EPA to provide
scientifically credible data to directly support chemical emergency planning, response, and
prevention programs mandated by Congress. Emergency workers and first responders
addressing accidental or intentional chemical releases need to know how dangerous a chemical
contaminant may be to breathe or touch, and how long it may remain dangerous. The program
develops short-term exposure limits applicable to the general population for a wide range of
extremely hazardous substances (approximately 400).
This goal also focuses on geographic areas with human and ecological communities most at risk.
For example, the Mexican Border is an area facing unique environmental challenges. At the
Mexican Border, EPA addresses local pollution and infrastructure needs that are priorities for the
Mexican and the U.S. governments under the Border 2012 agreement.
G/O-36
-------
As the population in coastal regions grows, the challenges to preserve and protect these
important ecosystems increase. Through the National Estuary Program, coastal areas have
proved valuable grounds for combining innovative and community-based approaches with
national guidelines and interagency coordination to achieve results.
Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems in the world, comparable to rain forests and
coral reefs. Yet the nation loses an estimated 58,000 acres per year, and existing wetlands may
be degraded by excessive sedimentation, nutrient enrichment, and other factors.1
In 2001 the Supreme Court determined that some isolated waters and wetlands are not regulated
under the Clean Water Act. Many waters with important aquatic values may no longer be
covered by CWA Section 404 protections. However, in FY 2006, EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers (CORPS) will continue to strive towards the Administration's commitment of "no net
loss" of wetlands in the United States.
Large water bodies like the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the Chesapeake Bay are
surrounded by industrial and other development and have been exposed to substantial pollution
over many years at levels higher than current environmental standards permit. As a result, the
volume of pollutants in these water bodies has exceeded their natural ability to restore balance.
Working with stakeholders, EPA has established special programs to protect and restore these
unique resources by addressing the vulnerabilities for each.
EPA's Brownfields Initiative to clean up brownfields and return them to use funds pilot
programs and other research efforts; clarifies liability issues; enters into Federal, state and local
partnerships; conducts outreach activities; and creates related job training and workforce
development programs.
The Agency will continue to support the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) which provides the Agency significant input from interested stakeholders such as
community-based organizations, business and industry, academic institutions, State, tribal and
local governments, non-governmental organizations and environmental groups.
EPA also has a responsibility to ensure that efforts to reduce potential environmental risks are
based on the best available scientific information. Strong science allows identification of the
most important sources of risk to human health and the environment as well as the best means to
detect, abate, and avoid possible environmental problems, and thereby guides our priorities,
policies, and deployment of resources. Under Goal 4, EPA will conduct research in many areas,
including emerging areas such as biotechnology and computational toxicology, to help develop
better understandings and characterizations of positive environmental outcomes related to
healthy communities and ecosystems.
1 Dahl, I.E. 1990. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 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.html: Report to Congress on the Status and Trends of Wetlands in the
Conterminous United States, 1986 to 1997.
G/O-37
-------
In coordination with our state and tribal co-regulators and co-implementers and with the support
of industry, environmental groups, and other stakeholders, EPA will use multiple approaches to
address risks associated with chemicals and pesticides. Improving communities' ability to
address local problems is a critical part of our efforts to reduce risk.
Pesticides and Chemicals Programs
EPA will continue using both voluntary and regulatory approaches to address risks associated
with the use of pesticides in the home, work environment and agricultural settings. These
approaches include identifying and assessing potential risks from pesticides, setting priorities for
addressing these risks, strategizing for reducing these risks, and promoting innovative and
alternative measures of pest control, such as environmental stewardship/integrated pest
management (IPM). In addition, EPA will strengthen education and training of workers and the
public and promote the registration and use of reduced risk pesticides.
EPA will make progress towards its objective of protecting human health, communities and
ecosystems from pesticide use by focusing on meeting our Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
statutory mandate of completing the assessment of all existing tolerances (9,721). This process
includes the issuance of all food use Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions (REDs). These
regulatory actions will ensure that pesticides on the market and the associated tolerance residues
remain safe for the public and the environment. EPA will also continue identifying candidates
for countering potential bioterrorist use of pesticides and biopesticides.
*TOLERANCE REASSESSMENT SUMMARY BREAKDOWN
Category
Organophosphates
Carbamates
Organochlorine
Carcinogen
High Hazard Inert
Other
TOTALS
*KPA's
Tolerances
to be
Reassessed
1691
545
253
2008
5
5219
9721
Total
Reassessed as
of 7/20/04
1131
305
253
1329
3
3723
6744
Tolerances
Remaining
560
240
0
679
2
1496
2977
Tolerance Index. Tolerance Tracking Systems and Tolerance Reassessment
Percentage
Reassessed
66.88%
55.96%
100%
66.19%
60.00%
71.33%
69.37%
Database.
EPA plans to emphasize the continuation and further development of programs for the review of
new and existing chemicals. On the new chemicals front, the Agency will continue to carry out
its mandate to review potential risks from newly manufactured or imported chemicals before
G/O-38
-------
they are introduced to commerce. EPA's "Sustainable Futures" program encourages chemical
manufacturers to apply pollution prevention techniques in the design of new chemicals, so that
chemicals entering the new chemical review process will be less hazardous and less risky.
In addressing chemicals that have entered the market before the inception of the new chemical
review program, EPA will continue to implement its voluntary High Production Volume (HPV)
Chemicals Program, which challenges industry to develop chemical hazard data on existing
chemicals that it chooses to "sponsor." This will enable EPA and the public to screen many
chemicals already in commerce for risks they may be posing. Complementing HPV is the
Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP), a high-priority screening
program targeting existing chemicals believed to have particular impact on children's health.
We will make special efforts to assess the potential risks of newly developed substitutes for a
chemical category of emerging concern: brominated flame retardants. EPA is working to
engage stakeholders in a cooperative process to evaluate the efficacy and potential risks of
developing flame retardants.
The Agency will continue to manage its programs to address specific chemicals of concern,
including lead, mineral fibers, dioxin, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals generally. The lead program will shift its
focus from oversight and rule development at the Headquarters level to regional oversight of
activities supported through grant funding - such as state-implemented lead-based paint training
and certification programs and efforts targeted to high-risk areas and on implementation of a
few of the highest priority regulatory and outreach efforts. EPA will continue to implement a
national voluntary phase-out of PCB Large Capacitors and PCB Transformers, focusing on
major Federal and private owners and operators of electrical equipment. Priorities include the
identification of opportunities for replacement of older, less efficient equipment with newer,
more efficient equipment and the accelerated phase-out of PCB-containing electrical equipment
as supplemental environmental projects. The Agency will continue to work with the Maritime
Administration (MARAD) in order to dispose of its fleet of obsolete ships containing equipment
that uses PCBs.
The Agency will continue Homeland Security activities focused on identifying and reviewing
proposed pesticides for use against pathogens of greatest concern for crops, animals, and humans
in advance of their potential introduction, including testing of antimicrobial products to
determine which are effective against human pathogens. If the safety concerns are met, and the
product is effective (in the case of antimicrobials), EPA can approve use of the product. Close
cooperation with other Federal agencies and industry will continue in order to carry out these
activities which directly respond to requirements in Homeland Security Presidential Directives 9
and 10. Additionally, EPA's Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) program will continue
to develop proposed AEGL values.
The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program provides the public with information on the releases
and other waste management of toxic chemicals. Two laws, Section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) and Section 6607 of the Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA), mandate that EPA annually collect information on listed toxic chemicals
G/O-39
-------
from certain industries and make the information available to the public through various means,
including a publicly accessible national database.
Mexico Border Water Quality
The United States and Mexico have a long-standing commitment to protect the environment and
public health in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region. 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 communities to improve the region's environmental health using the Border 2012 Plan.
Under this Plan, EPA expects to take several key actions to improve water quality and protect
public health.
Core Program Implementation: EPA will continue to implement core programs under
the Clean Water Act (CWA) and related authorities, ranging from discharge permit
issuance, to watershed restoration, to nonpoint pollution control.
Wastewater Treatment Financing: Federal, state, and local institutions participate in
border area efforts to improve water quality through the construction of infrastructure and
development of pretreatment programs. Specifically, Mexico's National Water
Commission (CNA) and EPA provide funding and technical assistance for project
planning and construction.
Build Partnerships: Since 1995, the NAFTA-created institutions, the Border
Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development
Bank (NADBank), have had the primary role in working with communities to develop
and construct infrastructure projects. In FY 2006, EPA will establish a workgroup with
Mexico to develop a workplan to define specific steps needed to accomplish the water
quality improvement goals expressed in the Border 2012 Plan.
Protection and Restoration of Ecosystems
The National Estuary Program (NEP) is a key tool for restoring and protecting the quality of the
nation's ecosystems. The NEP provides inclusive, community-based planning and action at the
watershed level and has an established record of improvements to ecosystem conditions.
A top priority in FY 2006 is to continue supporting the efforts to implement Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans in all 28 NEP estuaries. A critical measure of success is
the number of priority actions in these plans that have been initiated and the number that have
been completed. EPA created a baseline to track priority actions in 2004 and now tracks
implementation of actions.
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, environmental, and aesthetic functions
on which coastal populations depend for their livelihood. A key success has been the restoration
of over 500,000 acres of habitat over the past decade. For 2006, EPA has set a goal of protecting
or restoring an additional 25,000 acres of habitat within the 28 study areas.
G/O-40
-------
Finally, EPA will work with National Estuary Programs in FY 2006 to improve information
about conditions in the estuaries. Starting in FY 2005, each program will have indicators in
place to track environmental trends in the estuary. In FY 2006, EPA will develop and issue a
baseline report on the condition of NEP estuaries modeled after the National Coastal Condition
Report.
Wetlands Protection
Wetlands are among our Nation's most critical and productive natural resources. They provide a
variety of benefits, such as water quality improvements, flood protection, shoreline erosion
control, and ground water exchange. Wetlands are the primary habitat for fish, waterfowl, and
wildlife, and as such, provide numerous opportunities for education, recreation, and research.
EPA recognizes that the challenges the Nation faces to conserve our wetland heritage are
daunting and that many partners must work together for this effort to succeed. EPA's strategy
for meeting wetland goals in FY 2006 is described below.
Net Gain Goal: Meeting the "net gain" element of the wetland goal will be
accomplished by other Federal programs (Farm Bill agriculture incentive programs and
wetlands acquisition and restoration programs, including those administered by Fish and
Wildlife Service) and non-Federal programs. EPA contributes to achieving no overall net
loss through EPA's regulatory programs, including the Clean Water Act Section 404/401
permit review, compliance and enforcement, and other programs. EPA will also support
States, Tribes, and others to protect and restore wetlands and build capacity to increase
wetland functionality.
In implementing these responsibilities, each Region will identify watersheds where
wetlands and other aquatic resources are most at risk, including from cumulative impacts.
EPA will improve levels of protection through actions that include: working with and
integrating wetlands protection into other EPA programs such as Section 319, State
Revolving Fund, National Estuary Program; working with the Corps of Engineers (COE)
and/or States on permitting and mitigation compliance; providing grants and technical
assistance to state, tribal or local organizations; and developing information, education
and outreach tools.
No Net Loss: Building upon the analysis of existing mitigation data base systems, the
Corps, EPA, USDA, DOI, and NOAA will establish a shared mitigation database by FY
2005. Utilizing the shared database, the Agencies will provide an annual public report
card on compensatory mitigation to complement reporting of other wetlands programs.
To help ensure no net loss of aquatic resources the Corps has initiated six new
performance measures designed to improve permitting and mitigation compliance,
including compliance inspections and audits, and resolution of enforcement actions.
EPA will work with the COE to ensure application of the 404(b)(l) guidelines, which require
that discharges into waters of the U.S. be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable. Each
Region will also identify opportunities to partner with the Corps in meeting performance
measures for compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
G/O-41
-------
Targeted Watershed Grant Program
The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program, now in its third year, is designed to encourage
successful community-based approaches and management techniques to protect and restore the
nation's waters. This a competitive grant program predicated on the following fundamental
principles of environmental improvement: collaboration, new technologies, market incentives,
and results-oriented strategies. The organizations chosen to receive funds use the resources for a
variety of restoration, protection and trading projects. Money is used to stabilize stream banks,
demonstrate innovative nutrient management schemes, establish pollutant credits, and work with
local governments and private citizens to promote sustainable practices and strategies. Grants
range from $300,000 to $1,300,000, with an additional 25 percent leveraged from other sources.
Protecting the Great Lakes
As the largest freshwater system on the face of the earth (containing 20 percent of the earth's
surface water and 90 percent of the surface water in the United States), the Great Lakes
ecosystem holds the key to the quality of life and economic prosperity for tens of millions of
people. While significant progress has been made to restore the environmental health of the
Great Lakes, work remains.
Over the upcoming year, the local, state, tribal, and Federal Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
will work together to develop a strategy to address Great Lakes water quality. The Regional
Collaboration was called for as part of the President's May 2004 Executive Order, directing EPA
to establish the great Lakes Task force to coordinate the Federal effort to improve water quality
in the Great Lakes. The strategy will focus on outcomes like cleaner water and sustainable
fisheries, and targeting measurable results and build upon priority setting work done by the eight
Great Lakes governors and by partners to the Great Lakes Strategy 2002: A Plan for the New
Millennium. Objectives of strategy include cleaning up and de-listing at least 10 Areas of
Concern by 2010, a 25 percent reduction in PCB concentrations in lake trout and walleye, and
restoration or enhancement of 100,000 acres of wetlands in the Great Lakes Basin. In FY 2006,
EPA will give special attention to work in the following three areas:
Core Clean Water Programs: While the Great Lakes face a range of unique pollution
problems (extensive sediment contamination) they also face problem common to most
other waterbodies around the country. Core clean water programs must be fully and
effectively implemented throughout the Great Lakes Basin. EPA will focus on assuring
that by 2008, 100 percent of the major, permitted discharges to the Lakes or major
tributaries have permits that reflect the most current standards. In addition, EPA will
focus on assuring that 95 percent of permits are consistent with the national Combined
Sewer Overflow Policy.
Great Lakes Legacy Act: Restoration of contaminated sediments around the Great
Lakes is a critical step toward meeting water quality goals. In FY 2006, EPA will
expedite work to address contaminated sediment. In FY 2006 EPA anticipates
remediation efforts will result in cleanup of over one-quarter million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments, with cleanup beginning at approximately 6 sites.
G/O-42
-------
Implementing Expanded Beach Safety Programs: In FY 2006, EPA will work with
States to both improve the state water quality standards for bacteria in recreational waters
and to implement the BEACH Act (see Goal 2). EPA has a goal that lOOpercent of high
priority beaches around the Great Lakes are served by water quality monitoring and
public notification programs consistent with the BEACH Act guidance.
Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and a water resource of
tremendous ecological and economic importance. For over twenty years, efforts to protect and
restore the Bay have been led by the Chesapeake Bay Executive CouncilBay area governors,
the mayor of the District of Columbia; the EPA Administrator, and the chair of the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body. This unique regional partnership has defined
environmental improvements needed in the Bay and developed a strategy that blends regulatory
and voluntary processes.
One of the key measures of success in achieving improved Chesapeake Bay water quality will be
the restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation. To achieve improved water quality needed to
restore submerged aquatic vegetation, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners 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. EPA and Bay area States have agreed
to an approach to meeting restoration goals for Chesapeake Bay including the following key
actions for FY 2006:
Implement Pollution Reduction Strategies: States have developed pollution reduction
strategies for each of the watersheds within the larger Bay watershed. These strategies
define specific, localized approaches to meeting new state water quality standards and to
restoring impaired waters by the year 2010. Although each strategy will describe a series
of steps specifically designed for that watershed, most strategies will address the need for
advanced treatment at sewage treatment plants, the need to reduce nutrients and
sediments from farms, and the need to expand streamside buffers.
Core Programs in the Bay Area: In addition to new watershed-specific strategies, EPA
and state partners will continue to implement core clean water programs that are essential
to maintaining past progress in improving the health of the Bay. For example, Bay area
States will continue to provide low interest loans for the financing of sewage treatment
systems and will continue to implement comprehensive, statewide programs for reducing
nonpoint sources of pollution. The discharge permit program will provide controls on
discharges from storm water facilities, confined animal feeding operations, sewage
treatment plans and combined sewer overflows.
Protecting the Gulf of Mexico
The Gulf of Mexico basin has been called "America's Watershed." Its U.S. coastline is 1,630
miles, it is fed by thirty-three major rivers, and it receives drainage from 31 States in addition to
a similar drainage area from Mexico. One sixth of the U.S. population now lives in Gulf Coast
G/O-43
-------
states. For FY 2006, EPA has worked with States and other partners to define key activities to
support attainment of environmental and health goals. These activities fall into three categories:
Core Clean Water Programs: The Clean Water Act provides authority and resources
that are essential to protecting water quality in the Gulf of Mexico and in the larger
Mississippi River Basin that contributes pollution, especially oxygen demanding
nutrients, to the Gulf. EPA will work with States to assure the continued effective
implementation of core clean water programs, ranging from discharge permits, to
nonpoint pollution controls, to wastewater treatment, to protection of wetlands.
Protecting and Restoring the Gulf of Mexico: A central pillar of the strategy to restore
the health of the Gulf is restoration of water quality and habitat in 12 priority coastal
watersheds. These 12 watersheds include 354 of the impaired segments identified by
States around the Gulf and will receive targeted technical and financial assistance to
restore impaired waters. The 2008 goal is to fully attain water quality standards in at
least 20 percent of these segments.
Reducing the Size of the Hypoxic Zone: Any strategy to improve the overall health of
the entire Gulf of Mexico must include a focused effort to reduce the size of the zone of
hypoxic conditions (i.e. low oxygen in the water) in the northern Gulf. Actions to
address this problem will need to focus on both localized addition of pollution to the Gulf
and on controlling the loadings of nutrients from the Mississippi River.
In working to accomplish this goal, EPA and other Federal agencies will continue
implementation of core clean water programs and partnerships among agencies; specific
efforts in FY 2006 will include:
Work with States to select a project watershed in each of the States in the Lower
Mississippi River Basin to reduce nitrogen loadings to the lower Mississippi
River;
Work with States and other partners to identify "100 Highest Opportunity
Watersheds" where nitrogen reduction strategies will be implemented;
Implement the "Friends of the Gulf award program to recognize corporations,
organizations, or individuals that have taken effective, voluntary measures to
reduce nutrient inputs; and
Work with the private sector to support Industry Led Solutions for reducing both
point and nonpoint sources.
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
To reduce or eliminate the potential risks associated with chemical releases, EPA must first
identify and understand potential chemical risks and releases. EPA will use information
generated by the Risk Management Program (RMP), Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRAX and the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
program to supplement data on potential chemical risks and to develop voluntary initiatives and
activities to reduce risk at high-risk facilities, priority industry sectors, and/or specific geographic
G/O-44
-------
areas. To meet its objective of protecting human health, communities, and ecosystems from
chemical releases through facility risk reduction efforts and building community infrastructures,
EPA, working with state and local implementing agencies, intends to complete 100 RMP audits
in FY 2006.
EPA will collect information from the local emergency planning committees (LEPCs)
during FYs 2004-2006 to determine the extent to which they have incorporated appropriate
facility risk information into their emergency preparedness and community right-to-know
programs. This information will serve as a baseline from which EPA will track progress toward
this strategic goal. EPA will also continue an initiative to improve and enhance emergency
preparedness and prevention in tribal communities.
Brownfields
Economic changes over several decades have left thousands of communities with these
contaminated properties and abandoned sites. Working with its state, tribal, and local partners to
meet its objective to sustain, cleanup, and restore communities and the ecological systems that
support them. Together with extension of the Brownfields tax credit, EPA intends to achieve the
following results in FY 2006:
Assess 1,000 Brownfields properties
Clean up 60 properties using Brownfields funding
Leverage $1 billion in cleanup/redevelopment funding
Leverage 5,000 jobs
Train 200 participants, placing 65 percent in jobs
Community Action to Renew the Environment
EPA supports community-based, multi-media approaches to the reductions of toxics through the
Community Action to Renew the Environment (CARE) program. This program fills a gap in
our national programs which provide a broad level of basic health and environmental protection
but which do not always sufficiently meet the needs of all communities, especially those which
are overburdened by toxic pollutants. CARE works to reduce those risks through cost-
effective, tailored and immediate actions. Grants will be awarded to provide funding for
communities to organize and assess the risks in their community and to take action to reduce
those risks. The program also provides multi-media risk reduction and risk assessment tools,
models to assist communities in identifying, prioritizing and reducing risks. This program will
result in measurable results in the reduction of exposures to toxic pollutants including toxic
chemicals, lead, pesticides and particulates, as well as a reduction in exposure to asthma triggers.
Smart Growth
The Smart Growth program achieves measurably improved environmental and economic
outcomes by working with States, communities, industry leaders, and nonprofit organizations to
minimize the environmental impacts of development. EPA provides tools, technical assistance,
education, research and environmental data to help States and communities grow in ways that
G/O-45
-------
minimize environmental and health impacts and evaluate environmental consequences of various
development patterns. EPA's Smart Growth activities and tools show community and
government leaders how they can meet environmental standards through innovative community
design and identify and research new policy initiatives to improve environmental quality by
supporting environmentally friendly development patterns. In FY 06, EPA plans to build upon
its work in Smart Growth outreach and direct implementation assistance.
EPA will also continue to coordinate smart growth work with EPA's Brownfield program to
reuse and revitalize vacant and abandoned properties. EPA plans to continue developing
incentives for brownfield redevelopment, provide direct assistance to communities working on
brownfields, and maintain our education and outreach on innovative methods for brownfield
redevelopment.
Research
EPA has a responsibility to ensure that efforts to reduce potential environmental risks are based
on the best available scientific information. Strong science allows identification of the most
important sources of risk to human health and the environment as well as the best means to
detect, abate, and avoid possible environmental problems, and thereby guides our priorities,
policies, and deployment of resources.
To enable the Agency to enhance science and research for human health, communities, and
ecosystems through 2008, EPA will engage in high priority, multidisciplinary research efforts to
improve understanding of the risks associated with: 1) human health and ecosystems; 2)
mercury; 3) pesticides and toxics; 4) computational toxicology; 5) endocrine disrupters; 6) global
change; and 7) homeland security. The Agency also is proposing an Advanced Monitoring
Initiative (AMI) for FY 2006, which will bring the best monitoring data and information into
environmental decision making to protect human health and the environment.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue research efforts on susceptible subpopulations to support the
National Children's Study (NCS). The Agency will collaborate with the NCS Interagency
Consortium to assess the early pre- and post-natal NCS results, and develop tools for
characterizing environmental risks to young children and adolescents participating in the study.
Also, the Agency's human health risk assessment research program expects to produce 32 final
and external review draft dose-response assessments of high priority chemicals in support of
Program Office, Regional, state and tribal risk assessment needs. These include three
assessments of microbial contaminant risks in support of Contaminant Candidate List (CCL)
regulatory determinations by EPA's Water program; and one final Air Quality Criteria
Document (AQCD-ozone) and one external review draft AQCD (lead) to support National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) decision-making.
In order to better understand the current condition of ecosystems, what stressors are changing
that condition, what the effects are of those changes, and what can be done to prevent, mitigate,
or adapt to those changes the Agency's ecosystems research will continue to develop approaches
to identify and test the linkages between probability-based and targeted water quality monitoring
G/O-46
-------
programs, landscape characteristics, and the probability of water body impairment. Monitoring
methods and decision support systems will continue being developed and diagnosis and
forecasting models previously developed will be applied to provide a better scientific basis for
ecosystem protection and restoration. In FY 2006 EPA will also continue research to evaluate the
effectiveness of restoration options for aquatic ecosystems, with particular emphasis on options
for the Mid-Atlantic Region and the western United States.
In the mercury research program, research will focus on evaluating the cost and performance of
options to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired utility boilers and further testing of
continuous source emission monitors (CEMs). Work on control technologies will include pilot-
and full-scale testing of systems that optimize mercury, SC>2, and NOx control from the
combustion of bituminous, sub-bituminous, and lignite coals and evaluation of the performance
and cost of promising control technologies under development (e.g., new sorbents) and assessing
how these technologies impact the characteristics of coal combustion residues.
EPA continues to make real progress in the area of computational toxicology. In FY 2006, the
Agency expects to deliver the first alternative assay for animal testing of environmental
toxicants. This assay could be a replacement for a currently used animal-based assay in the Tier
1 screening battery of compounds that may disrupt the body's endocrine or hormonal systems.
Also, under its endocrine disrupters research program, the Agency has developed and refined
assays so that its Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances program has the necessary
protocols to validate for use in the Agency's Endocrine Disrupters Screening Program and in FY
2006 will develop a report on a protocol to screen environmental chemicals for their ability to
interact with the male hormone receptor.
EPA's homeland security research program supports the Administration's R&D priority of
addressing our Nation's ability to prevent, detect, treat, remediate, and attribute acts of terrorism.
Homeland Security research will continue to enhance the state of knowledge of potential threats,
as well as response capabilities in accordance with Homeland Security Presidential Directives
(HSPDs). Areas of emphasis will include decontamination and consequence management, water
infrastructure protection, and threat and consequence assessment.
The Agency will also train the next generation of environmental scientists through its fellowship
programs and seek to identify emerging risks and opportunities in nanotechnology through its
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program exploratory grants program.
EPA continues to work closely with the Administration's Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP). EPA's Global Change Research Program is focused on understanding the potential
consequences of global change with the goal of producing information that can be readily used
by policymakers to understand the various potential impacts of global change and to formulate
strategies to effectively respond to the risks and opportunities presented by global change. In
addition, EPA manages its basic research programs according to the Administration's Investment
Criteria for Research and Development. Specifically, the Agency's detailed, externally-reviewed
multi-year plans for its research programs describe clear goals and priorities, and are periodically
updated to reflect changes in science and resources.
G/O-47
-------
As part of the periodic multi-year plan revisions, EPA is examining the design of each program
to help identify its outputs, customers, transfer needs, and short-, intermediate-, and long-term
outcomes. Beginning in FY 2005, EPA is implementing regular evaluations by independent and
external panels that provide prospective and retrospective review of program relevance, quality,
and performance, including the program's design and performance goals. The Agency's Board
of Scientific Counselors, the chosen mechanism for these reviews, will examine the ecosystems
protection and human health research programs in the second quarter of FY2005. EPA's
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants program is also managed according to the Investment
Criteria for Research and Development, ensuring the quality of its extramural research through a
competitive, peer-reviewed awards process.
In FY 2006, a portion of EPA's pesticides and toxic substances research will be accomplished
using a new approach to applied research funding at EPA. This arrangement, based on the
existing collaborative framework between the media and research offices, is designed to ensure
continued relevance and quality of applied research at EPA. In FY 2006, funds will be provided
to the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances to use a fee-for-service
arrangement with the Office of Research and Development to obtain additional research focusing
on the Agency's highest priority pesticides and toxic substances research needs.
In addition, two programs in this Goal have been reviewed through the Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART). The ecosystems protection research program is in the process of
responding to PART recommendations, including developing outcome and efficiency measures.
EPA will reassess the program in the spring of 2005. EPA also reviewed for the FY 2006 PART
process EPA's endocrine disrupters program, which received an "Adequate" rating.
Enforcement and Compliance
EPA's continued enforcement efforts will be strengthened through the development of measures
to assess the impact of enforcement activities, and assist in targeting areas that pose the greatest
risks to human health or the environment; display patterns of noncompliance; and include
disproportionately exposed populations. In addition, the EPA's enforcement program supports
Environmental Justice efforts by focusing enforcement actions and criminal investigations on
industries that have repeatedly violated environmental laws in minority and/or low-income areas.
Environmental Justice
EPA's environmental justice program will continue education, outreach, and data availability
initiatives. The program provides a central point for the Agency to address environmental and
human health concerns in minority and/or low-income communities, segments of the population
that have been disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and risks. The program will
continue to manage the Agency's Environmental Justice Community Small Grants program that
assists community-based organizations working to develop solutions to local environmental
issues.
The Agency will continue to support the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC). The Council provides the Agency with significant input from interested stakeholders
G/O-48
-------
such as community-based organizations, business and industry, academic institutions, state, tribal
and local governments, non-governmental organizations and environmental groups. The Agency
will also continue to chair an Interagency Working Group (IWG) consisting of eleven
departments and agencies, as well as representatives of various White House offices, to ensure
that environmental justice concerns are incorporated into all Federal programs.
International Affairs
Many human health and environmental risks to the American public originate outside our
borders. Many pollutants can travel easily across borders - via rivers, air and ocean currents, and
migrating wildlife. Even in the remote Arctic, industrial chemicals such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) have been found in the tissues of local wildlife. Further, differences in public
health standards can contribute to global pollution. A chemical of particular concern to one
country may not be controlled or regulated in the same way by another. EPA employs a range of
strategies for achieving its goals. These strategies include participation in bilateral programs
(U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada programs and the Border Environmental Cooperation
Commission (BECC)), as well as cooperation with multinational organizations like the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation, the World Trade Organization, and the World
Health Organization. Strategies also include contributing to a set of measurable end points that
will show reductions in pollutants of concern and pollutants at their origin, as well as exposure to
our citizens along the US borders, thereby reducing the level of pollutants in the global
atmosphere.
G/O-49
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Improve environmental performance through compliance with environmental requirements,
preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship. Protect human health and the
environment by encouraging innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses,
and the public that promote environmental stewardship.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through
compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a 5 percent
increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5
percent increase in the number of regulated entities making improvements in
environmental management practices. (Baseline to be determined for 2005.)
By 2008, improve environmental protection and enhance natural resource conservation
on the part of government, business, and the public through the adoption of pollution
prevention and sustainable practices that include the design of products and
manufacturing processes that generate less pollution, the reduction of regulatory barriers,
and the adoption of results-based, innovative, and multimedia approaches.
Through 2008, assist all federally recognized Tribes in assessing the condition of their
environment, help in building their capacity to implement environmental programs where
needed to improve tribal health and environments, and implement programs in Indian
country where needed to address environmental issues.
Through 2008, strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting environmental
policies and decisions on compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental
stewardship.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority / Obligations
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
Improve Compliance
Improve Environmental Performance
through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation
FY 2004
Obligations
$739,222.5
$431,488.5
$135,703.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$735,342.5
$438,530.6
$147,593.1
FY 2006
Request
$760,978.2
$486,878.1
$142,142.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$25,635.7
$48,347.5
($5,450.5)
G/O-50
-------
Build Tribal Capacity
Enhance Science and Research
Total Workyears
FY 2004
Obligations
$76,812.7
$95,217.6
3,590.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$79,625.8
$69,593.0
3,446.9
FY 2006
Request
$74,016.8
$57,940.7
3,469.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($5,609.1)
($11,652.3)
22.3
Throughout FY 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency will work to improve the nation's
environmental protection practices, and to enhance natural resource conservation on the part of
government, business, and the public. To accomplish these goals, the Agency will employ a
mixture of effective inspection, enforcement and compliance assistance strategies; provide
leadership and support for pollution prevention and sustainable practices; reduce regulatory
barriers; and refine and apply results-based, innovative, and multimedia approaches to
environmental stewardship and safeguarding human health.
In order to be effective, the EPA requires a strong enforcement and compliance program, one
which identifies and reduces noncompliance problems; assists the regulated community in
understanding environmental laws and regulations; responds to complaints from the public;
strives to secure a level economic playing field for law-abiding companies; and deters future
violations. The EPA will protect human health and the environment by encouraging innovation
and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the public to promote environmental
stewardship. In addition, EPA will assist Federally recognized Tribes in assessing environmental
conditions in Indian Country, and will help build their capacity to implement environmental
programs. EPA will also strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting
environmental policies and decisions on compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental
stewardship.
Improving Compliance with Environmental Laws
Critical to the success of EPA's mission is a strong commitment to ensuring compliance with
environmental laws and policies. Working in partnership with state and Tribal governments,
local communities and other Federal agencies, in FY 2006 EPA will identify and address
significant environmental and public health problems, strategically deploy its resources, and
make use of integrated approaches to achieve strong environmental outcomes. In the context of
the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program, these principles mean that we must be
"smart" in the work that we do.
In order to meet the Agency's goals, its "smart enforcement" strategy employs an integrated,
common-sense approach to problem-solving and decision-making. An appropriate mix of data
collection and analysis; compliance monitoring, assistance and incentives; civil and criminal
enforcement resources; and innovative problem-solving approaches are used to address
significant environmental issues and achieve environmentally beneficial outcomes.
This approach also requires that the Agency develop and maintain strong and flexible
partnerships with regulated entities and a well-informed public, in order to foster a climate of
empowerment and shared responsibility for the quality of our nation's land, resources and
G/O-51
-------
communities. Thus the Agency can carefully target its enforcement and compliance assurance
resources, personnel and activities to address the most significant risks to human health and the
environment, and to ensure that certain populations do not bear a disproportionate environmental
burden.
EPA's continued enforcement efforts will be strengthened through the development of measures
to assess the impact of enforcement and compliance activities; assist in targeting areas that pose
the greatest risks to human health or the environment; display patterns of noncompliance; or
include disproportionately exposed populations. Further, EPA cooperates with states and the
international community to enforce and ensure compliance with cross-border environmental
regulations, and to help build their capacity to design and implement effective environmental
regulatory, enforcement and Environmental Impact Assessment programs.
Compliance Assistance and Incentives: The Agency's Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Program uses compliance assistance and incentive tools to encourage compliance
with regulatory requirements, and to reduce adverse public health and environmental problems.
To achieve compliance, the regulated community must first understand its obligations, and then
learn how to best comply with regulatory obligations. Throughout FY 2006 EPA will support
the regulated universe by working to assure that requirements are clearly understood, and will
help industry to identify cost-effective innovative, cost-effective compliance options. EPA also
enables other assistance providers (e.g., states, universities) to provide compliance information to
the regulated community.
Compliance Monitoring: The Agency reviews and evaluates the activities of the regulated
community, to determine compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permit conditions and
settlement agreements, and to determine whether conditions presenting imminent and substantial
endangerment exist. The majority of work years devoted to compliance monitoring are provided
to the Agency's regional offices to conduct investigations and on-site inspections, and perform
monitoring, sampling and emissions testing. FY 2006 Compliance Monitoring activities will be
both environmental media- and sector-based. The traditional media-based inspections
compliment those performed by states and Tribes, and are a key part of our strategy for meeting
the long-term and annual goals established for the air, water, pesticides, toxic substances, and
hazardous waste environmental goals included in the EPA Strategic Plan.
Enforcement: The Enforcement Program addresses violations of environmental laws, to ensure
that violators come into compliance with Federal laws and regulations. In FY 2006 the program
will work to achieve the Agency's environmental goals through consistent, fair and focused
enforcement of all environmental statutes. The overarching goal of the Enforcement program is
to protect human health and the environment, targeting its actions according to degree of health
and environmental risk. Further, it aims to level the economic playing field by ensuring that
violators do not realize an economic benefit from non-compliance, and also seeks to deter future
violations.
Auditing and Evaluation Tools: Maximum compliance requires the active efforts of the
regulated community to police itself. Throughout FY 2006 EPA will continue to investigate
options for encouraging self-directed audits and disclosures. It will also continue to measure and
G/O-52
-------
evaluate the effectiveness of Agency programs in improving compliance rates and provide
information and compliance assistance to the regulated community. Further, the Agency will
maintain its focus on developing innovative approaches through better communication, fostering
partnerships and cooperation, and the application of new technologies.
Partnering: State, Tribal and local governments bear much of the responsibility for ensuring
compliance, and EPA works in partnership with them and other Federal agencies to promote
environmental protection. EPA also develops and maintains productive partnerships with other
nations, to enable and enforce compliance with U.S. environmental standards and regulations.
Improving Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention
EPA will work to bring about a performance-oriented regulatory system that develops
innovative, flexible strategies to achieve measurable results; promotes environmental
stewardship in all parts of society; supports sustainable development and pollution prevention;
and fosters a culture of creative environmental problem solving.
Partnering with Businesses and Consumers: In 2006, through the Pollution Prevention (P2)
program, EPA will continue to encourage, empower, and assist government and business to
"green" the nation's supply and demand structures to make them more environmentally sound.
Through the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program, the Agency will help Federal
agencies identify and procure those products that generate the least pollution, consume fewest
non-renewable natural resources, and constitute the least threat to human health and to the
environment. EPA's innovative Green Suppliers Network Program works with large
manufacturers to increase energy efficiency; identify cost-saving opportunities; optimize
resources and technology through the development of sound business approaches incorporating
pollution prevention; and to promote those approaches among their numerous suppliers.
"An Ounce of Pollution Prevention is Worth Over 167 Billion Pounds of Cure"
A Decade of Pollution Prevention Results, 1990-2000
167 Billion Pounds of
Pฐ"utionMPedeiVaeiltedby Resources Conserved
Water
22
215 million kWh of energy
Air \
65
/ 4.1 billions gallons of water
\ Waste \ \ /
80 \
$666 million in cost savings
Source: National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, January 2003 report on achievement of state and local P2
G/O-53
-------
Partnering with Industry: The EPA will continue to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals in
use by encouraging the design of alternative less-toxic chemicals and industry processes through
its Green Chemistry and Green Engineering Programs. New emphasis will be placed on the
development of environmentally preferable substitutes for emerging chemicals of concern such
as brominated flame retardants, perfluorinated acids, and chemicals which are persistent in the
environment, toxic, and capable of accumulating in animal, fish, and human tissue. In
conjunction with the efforts of the Green Chemistry and Green Engineering Programs, the
Design for the Environment Program will continue collaborative partnerships with industries to
develop safer products, processes and technologies.
Pollution Prevention Grant Program: Pollution Prevention Grants to states and Tribes enable
them to provide technical assistance, education and outreach to assist businesses and industries in
identifying strategies and solutions to reduce wastes and pollution at the source. In 2006, EPA
plans to enhance its P2 grant management system by incorporating pollution prevention metrics
that capture quantifiable environmental results within individual work plans, and by sharing
those results regionally and nationally.
NEPA Federal Review: EPA fulfills its uniquely Federal responsibilities under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by reviewing and commenting on other Federal agency
environmental impact statements (EISs). NEPA requires that Federal agencies prepare and
submit EISs to identify potential environmental consequences of major proposed activities, and
develop plans to mitigate or eliminate negative impacts. The Enforcement and Compliance
Assistance Program maximizes its use of NEPA review resources by targeting its efforts toward
potentially high-impact projects, thereby promoting cooperation and innovation, and working
towards a more streamlined review process.
Environmental Information Exchange Network: The Exchange Network Grant Program
provides funding to states, territories, Tribes, and Tribal consortia to help them develop the
information management and technology (EVI/IT) capabilities they need to participate in the
Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network); define common data
standards, formats, and trading partner agreements for sharing data over the Exchange Network;
and the plan, develop, and implement collaborative, innovative uses of the Exchange Network.
Promoting Environmental Stewardship and Innovation
In FY 2006, EPA will encourage and support states, Tribes, communities and businesses to "go
beyond compliance" with environmental regulations, and to practice and promote environmental
stewardship. EPA will accomplish its goals using the next generation of voluntary innovative
environmental protection strategies. The Agency will work with states, businesses, and
communities to develop the "next generation" of environmental protection, one that focuses
more on results than process, and promotes business practices that are both environmentally and
economically sustainable. EPA will focus on five areas of work under its innovation strategy:
Promote innovative leadership through new ideas, creative partnerships, and sound
analysis;
Encourage environmental stewardship in businesses;
G/O-54
-------
Promote stronger facility-level environmental management, including Environmental
Management Systems (EMSs);
Improve environmental performance of selected business sectors; and
Improve program efficiency through increased evaluation and measurement.
Innovation Grant Program: EPA will continue to award Innovation Grants to states and Tribes
to encourage testing innovative environmental protection strategies, such as permit streamlining;
development of environmental management systems that promote the use of innovative
technologies for better environmental results; and other projects that demonstrate improved
efficiencies in environmental management.
Performance Grant Fund: For FY 2006 EPA proposes a new competitive state and Tribal
Performance Grant Fund to support results-oriented environmental protection work. The grants
will help states and Tribes measure, document and improve the results of their environmental
protection programs. The Fund will support state work with businesses, non-profit organizations
and communities to pursue alternative means of compliance and performance through a variety
of means. These include pollution prevention, changes in business processes, product
stewardship, technical and compliance assistance, recycling and pollution trading. The Fund will
also support geographic, ecosystem, and regulatory program performance improvement
initiatives.
Performance Track: One of EPA's most successful voluntary programs, Performance Track
recognizes and rewards private and public facilities that demonstrate levels of environmental
performance that exceed current requirements. Performance Track membership is steadily
growing, as more and more businesses recognizes the benefits of the program, and see that their
participation "makes good business sense." EPA will continue to recruit facilities to participate
in Performance Track, and provide assistance to those facilities to improve their environmental
performance. In FY 2006 Performance Track members will collectively achieve an annual
reduction of: 900 million gallons in water use; 7,000,000 MMBTUs in energy use; 20,000 tons
in materials use; 300,000 tons of solid waste; 35,000 tons of air releases; and 10,000 tons in
water discharges.
Sector-based Stewardship: In FY 2006 EPA will continue to work with the following industrial
business sectors: agribusiness, cement manufacturing, construction, forest products, iron and
steel manufacturing, paint and coatings, ports, shipbuilding, metal finishing, die casting and meat
processing. EPA will work with national representatives of these business sectors to set
pollution reduction goals, measure performance, provide environmental protection tools and
technical assistance, remove barriers, develop incentives, reduce regulatory burdens and test
innovative strategies.
Small Business Ombusdman: EPA will continue to support the
Small Business Ombudsman program, which serves as EPA's
gateway and leading advocate for small business issues.
Serving Small Businesses and lire Environment
G/O-55
-------
The Agency will partner with state Small Business Assistance Programs, and hundreds of small
business and trade associations, to reach out to the small business community. These
partnerships provide the information and perspective EPA needs to help small businesses achieve
their environmental goals, and gives businesses access to networks, advocacy resources, tools
and educational forums.
Building Tribal Capacity
Since adoption of the EPA Indian Policy in 1984 EPA has worked with Tribes on a government-
to-government basis, one that affirms the Agency's trust responsibility over federally recognized
Tribes and Tribal governments. Under Federal environmental statutes, the Agency has
responsibility for assuring human health and environmental protection in Indian communities.
EPA has worked to establish the internal infrastructure and organize its activities in order to meet
this responsibility. The creation of EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) in
1994 took responsibility for such efforts and was a further step in ensuring environmental
protection in Indian Country. EPA's strategy for achieving this Objective has three major
components:
Establish an Environmental Presence in Indian Country: The Agency will work to create an
environmental presence for each Federally recognized Tribe. In FY 2006, using Tribal GAP
grant resources EPA will provide approximately 510 Federally recognized Tribes and Inter Tribal
Consortia access to resources to hire at least one person working in their community to build a
strong, sustainable environment for the future. Tribal communities can then assess environmental
conditions on their lands, and build an environmental program tailored to their specific needs. In
addition to assisting in the building of Tribal environmental capacity, another key role of this
workforce is to alert EPA of immediate public health and ecological threats, so that EPA can
work with the Tribe to respond quickly and effectively.
Provide Access to Environmental Information: EPA will provide the information needed by
Tribes to meet EPA and Tribal environmental priorities. At the same time, ensure that the
Agency has the ability to view and analyze the conditions on Indian trust lands, and the impacts
of EPA and tribal actions and programs on Indian trust lands.
Implementation of Environmental Goals: The Agency will provide opportunities for the
implementation of Tribal environmental programs by Tribes, or directly by EPA, as necessary.
The Agency continues to take advantage of new technology to establish direct links to the U.S.
Geological Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Indian Health Service, and other Federal agency
data systems, to further the development of an integrated, comprehensive, multi-agency Tribal
Enterprise Architecture. The Agency continues to formalize interagency data standards and
protocols to ensure quality information is collected and reported consistently among the Federal
agencies. To this end, EPA has adopted Tribal Identifier codes that will enable data systems to
identify Tribal sources of information. In FY 2006, EPA will integrate 10 existing Agency data
systems and assist other agencies to adopt these common codes.
G/O-56
-------
Pollution Prevention and Enforcement Research
Pollution Prevention: Over the past several years the Agency has increasingly focused on
preventative and sustainable approaches to health and environmental problems. Sustainable
approaches require: (1) innovative design and production techniques that minimize or eliminate
environmental liabilities; (2) integrated management of air, water, and land resources; and (3)
changes in the traditional methods of creating and distributing goods and services. EPA remains
committed to helping industry achieve these ideals while at the same time adopting more
effective and efficient practices, materials, and technologies.
In FY 2006, research will explore the principles governing sustainable systems and the
integration of social, economic, and environmental objectives in environmental assessment and
management. The Agency will also assess the interactions between various stressors that threaten
human and environmental health, and will work to develop innovative and cost-effective
responses. In a broader context, the program will focus not just on the industrial sectors, but
other areas critical to stewardship, e.g., municipal sector and ecosystems. FY 2006 research will
also develop tools and methodologies to prevent pollution at its source and evaluate the
performance of innovative environmental technologies through the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) program.
EPA manages its compliance and environmental stewardship research programs according to the
administration's Investment Criteria for Research and Development. Specifically, the agency is
in the process of revising its pollution prevention multi-year plan to emphasize sustainability.
This multi-year plan will describe clear goals and priorities. As part of this effort, EPA will
identify the appropriate outputs, customers, transfer needs, and short-, intermediate-, and long-
term outcomes for this program. In FY 2005, EPA will continue to implement a program of
regular evaluations by independent and external panels, to provide prospective and retrospective
review of programs' relevance, quality, and performance, including the programs' design and
performance goals.
EPA also conducts Economics and Decision Sciences (EDS) research to improve decision
making, cost-benefit analyses, and implementation strategies. In FY 2006, EDS research will be
accomplished using a new approach to applied research funding at EPA. This arrangement,
based on the existing collaborative framework between the media and research offices, is
designed to ensure continued relevance and quality of applied research at EPA. In FY 2006,
funds will be provided to the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation to use a fee-for-service
arrangement with the Office of Research and Development to obtain additional research focusing
on the Agency's highest priority economics and decision science research needs.
Forensics Support: The Agency's Forensic Support program provides specialized scientific
and technical support for the nation's most complex civil and criminal enforcement cases, and
provides technical expertise for non-routine Agency compliance efforts. In FY 2006, efforts to
stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement will include the refinement of successful
multi-media inspection approaches; use of customized laboratory methods to solve unusual
enforcement case problems; applied research and development for both laboratory and field
G/O-57
-------
applications, and further development of electronic data analysis methods for use investigative
support related to computers and data fraud.
The Agency's Forensics program also will continue development of emerging technologies in
field and laboratory analytical technique, and evaluate the scientific basis and/or technical
enforceability of select EPA regulations. EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) is the only accredited environmental forensics center in the nation; in FY 2006 the
Center will also continue to function under more stringent International Standards of Operation
for environmental data measurements to maintain its accreditation.
G/O-58
-------
Index - Goal and Objective Overview
Brownfields 26, 33, 37, 45 Exchange Network 54
Climate Protection Program 10 Forensics Support 57
Commission for Environmental Cooperation Great Lakes Legacy Act 42
49 Mexican Border 36
Compliance Monitoring 52 Small Business Ombudsman 55
Endocrine Disrupters 47 Wetlands 37, 41
Environmental Justice 37, 48
-------
Table of Contents - Science and Technology
Resource Summary Table 1
Program Projects in S&T 1
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs (S&T) 3
Climate Protection Program (S&T) 6
Drinking Water Programs (S&T) 8
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (S&T) 10
Federal Support for Air Quality Management (S&T) 12
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights 12
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program (S&T) 14
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands) 15
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification (S&T) 16
Forensics Support (S&T) 19
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (S&T) 21
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (S&T) 24
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights 24
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure (S&T) 28
Statutory Authority 29
Human Health Risk Assessment (S&T) 30
Indoor Air: Radon Program (S&T) 33
IT / Data Management (S&T) 35
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides (S&T) 38
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides (S&T) 40
Radiation: Protection (S&T) 42
Radiation: Response Preparedness (S&T) 44
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air (S&T) 46
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights 46
Research: Air Toxics (S&T) 48
Research: Drinking Water (S&T) 50
Research: Endocrine Disrupter (S&T) 53
Research: Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) (S&T) 55
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems (S&T) 57
Research: Land Protection and Restoration (S&T) 62
Research: Pesticides and Toxics (S&T) 64
Research: Water Quality (S&T) 67
Research: Computational Toxicology (S&T) 70
Research: Economics and Decision Science (EDS) (S&T) 72
Research: Fellowships (S&T) 74
Research: Global Change (S&T) 76
Research: NAAQS (S&T) 78
Research: Sustainability (S&T) 81
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Science & Technology
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2004
Obligations
$758,075.4
2,424.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$689,185.0
2,460.5
FY 2006
Request
$760,640.0
2,438.1
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$71,455.0
-22.4
BILL LANGUAGE: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For science and technology, including research and development activities, which shall include
research and development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended; necessary expenses for personnel and
related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances therefore, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to
exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for senior level positions under
5 U.S.C. 5376; procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other operating expenses in
support of research and development; construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project, [$750,061,000] $760,640,000 which
shall remain available until September 30, [2006: Provided, That of the amounts made available
under this heading $1,000,000 shall be transferred to the Office of Environmental Quality
Management fund] 2007, of which $18,000,000 shall be derived from the Environmental
Services fund. (Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.)
Program Projects in S&T
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Climate Protection Program
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Drinking Water Programs
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification
Forensics Support
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,236.6
$21,794.6
$69,904.2
$2,941.9
$9,331.4
$10,497.3
$2,168.1
$59,247.5
$11,958.5
$17,822.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$9,352.9
$17,458.9
$0.0
$2,999.7
$8,715.8
$10,048.7
$2,582.9
$64,466.5
$12,721.5
$3,515.6
FY 2006
Request
$9,352.9
$17,732.5
$0.0
$3,068.5
$8,715.8
$10,015.9
$2,264.6
$66,567.5
$13,737.0
$47,568.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$273.6
$0.0
$68.8
$0.0
($32.8)
($318.3)
$2,101.0
$1,015.5
$44,053.1
S&T-l
-------
Program Project
Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel
and Infrastructure
Human Health Risk Assessment
IT / Data Management
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing
Pesticides
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Research: Air Toxics
Research: Drinking Water
Research: Endocrine Disrupter
Research: Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV)
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: Particulate Matter
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Research: Pollution Prevention
Research: Water Quality
Research: Computational Toxicology
Research: Economics and Decision Science(EDS)
Research: Fellowships
Research: Global Change
Research: NAAQS
Research: Sustainability
TRI / Right to Know
FY 2004
Obligations
$14,763.9
$1,663.1
$28,084.2
$4,611.0
$382.3
$2,173.1
$2,303.5
$4,185.6
$2,109.1
$755.4
$20,052.4
$43,036.6
$11,616.1
$3,542.9
$175,970.3
$10,230.3
$63,228.9
$33,073.2
$48,971.5
$47,049.1
$5,917.0
$0.0
$2,183.3
$16,791.9
$0.0
$0.0
$89.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$25,396.0
$2,100.0
$32,880.4
$4,821.4
$398.5
$2,403.2
$2,417.1
$2,847.0
$2,239.0
$906.1
$17,638.9
$46,118.1
$8,044.0
$2,996.8
$177,407.5
$8,841.9
$63,690.8
$29,017.7
$33,467.5
$46,809.8
$13,028.7
$0.0
$8,261.6
$20,689.6
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2006
Request
$44,116.2
$2,100.0
$36,240.1
$4,250.9
$441.6
$2,490.0
$2,506.1
$2,120.5
$3,576.3
$831.8
$16,386.7
$45,690.0
$8,705.0
$3,202.6
$169,632.3
$13,696.5
$0.0
$29,752.7
$0.0
$55,899.8
$13,832.4
$2,644.6
$8,326.8
$20,534.4
$71,451.5
$23,187.8
$0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$18,720.2
$0.0
$3,359.7
($570.5)
$43.1
$86.8
$89.0
($726.5)
$1,337.3
($74.3)
($1,252.2)
($428.1)
$661.0
$205.8
($7,775.2)
$4,854.6
($63,690.8)
$735.0
($33,467.5)
$9,090.0
$803.7
$2,644.6
$65.2
($155.2)
$71,451.5
$23,187.8
$0.0
S&T-2
-------
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $9,352.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$17,471.3
$4,236.6
$21,707.9
94.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$17,495.8
$9,352.9
$26,848.7
86.4
FY 2006
Request
$18,234.2
$9,352.9
$27,587.1
86.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$738.4
$0.0
$738.4
-0.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
While significant progress has been made under the existing Clean Air Act, further benefits
could be achieved faster, with more certainty, and at less cost to consumers through Clear Skies
- an Administration legislative proposal that expands the current Acid Rain program to
dramatically reduce nationwide power plant emissions of 862 and NOX, as well as, for the first
time ever, reduce mercury emissions from power plants. Clear Skies would reduce emissions of
these three pollutants by nearly 70 percent while encouraging innovation and the deployment of
cleaner, more cost effective technologies. This legislation was submitted to Congress in 2002
and the Administration continues to promote its enactment.
Although Clear Skies is the more comprehensive and cost effective approach and therefore the
strongly preferred solution, the Administration is pursuing a regulatory path that would achieve
many of the same benefits should legislation not be enacted. EPA has proposed the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) which regulates the transport of powerplant emissions of 862 and NOX
across State lines via a market-based approach similar to Clear Skies and the existing Acid Rain
program. CAIR is projected to further reduce pollution from electrical power generation sources
by close to an additional 70%, when fully implemented.
Both Clear Skies and CAIR call for utilities to utilize a cap and trade program modeled after the
Acid Rain SC>2 Allowance Trading Program. The Acid Rain Program provides incentives for
operators of power plants to find the best, fastest, and most efficient ways to make the required
reductions in emissions as well as to do make reductions earlier than required.
EPA is responsible for managing the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), a dry
deposition monitoring network, as well as for providing operational support for the National
S&T-3
-------
Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), a wet deposition monitoring network. Both of these
networks will provide critical information to support the implementation of Clear Skies or CAIR,
or other similar programs. CASTNET is a national long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring
network established in 1987 and serves as the nation's primary source for atmospheric data on
the dry deposition component of total acid deposition, rural ground-level ozone and other forms
of atmospheric pollution that enter the environment as particles and gases. Used in conjunction
with the NADP and other networks, CASTNET long-term datasets and data products are used to
determine the efficacy of national emission control programs through monitoring geographic
patterns and temporal trends in ambient air quality and atmospheric deposition in rural areas of
the country. Maintaining a robust long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring network is
critical for the accountability of the current Acid Rain Program as well as other market-based
programs (NOX Budget Program, Clear Skies/ CAIR). These monitoring efforts play a crucial
role in the Agency's ongoing assessment activities, including reporting outcomes under the
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) and the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA), and fulfilling assessment responsibilities under the U.S.-Canada Air Quality Agreement
and Title IX of the Clean Air Act.
This program was included in the Air Toxics PART review in 2006, which received an overall
rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The activities listed below will be necessary to support the implementation of CAIR, Clear Skies,
or a comparable program.
Provide litigation program support Conduct legal, technical, and economic analyses to
support timely implementation; continue assessing regulatory impacts on the U.S.
economy, environment, small business, and local communities. Harmonize Part 75 (Acid
Rain Program) provisions with requirements.
Assist States in implementation Provide technical assistance to States in developing
rules to implement the new program. Review State plans; assist States in resolving
applicability, monitoring, and provide technical support as necessary.. Provide outreach,
allowance trading education, and orientation for States and affected industry.
Maximize flexibility for affected sources Develop software that will facilitate optimum
trading of emissions by building on existing Acid Rain electronic allowance trading and
emissions reporting systems.
Develop the operating infrastructure Effective and efficient operation of the new
program depends critically upon further development of the e-GOV infrastructure
supporting the existing Acid Rain electronic allowance trading and emissions reporting
systems. Data collection requirements must be determined and operating software and
hardware specifications developed. Initial software development should also begin to
expand current tracking systems to handle the additional complexity of the new program.
S&T-4
-------
Develop baselines and prepare to assess program benefits Establish an integrated
assessment program to include enhanced ambient and deposition monitoring, efficiency
measures that will include the total cost of the program, and indicators to track health and
environmental benefits, as called for in the recent report by the National Academy of
Sciences. Develop baselines prior to implementation of the program.
Ensure the program's credibility and results Successful trading programs require
accurate and consistent monitoring of emissions from affected sources. Propose
performance specifications and investigate monitoring alternatives and methods for
improving the efficiency of monitor certification and emissions reporting processes,
especially for a set of new sources that will be entering market-based NOX and SC>2
control programs for the first time.
In FY 2006, the program will continue a multi-year refurbishment project to modernize and
enhance CASTNET to ensure the viability of this aging network and to enhance the monitoring
capacity to support ongoing and future accountability needs, particularly relating to interstate
pollutant transport. EPA will:
Continue a pilot phase study to evaluate options for upgrading CASTNET with new
advanced measurement instrumentation.
Select and procure advanced technology monitoring equipment where necessary for
additional CASTNET sites, extending the pilot technology to a broader representation of
field conditions.
Expand a technology assessment program to compare performance of new and existing
CASTNET monitoring instrumentation.
Initiate a data comparability study to evaluate how the data collected by the advanced
technology instrumentation compares and relates to the existing long-term CASTNET
data to preserve the integrity of the long-term data record.
Identify and begin development of new ecological indicators of air quality and
atmospheric deposition to expand the suite of environmental metrics available for
measuring the performance and efficiency of our operating programs consistent with the
PART measures developed in cooperation with OMB.
In addition, the program provides analytical support for the interagency National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP). NAPAP coordinates Federal acid deposition
research and monitoring of emissions, acidic deposition, and their effects, including assessing the
costs and benefits of Title IV. In 2006, the program will continue analyzing the costs and
benefits of the Acid Rain Program for inclusion in NAPAP's Integrated Assessment Report.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-766If)
S&T-5
-------
Climate Protection Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $17,732.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Climate Protection Program (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$88,524.8
$21,794.6
$110,319.4
218.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$91,961.3
$17,458.9
$109,420.2
224.0
FY 2006
Request
$95,529.9
577,732.5
$113,262.4
216.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$3,568.6
$273.6
$3,842.2
-7.7
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's Clean Automotive Technology (CAT) and Fuel Cell and Hydrogen programs remove
barriers in the marketplace and deploy technology faster in the residential, commercial,
transportation, and industrial sectors of the economy. The Agency's CAT program supports the
development of advanced clean and fuel-efficient automotive technology that allows increased
energy conservation and improved protection of the environment. Through cooperative research
and development agreements (CRADAs) with the automotive, trucking, and fleet industries,
technology developments will be demonstrated in vehicles such as large SUVs, pickup trucks,
urban delivery trucks, school buses, shuttle buses, and refuse trucks. These demonstration
projects are intended to lead to the initial commercial introduction of these technologies by
vehicle manufacturers.
Under the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen program, EPA has become involved in several efforts to
demonstrate and evaluate hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. EPA will continue working
closely with key stakeholders through public/private partnerships like the California Fuel Cell
Partnership1 to facilitate the commercialization of innovative technologies. EPA works closely
with the Department of Energy and other agencies as necessary on fuel cell and hydrogen-related
efforts.
This program underwent a PART review in 2006 and received a rating of adequate; more
information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
'Additional information can be accessed at: http://www. fuelcellpartnership.org last accessed 1/19/2005
S&T-6
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the CAT Program will:
ป demonstrate hydraulic-hybrid and clean engine technologies in an urban delivery vehicle or
large SUV to achieve 50-80 percent better fuel economy than the typical baseline vehicle,
while meeting or exceeding 2007/2010 Heavy Duty or Tier 2 Bin 5 Light Duty standards
(e.g., if a typical large SUV has a baseline fuel economy of 17.0 mpg, the program would
demonstrate 25.5-30.6 mpg for such a vehicle);
provide technology transfer expertise to partners for clean engine technologies; and
ป provide technology transfer expertise to partners for hydraulic hybrid technologies.
In FY 2006, the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Program will:
ป continue to develop and participate in effective government/industry partnerships that
advance fuel cell and hydrogen fueling vehicle technologies;
continue evaluation of the new-technology "Sprinter" delivery vehicle as a part of the
EPA/Daimler Chrysler/UPS Fuel Cell Deliver Vehicle Testing partnership (the first real-
world demonstration of a medium duty fuel cell vehicle in the US);
certify fuel cell vehicles for several manufacturers;
test and evaluate fuel cell vehicles through agreements with vehicle manufacturers and as
part of DOE's Validation Program;
continue to expand our role in developing hydrogen fueling infrastructure by fueling
additional hydrogen vehicles to be deployed in Michigan under DOE's Validation Program;
working regionally and nationally with vehicle manufacturers, energy companies,
governments, and other stakeholders to coordinate new hydrogen infrastructure plans; and
continue to improve the MOVES-GREET life-cycle modeling platform and use the platform
to perform comparative analyses of hydrogen and other vehicle technology pathways as
appropriate.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. - Sections 102, 103, 104, and 108; Pollution
Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. - Sections 6602, 6603, 6604, and 6605; National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. - Section 102; Global Climate Protection Act,
15 U.S.C. 2901 - Section 1103; Federal Technology Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. - Section 3701a,
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.- Section 104, Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.-Section 8001
S&T-7
-------
Drinking Water Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $3,068.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Drinking Water Programs (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$90,553.9
$2,941.9
$93,495.8
585.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$97,947.9
$2,999.7
$100,947.6
597.9
FY 2006
Request
$101,089.9
$3,068.5
$104,158.4
588.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$3,142.0
$68.8
$3,210.8
-9.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The resources in this program support the Drinking Water Technical Support Center (TSC),
which evaluates engineering and scientific data, collects and evaluates contaminant occurrence
data, evaluates treatment technologies, develops and evaluates monitoring approaches and
analytical methods, and develops and disseminates treatment plant performance improvement
mechanisms to affect development and implementation of National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations that ensure the safety of drinking water. The Center also provides external technical
assistance in support of EPA Regional and state drinking water programs. (For more
information, visit http://www.epa.gov/safewater/).
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the TSC will:
Provide technical and scientific support for the development and implementation of
drinking water regulations;
Implement EPA's Drinking Water Laboratory Certification Program that evaluates
whether Agency, state, and privately-owned labs are analyzing drinking water samples;
accurately using approved lab methods and procedures, and whether they are properly
implementing quality assurance plans to assure the integrity of laboratory results;
Support small systems' efforts to optimize their treatment technology under the drinking
water treatment Area Wide Optimization Program (AWOP). AWOP is a highly
successful technical assistance and training program that enhances the ability of small
systems to meet existing and future microbial, disinfectant, and disinfection byproducts
standards. By the end of 2006, EPA anticipates 32 states will have worked with the
Agency to establish AWOPs;
S&T-8
-------
Manage the development and implementation of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule(s) (UCMR2). The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require EPA
to establish criteria for a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants and to publish
a list of contaminants to be monitored. The data generated by the UCMR(s) are used to
evaluate and prioritize contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List,
a list of contaminants that EPA, through a stakeholder process, is considering for possible
new drinking water standards. This data helps to ensure that future decisions on drinking
water standards are based on sound science;
Support the Partnership for Safe Water, a national voluntary collaborative effort between
the water industry and EPA to pursue optimization of the drinking water treatment
infrastructure to maximize public health protection;
Provide analytical method development/validation to enable implementation of the
Nation's contaminant monitoring needs; and,
EPA will also continue to provide grants for studies and demonstrations associated with
drinking water security.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA); Clean Water Act (CWA)
S&T-9
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $8,715.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$299,417.3
$9,331.4
$31,382.3
$862.1
$499.1
$62,299.2
$403,791.4
355.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$326,793.8
$8,715.8
$31,418.0
$883.9
$504.4
$70,981.9
$439,297.8
441.8
FY 2006
Request
$358,045.6
$8,715.8
$28,718.0
$883.9
$504.4
$72,725.9
$469,593.6
438.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$31,251.8
$0.0
($2,700.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$1,744.0
$30,295.8
-3.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
S&T Resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program are used to manage
activities and support services in many centralized administrative areas such as health and safety,
environmental compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness/wellness and safety,
and environmental management functions at EPA. Resources for this program also support a full
range of ongoing facilities management services including: facilities maintenance and
operations; security; space planning; shipping and receiving; property management; printing and
reproduction; mail management; and transportation services.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
These resources help to improve operating efficiency and encourage the use of new, advanced
technologies and energy. EPA will attain the goals in Executive Order (EO) 131232, Greening
the Government through Efficient Energy Management through several initiatives including
comprehensive facility energy audits, sustainable building design in Agency construction and
2 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3123.htm
S&T- 10
-------
alteration projects, energy savings performance contracts to achieve energy efficiencies, the use
of off-grid energy equipment, energy load reduction strategies, green power purchases, and the
use of Energy Star products and buildings.
EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order (EO)
13ISO3 "Federal Workforce Transportation."
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; annual Appropriations
Act; Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive Orders 10577 and
12598; Department of Justice United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of
Federal Facilities Report; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection)
3 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
S&T- 11
-------
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $10,015.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Federal Support for Air Quality Management (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$86,964.0
$10,497.3
$97,461.3
704.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$93,283.6
$10,048.7
$103,332.3
732.4
FY 2006
Request
$110,891.2
$10,015.9
$120,907.1
715.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$17,607.6
($32.8)
$17,574.8
-16.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program supports States in their development of clean air plans by developing modeling and
other tools. EPA works with States and local governments to ensure the technical integrity of the
mobile source controls in the State implementation plans (SIPs). EPA will also assist areas in
identifying the most cost-effective control options available.
This program was included in the Air Toxics PART review in 2006, which received an overall
rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
As part of implementing the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards, in FY 2006 EPA will continue to
provide State and local governments with substantial assistance in implementing the conformity
rule. The first conformity determinations for the 8-hour ozone standard will be due by June 15,
2005. The first conformity determinations for the PM2.5 standard will be due in early 2006. In
FY 2006, EPA will continue to ensure national consistency in how conformity determinations
are conducted across the U.S. and in adequacy findings for motor vehicle emissions budgets in
air quality plans, which are used in conformity determinations. In addition, EPA will work with
State and local governments to ensure the technical integrity of the mobile source controls in the
SIPs. EPA will also assist areas in identifying the most cost-effective control options available
to reaching attainment and provide guidance, as needed, for areas that implement conformity.
EPA will work with States, Tribes, and local governments to create a comprehensive compliance
program to ensure that vehicles and engines pollute less. In FY 2004, basic and/or enhanced
S&T - 12
-------
vehicle I/M testing was being performed in over 30 States with technical and programmatic
guidance from EPA. In FY 2006, EPA will continue to assist States in incorporating On-board
Diagnostics (OBD) inspections into their I/M programs. EPA will use advanced in-use
measurement techniques and other sources of in-use data to monitor the performance of OBD
systems on vehicle models to make sure that OBD is a reliable check on the emissions systems
as part of vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. EPA will also support States in
evaluating I/M programs, as directed by the Clean Air Act and recommended by the National
Academy of Sciences. With this information, EPA will work to establish an integrated
information system that allows for assessment and action on those vehicles and engines that
present the greatest environmental risk.
EPA will continue to assist State, Tribal, and local agencies implement and assess effectiveness
of national clean air programs via a broad suite of analytical tools (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/).
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act; Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act; Alternative Motor Fuels Act of
1988; National Highway System Designation Act
S&T-13
-------
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $2,264.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$25,983.9
$2,168.1
$28,152.0
151.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$25,181.2
$2,582.9
$27,764.1
147.7
FY 2006
Request
$25,431.4
$2,264.6
$27,696.0
144.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$250.2
($318.3)
($68.1)
-2.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Federal support for the air toxics program includes a variety of tools to help characterize the
level of risk to the public, measure the Agency's progress in reducing this risk, and develop and
provide information and tools to assist State, local, and Tribal agencies as well as communities to
reduce air toxics emissions and risk specific to their local areas. Reductions in emissions of
mobile source air toxics, such as diesel PM, are achieved through innovative and voluntary
approaches working with State, local, and Tribal governments as well as a variety of stakeholder
groups. This program includes activities related to the Stationary Source Residual Risk Program,
a program designed to reexamine the health risks associated with promulgated Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards.
This program was included in the Air Toxics PART review in 2006, which received an overall
rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA recently promulgated rules regulating new diesel engines; the first benefits of these rules
will not be realized for at least five years and the full benefits will phase in over a longer period.
In the meantime, older vehicles will continue to adversely affect the Nation's health. To date,
voluntary diesel retrofit projects have resulted in over 150,000 commitments to retrofit diesel
engines, equivalent to reductions of approximately 60,000 tons of harmful pollution.
In FY 2006, EPA will work with a broad range of stakeholders to develop incentives for
different economic sectors (e.g. ports, construction, and freight) to reduce the emissions from
S&T - 14
-------
existing diesel engines. These sectors include construction, ports, freight and agriculture. EPA
has also developed several emissions testing protocols that will provide potential purchasers of
emission control technology a consistent, third party evaluation of emission control products.
EPA has developed partnerships with State and local governments, industry, and private
companies to create project teams to help fleet owners create the most cost-effective retrofit
programs.
EPA will also continue to provide technical expertise and support to State, local, and Tribal air
toxics programs in assessing and reducing mobile source air toxics. This support includes
models and other assessment tools; guidance on the application of such tools for evaluating
impacts of proposed transportation facilities and the benefits of voluntary mobile source control
programs; and education and outreach materials
The Agency will work with partners to develop improved emission factors and inventories. This
effort will include gathering improved activity databases and using geographic information
systems (GIS) and satellite remote sensing, where possible, for key point, area, mobile, and
fugitive source categories and global emission events.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(- $318.3) Air toxics program resources are being shifted to the Federal Vehicle and
Fuels Standards and Certification program to support modeling programs.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act
S&T-15
-------
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $66,567.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$347.7
$59,247.5
$59,595.2
284.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$64,466.5
$64,466.5
292.8
FY 2006
Request
$0.0
566,567.5
$66,567.5
283.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$2,101.0
$2,101.0
-9.6
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
While the most common mobile sources of air pollution are motor vehicles, other mobile sources
such as airplanes, ships, construction equipment and lawn mowers also produce significant
amounts of pollutants. EPA regulates the air pollution produced by all of these sources. The
Agency provides mileage and emissions information for new cars, implements programs for the
development of cleaner burning fuels and alternative energy sources, and educates consumers on
the ways their actions can affect the environment.
Primary responsibilities include: developing national regulatory programs to reduce mobile
source related air pollution from light-duty cars and trucks, heavy-duty trucks and buses,
nonroad engines and vehicles and their fuels; evaluating emission control technology and
providing State and local air quality regulators and transportation planners with access to critical
information on transportation programs and incentive-based programs. Other activities include
testing vehicles, engines and fuels and determining compliance with Federal emissions and fuel
economy standards.
This program was included in the Mobile Sources PART review in 2006, which received an
overall rating of Moderately Effective. This program was also included in the Air Toxics PART
review in 2006, which received an overall rating of Adequate; more information is included in
the Special Analysis Section.
S&T- 16
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006 EPA will support implementation of the Tier II (ultra-low emission vehicle
standards) program, the 2007 Heavy-Duty (HD) standards, and Non-road Diesel standards in
order to ensure the successful delivery of cleaner vehicles, equipment and fuel. Standards for
recreational vehicles and marine engines will take effect in 2006. The promulgation of a
rulemaking for more stringent standards for locomotives and marine diesel engines is planned for
2006. The Agency is also committed to further reduce emissions from large commercial ships
with a rule in 2007. A proposal is also planned in FY 2005 (with a final rule in FY 2006) to
address emissions from small gasoline engines (under 50 horsepower), including marine gasoline
engines and non-handheld engines (such as those used in lawnmowers), and handheld engines
(such as those used in trimmers, chainsaws). A new rule proposal is planned for FY 2005 (with a
final rule in FY 2006) concerning on-board diagnostic (OBD) standards for engines used in
heavy-duty trucks. Recently promulgated 2007 HD truck standards will result in vehicles that
are more complex and dependent on electronic controls and exhaust emission control
technology. EPA will work with California, Japan, and the European Union to harmonize OBD
requirements worldwide.
In-use compliance is an important element of EPA's regulatory programs. It is vital to ensuring
that new engine standards are actually met under real-world conditions. As a result of a
settlement agreement between EPA and the Engine Manufacturers Association, the Agency is
initiating a consultative process for establishing an in-use compliance surveillance program for
non-road diesel engines.
EPA intends to promulgate a new rule addressing mobile source air toxics in FY 2006. The new
rule will be based on analyses of toxics emissions from non-road vehicles and equipment,
estimation of exposure in microenvironments, consideration of the range of total public exposure
to air toxics, and effectiveness and costs of control measures. Air toxic reductions of about 1.4
million tons are expected between 1996 and 2020 from existing programs that reduce ozone and
particulate matter (PM), including: the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, the national low
emission vehicle (NLEV) program, the emission standards for passenger vehicles, trucks and
buses, gasoline sulfur control requirements, and diesel fuel sulfur control requirements.
EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) will continue to conduct
vehicle emission tests as part of the pre-production tests, certification audits, in-use assessments,
and recall programs to support mobile source clean air programs. Tests are conducted on motor
vehicles, heavy-duty engines, non-road engines, and fuels to: (1) certify that vehicles and engines
meet Federal air emission and fuel economy standards; (2) ensure engines comply with in-use
requirements; and (3) ensure fuels, fuel additives, and exhaust compounds meet Federal
standards. In FY 2006, EPA will continue to conduct testing activities for fuel economy, LD
vehicle and HD engine characterization, Tier II testing, reformulated gasoline, future fleets, OBD
evaluations, certification audits, and recall programs.
EPA will test HD diesel engines in FY 2006 to support implementation of 2007 HD diesel
requirements and non-road diesel engine rulemaking activities. In addition, NVFEL will conduct
energy efficiency tests of electric vehicles, including hybrids, in collaboration with the
Department of Energy, as well as non-road vehicle emission testing in support of non-road
S&T- 17
-------
regulatory development. EPA also will continue testing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in support of
demonstration programs, technical assessments, measurement method development, and
compliance activities.
EPA will also continue to strengthen its new compliance-testing program to serve HD engine
manufacturers certifying to the new 2004 emission standard requirements. HD engine
manufacturers have requested that EPA establish a correlation program similar to the vehicle
manufacturers' program. This will triple the size and operation of EPA's current correlation
program. Non-road sources are also a major certification and compliance workload priority, as
new standards are now taking effect.
The Agency has developed a portable emission measurement system that will allow the Agency
to acquire in-use emission data in a cost-effective manner. The Agency plans to continue using
portable systems to characterize in-use emissions from light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty highway
vehicles, and non-road equipment. The Agency will also continue developing the new
transportation emission model in FY 2006, which will greatly improve the Agency's ability to
support the development of emission control programs, as well as provide support to the States in
their determination of program needs to meet air quality standards.
EPA also will continue implementing Phase II of the RFG program, which will result in
additional hydrocarbons (HC), NOX, and toxic emission reductions in 17 States and the District
of Columbia. RFG is designed to substantially reduce vehicle emissions of ozone-forming and
toxic pollutants, which is estimated to reduce VOC emissions by 27 percent, toxic emissions by
22 percent, and NOX emissions by 6.8 percent. This is the equivalent of taking 16 million
vehicles off the road that burn conventional gasoline.
EPA will continue to address issues associated with the use of oxygenates (e.g., MTBE and
ethanol) in RFG and will review the industry's retail station survey plan. Several States have
banned the use of MTBE and have submitted or may submit requests for waivers from the
oxygen requirement of RFG. In addition, 1-hour nonattainment areas that are bumped up to
"severe" will be required to have RFG in place, and EPA will help implement the new programs
as they become RFG-covered cities. The Agency will also continue to collect and review data
submitted by manufacturers of motor fuels and fuel additives to assess whether fuels/additives
different from conventional fuels (e.g. oxygenated fuels) cause any unexpected toxic effects.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+ $318.3) Resources have been reprogrammed from the Federal Support for Air Toxics
program to support modeling programs.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act; Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act; Alternative Motor Fuels Act of
1988; National Highway System Designation Act; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
S&T- 18
-------
Forensics Support
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $13,737.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Forensics Support (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$11,958.5
$3,497.6
$15,456.1
104.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$12,721.5
$4,189.3
$16,910.8
113.6
FY 2006
Request
$13,737.0
$3,840.3
$17,577.3
108.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,015.5
($349.0)
$666.5
-5.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Forensics Support program provides specialized scientific and technical support for the
nation's most complex civil and criminal enforcement cases, and provides technical expertise for
non-routine Agency compliance efforts. EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) is the only accredited environmental forensics center in the nation. NEIC's
Accreditation Standard has been customized to cover the civil, criminal, and special program
work conducted by the program.
NEIC collaborates with state, local and Tribal agencies, providing technical assistance, and on-
site investigation and inspection activities in support of the Agency's civil program. In addition,
the program coordinates with the Department of Justice and other Federal, state and local law
enforcement organizations in support of criminal investigations. This program was included in
the Civil Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more
information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Throughout FY 2006, efforts to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement will include
the refinement of successful multi-media inspection approaches; use of customized laboratory
methods to solve unusual enforcement case problems; applied research and development for both
laboratory and field applications, and further development of electronic data analysis methods
used in investigations related to computers and data fraud. In response to civil and criminal case
needs, the NEIC conducts applied research and development, to identify and deploy new
capabilities, and to test and/or enhance existing methods and techniques involving environmental
measurement and forensic situations. As part of this activity, NEIC evaluates the scientific basis
S&T- 19
-------
and/or technical enforceability of select EPA regulations. The program also provides technical
support for national, regional, state, and Tribal initiatives and priorities, as well as the Agency's
integrated Compliance Assurance program, using a unique process-based approach.
In FY 2006, the Forensics program will continue to function under more stringent International
Standards of Operation for environmental data measurements to maintain its accreditation.
NEIC will maintain a Counterterrorism Response Team for science and technical support in the
area of industrial chemicals for our nations Homeland security. The program also will continue
development of emerging technologies in field measurement techniques and laboratory analytical
techniques, as well as identifying sources of pollution at abandoned waste sites.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$575.5) This reduction reflects a transfer to the Civil Enforcement program in goal 5,
objective 1. This shift implements a recommendation from EPA's November 2003,
Management Review of the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training
(OCEFT) by moving the civil investigators from OCEFT to the Office of Regulatory
Enforcement (ORE).
(+$236.2) This increase reflects a transfer from Superfund to reflect the current workload at
the National Enforcement Investigations Center.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CAA, as amended; CWA; EPCRA; FIFRA; FTTA; ODA; PPA; Pollution Prosecution Act;
RLBPHRA; RCRA, as amended; SOW A; SBIDA; TSCA
S&T - 20
-------
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $47,568.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,960.5
$17,822.3
$1,447.7
$25,230.5
44.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$6,840.8
$3,515.6
$852.6
$11,209.0
47.0
FY 2006
Request
$6,946.9
$47,568.7
$1,052.6
$55,568.2
59.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$106.1
$44,053.1
$200.0
$44,359.2
12.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program provides resources to protect the nation's critical water infrastructure from terrorist
threats. Reducing risk in the water sector requires a multi-step approach to: determine risk
through vulnerability assessments, reduce risk through security enhancements, and prepare to
respond effectively to incidents. Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) 7 and 9
direct EPA to help support the water sector implement protective measures and develop
comprehensive water surveillance and monitoring program respectively. The Public Health
Security and Bioterrorism Response and Preparedness Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act) also
provides that EPA support the water sector in such activities.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Two new complementary programs have been created to support critical water infrastructure
protection. Resources of $44M are requested to launch these initiatives:
Water Sentinel
HSPD 9 directs EPA to develop a "robust, comprehensive, and fully coordinated surveillance
and monitoring system" for drinking water and a water laboratory network that would support
water surveillance and emergency response activities. Drinking water surveillance activities will
be piloted in selected cities. The Water Sentinel pilots will provide direct benefits to the host
city. In addition, selection of these cities will be tailored to offer opportunities to evaluate the
operational experience of different types of water systems. Activities include:
S&T-21
-------
Establishing pilot early warning systems through intensive water monitoring and
surveillance in key cities (cities selected based on population, type of water delivery
system, and type of water treatment);
Forming a water laboratory alliance to build the analytical capacity necessary to support
the surveillance program. This entails leveraging existing laboratory infrastructure
through select expansion of federal, state, and utility laboratory resources to enhance the
capability and capacity for processing high priority threat agents in water;
Ensuring the flow of water data into DHS's National Biosurveillance Integration System;
Providing training and technical assistance to water systems on monitoring devices,
sampling protocols, analytical methods, consequence management, and reporting results
to DHS; and,
Evaluating and improving early warning system and detection devices, analytical
methods, and modeling programs for high priority contaminants as well as disseminating
information and training drinking water utilities in these new surveillance technologies.
Work will be carried out in collaboration with other federal agencies, such as the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Defense, and the U.S. Geological
Survey.
Water Alliance for Threat Reduction (WATR)
The Agency has responsibilities under HSPD 7 - which designates EPA as the Sector Specific
Agency - to coordinate protection of the water sector from terrorist threats. Under the new
WATR initiative, EPA will work to ensure that water utilities serving greater than 100,000
people have tools and information to prevent, detect, and respond to a terrorist or other
intentional attack. The following preventive and preparedness activities will be implemented for
the water sector in collaboration with DHS and states' homeland security and water officials:
Develop and conduct exercises to prepare utilities, emergency responders, and decision-
makers to evaluate and respond to physical, cyber-, and contamination threats and events;
Building on recommendations made by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council in
FY 2005, provide technical assistance and training to high risk water utilities and relevant
state and local officials on implementing active and effective security programs and
practices to protect against the sector's priority vulnerabilities. This will assist water
utilitites as well as state and federal partners in setting funding priorities for security
enhancements;
Provide expert technical assistance in preparedness and response for national special
security events and incidents; and,
Disseminate (e.g., via the Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center) tools and
provide technical assistance to ensure that water utilities and emergency responders react
rapidly and effectively to intentional contamination. Tools include information on high
priority contaminants, sampling and detection protocols and methods, and treatment
options.
In FY 2006, EPA will develop the foundation, in coordination with key federal and water sector
partners, for a robust critical infrastructure monitoring and surveillance program. In addition,
S&T - 22
-------
EPA will provide the critical tools, training, and exercises that drinking and wastewater utilities
need to detect, prevent, and respond to a terrorist or other intentional attack.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$44,000.0, + 12 FTE) for Water Sentinel and Water Alliance for Threat Reduction, to
carry out the responsibilities assigned to EPA as the lead Federal agency for the water
sector under HSPDs 7, 9, and 10. These directives were issued in FY 2004.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Safe Drinking Water Act; Clean Water Act; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency
and Response Act of 2002; Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
S&T - 23
-------
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Radiation
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks; Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $44,116.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$766.7
$14,763.9
$63,979.9
$79,510.5
141.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,839.8
$25,396.0
$29,163.2
$56,399.0
97.6
FY 2006
Request
$3,348.2
$44,116.2
$48,964.9
$96,429.3
165.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,508.4
$18,720.2
$19,801.7
$40,030.3
68.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Through research, development and technical support activities, this program continues to
increase the Agency's preparedness, and its response and recovery capabilities for homeland
security incidents involving chemical, biological or radiological threats,. The Agency continues
to increase the state of its knowledge of potential threats, as well as its response capabilities, by
assembling and evaluating private sector tools and capabilities so that preferred response
approaches can be identified and evaluated for future use by first responders, decision makers,
and the public. EPA also continues to work with Federal institutions and other organizations
through collaborative research efforts to strengthen decontamination capabilities.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Decontamination Research: In FY 2006 EPA requests new resources for expansion of ongoing
decontamination research to include testing of new decontamination methods and systems for
buildings and outdoor areas, field validation studies of anthrax decontamination methods,
evaluation of risk characterization information for use in determining cleanup goal estimates, and
evaluation of existing technologies to manage contaminated crops and animal carcasses. The
following is a more detailed description of the Agency's decontamination research efforts in FY
2006:
S&T - 24
-------
The National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC): oversees Agency research in
preparedness, risk assessment, detection, containment, decontamination, and disposal associated
with chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. Originally intended to sunset in 2005, EPA
will continue the core work of the Center to support new responsibilities through Homeland
Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) and Department of Homeland Security requirements
for EPA expertise in a number of key areas. Activities in FY 2006 will include the following:
Water infrastructure protection research will focus on developing, testing, demonstrating,
communicating, and implementing enhanced methods for detection, treatment, and
containment of biological and chemical warfare agents, certain radiological contaminants,
and bulk industrial chemicals intentionally introduced into drinking water and wastewater
systems. This program has produced a number of important resources for use by water
utilities and public officials, including the verification of two point-of-use drinking water
treatment technologies. For more information about these verification reports, visit
www.epa.gov/etv/verifications/vcenter2-16.html.
Threat and consequence assessment research will focus on conducting risk assessments of
decontamination byproducts; refining toxicity databases; developing fate, transport,
dispersion, and exposure parameters; and developing computer-based tools to aid decision
makers in assessing the risks associated with biological and chemical attacks. Risk
assessment work will also focus on providing scientific data and methods to support
determination/revision of cleanup guidance goals as new toxicity and exposure information
become available and as new potential agents are identified.
EPA will expand its Standardized Analytical Methods (SAM) document for Homeland
Security to include development, validation and testing of non-standard methods and
additional methods for chemicals in new environmental matrices. EPA will establish an
applied measurement science research program to administer the activities of a national
laboratory network to manage method development, validation, and application for
contaminants resulting from terrorist attacks.
EPA will conduct critical research to improve existing decontamination systems and to
develop and test new decontamination methods and systems for buildings, large structures
and outdoor areas. In addition, field studies to validate decontamination methods specific to
anthrax will be conducted.
Research will be conducted to begin evaluating toxicity, infectivity, mechanisms of action,
and other risk characterization information of biological contaminants in order to develop
dose/response relationships and cleanup goal estimates. Additionally, work will begin to
evaluate existing technologies that can be applied to in situ management of crops and animal
carcasses contaminated with threat agents.
National Environmental Radiation Monitoring System (NMS): Under the National Response
Plan for Homeland Security, EPA has specific radiation response and recovery responsibilities
including maintenance of the National Environmental Radiation Monitoring System (NMS) and
readiness for radiological emergency responses.
S&T - 25
-------
In FY 2006 the Agency anticipates purchasing 40 to 50 fixed monitors for the NMS. When
fully implemented in 2009, the NMS will have over 150 fixed monitoring stations and 40
site-deployable monitors. The monitoring system will be supported by an electronic database
and telemetry system that gathers data from multiple sources to provide quality assurance
and transmit results in a secure mode. As the NMS is upgraded and enhanced, response time
and data dissemination provides near real-time data, enabling officials to make rapid
decisions during an incident and improving overall preparedness.
EPA also would equip and deploy two radiation response teams capable of supporting the
Agency's decontamination/disposal decision-making efforts in the event of a radiological
incident. Staffed by existing personnel expert in radiological decontamination, these teams
would support the work of EPA's existing emergency response teams and provide
specialized assistance in the event of a radiological incident.
Biodefense: In FY 2006, EPA will focus primarily on testing antimicrobial products against
selected biological agents or emerging pathogens to identify products that are effective. In
conjunction with that effort, EPA will also:
review and make registration decisions on applications from chemical manufacturers for
products intended to inactivate biological agents or emerging pathogens;
research improved sporicidal efficacy test methods, providing technical and regulatory
guidance to registrants on efficacy data and labeling requirements for antimicrobials;
in coordination with other federal partners and industry and the public, address issues
surrounding human pathogens and decontamination; and
prepare on the shelf products to accelerate issuance of FIFRA exemptions related to
homeland security as needed to permit the sale, distribution and use of unregistered
antimicrobials or unregistered uses of registered products intended to inactivate specific
pathogens not currently listed on product labels.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (in Thousands of Dollars)
(+$11,800.0, +5.0 FTE) This increase represents new resources for Homeland Security
decontamination research. Work will include testing new decontamination methods and
systems for buildings and outdoor areas, field validation studies of anthrax decontamination
methods, the evaluation of risk characterization information for use in determining cleanup
goal estimates, and evaluation of existing technologies to manage contaminated crops and
animal carcasses.
(+$4,000.0) This increase provides funds for EPA's building decontamination research
program.
(+ 23.4 FTE) This represents a shift of workyears from Homeland Security and non-
Homeland Security research in the Superfund appropriation into S&T to support ongoing
Homeland Security research.
S&T - 26
-------
(+$1,200.0) Additional resources will be used to test and develop antimicrobial chemical
decontamination methods on pathogens identified by CDC.
(+$600.0) Increase requested to acquire updated radiological monitoring equipment and
constitute, equip and deploy two radiation response teams as needed.
(+$600.0) This increase will help maintain the Agency's lab response capability to ensure a
minimal level of capacity for radiological terrorism incidents through development of
radiochemistry methods, refinement of analytical protocols and training.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan
#3 of 1970; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA); Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Executive Order 12241 of September
1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; Executive Order 12656 of November 1988,
Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988; Public Health Service
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C 5121 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act; Title X IV of the
National Defense Authorization Act of 1997, PL 104-201 (Nunn-Lugar II) National Response
Plan; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Oil Pollution Act;
Pollution Prevention Act; Resource Conversation and Recovery Act; Emergency Planning and
Right to Know Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Food Quality
Protection Act; Ocean Dumping Act; Public Health Service Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C 201 et
seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 (1970); Executive Order 10831 (1970); Public Law 86-373;
Pesticides Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)
S&T-
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $2,100.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,431.3
$1,663.1
$12,488.7
$677.8
$20,260.9
3.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$6,344.3
$2,100.0
$11,500.0
$600.0
$20,544.3
3.0
FY 2006
Request
$6,403.0
$2,100.0
$11,500.0
$600.0
$20,603.0
3.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$58.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$58.7
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and that the Agency is prepared to conduct its essential functions during an emergency or threat
situation. This involves safeguarding EPA's staff, ensuring the continuity of operations, and
protecting the capability of EPA's vital infrastructure assets, in particular the environmental
laboratory facilities.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will continue to update its physical security vulnerability assessments and continue
the mitigation of medium vulnerabilities at our most sensitive facilities. The Agency will also
conduct rehearsal of (1) Continuity Of Operations (COOP) site activation, (2) movement of
COOP site and (3) the mission essential functions from its remote alternate site, including
interagency operations. In the event of an emergency which involves chemical or biological
agents, EPA laboratories must remain in operation to provide expertise in identification and
mitigation options.
S&T - 28
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No Change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002
S&T - 29
-------
Human Health Risk Assessment
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $36,240.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Human Health Risk Assessment (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$28,084.2
$3,952.6
$32,036.8
165.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$32,880.4
$3,951.8
$36,832.2
159.8
FY 2006
Request
$36,240.1
$4,021.5
$40,261.6
183.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$3,359.7
$69.7
$3,429.4
23.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Human health risk assessment is a process where information is analyzed to determine if an
environmental hazard might cause harm to exposed persons (National Research Council, 1983).
Risk assessment is widely used by EPA programs, regions and other parties to determine levels of
environmental contaminants that do not pose a human health hazard, to develop regulatory
standards, and to manage environmental cleanups.
Three complementary areas comprise the Human Health Risk Assessment Program Project:
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and other health risk
assessments: Risk
EPA's
assessments are prepared on environmental pollutants of major relevance to
legislative mandates and are publicly available principally on the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) internet database. IRIS is widely used throughout EPA and the risk
management community as the premier source of hazard and dose-response information for
environmental health risk assessment.
* Risk assessment research, methods, and guidance: The Agency provides human health risk
assessment research, methods, guidelines, training materials, and technical and regulatory
support to its program and regional offices. The HHRA program develops improved
methods and guidance to advance risk assessment science and incorporates the latest
developments into Agency-wide human health risk assessments.
Air Quality Criteria Documents (AQCDs): Congress requires that EPA regularly summarize
the state-of-the-science on the criteria air pollutants - ozone, particulate matter, sulfur and
S&T - 30
-------
nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, and lead - to assist EPA's Air and Radiation programs in
determining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These regular
summaries, called Air Quality Criteria Documents (AQCDs), are major risk assessments that
undergo detailed external peer reviewed by the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee
(CASAC).
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA plans to produce the following human health assessment documents under
IRIS, related risk assessments, and the criteria air pollutants:
32 final and external review draft dose-response assessments of high priority chemicals in
support of Program Office, Regional, state and Tribal risk assessment needs;
3 assessments of microbial contaminant risks in support of candidate chemical list (CCL)
regulatory determinations by the Office of Water; and,
1 final AQCD (ozone) and 1 external review draft AQCD (lead) to support NAAQS
decision-making.
Risk assessment methods development in 2006 will address issues related to:
Improved exposure assessment methods, including: an updated Exposure Factors
Handbook for Children, the primary source of collated information on human exposure
parameters used in risk assessments, including hazardous waste sites;
Refinement of dose-response models to link dose to potential adverse effects for
microbial risks, along with upgrading the publicly available and widely used benchmark
dose software to model dose-response curves for toxicants;
Replacement of uncertainty factors with data-derived distributions to better estimate
actual risks of adverse health outcomes; and,
Applied studies to demonstrate the potential for quantifying health benefits and risks by
integrating methods from economics, toxicology, statistics, and epidemiology.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$1,350.0, +10.0 FTE) This redirection will support the expansion of the IRIS program,
which will allow EPA to increase the rate of production of IRIS assessments. Specifically,
the additional workyears will develop and review assessments of high priority environmental
substances for inclusion in IRIS; coordinate reviews of IRIS documents; and work with other
Federal agencies that produce chemical assessments, such as the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, to ensure consistent assessments and efficient use of
resources.
(+$2,052.0, +15.2 FTE) Reallocation of program support workyears to more accurately
reflect support for agency priorities.
(-$502.0) This represents a reduction in funding for human health risk assessment in the areas
of aggregate risk research (human exposure, dose modeling) and drinking water research.
S&T - 31
-------
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CAA; SOW A; CWA; TSCA; FIFRA; CERCLA; SARA; FQPA
S&T - 32
-------
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $441.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Indoor Air: Radon Program (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,125.3
$382.3
$5,507.6
39.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$5,667.1
$398.5
$6,065.6
43.1
FY 2006
Request
$5,918.3
$441.6
$6,359.9
43.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$251.2
$43.1
$294.3
0.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program project supports work at the Radiation and Indoor Environments National
Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, Nevada that supports the radon program by evaluating new
radon instruments and devices, collecting samples and performing analyses for radon, and
distributing radon kits and analyzing follow-up measurements for community-based
environmental justice partners with a focus on Tribes. R&IE operates the only Federal
laboratory that provides: 1) technical support to private, State, and local radon labs; 2) a
mechanism for private radon measurement firms to obtain approval for new radon measurement
devices; 3) consumer protection by assuring accurate and precise radon measurements; and 4) a
means for the U.S. to establish traceability to a nationally recognized radon standard.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The laboratory will continue to provide key radon analytical support to the national program,
ongoing measurement expertise as the only Federal lab for radon devices, and radon support and
technical tools for community-based environmental justice partners.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
S&T - 33
-------
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA); Indoor Radon Abatement Act (IRAA), Section 306
Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act; Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and
Re-authorization Act (SARA) of 1986; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), section 6, Titles
II, and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2641-2671), and Section 10 Clean Air Act Amendments
S&T - 34
-------
IT'/Data Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $4,250.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
IT / Data Management (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$101,091.2
$4,611.0
$109.3
$36.7
$16,886.3
$122,734.5
577.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$108,359.4
$4,821.4
$177.6
$32.8
$16,628.4
$130,019.6
467.0
FY 2006
Request
$105,999.0
$4,250.9
$177.6
$32.8
$16,113.2
$126,573.5
457.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($2,360.4)
($570.5)
$0.0
$0.0
($515.2)
($3,446.1)
-9.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making.
The program: implements the Agency's e-Government responsibilities; designs, develops and
manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet resources including the Integrated Portal; supports
the development, collection, management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both
point source and ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in
strategic planning at the national, program, and regional levels; provides a secure, reliable, and
capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data
standardization, integration, and public access; manages the Agency's Quality System ensuring
EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines, and, supports Regional
information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs, and
telecommunications. These functions are integral to the implementation of Agency information
technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX)
and Permit Compliance System (PCS). Agency Offices rely on the IT/Data Management
program and its capabilities to develop and implement tools for ready access to accurate and
timely data. Recent partnerships include portals projects with the Offices of Research and
Development and Air and Radiation to access scientific and program data.
S&T-35
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA's Information Technology community's FY 2006
activities focus on the Agency's Technology Initiative and
fulfilling the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov)
commitments. The Agency's IT/Data Management
program forms the core of this effort with its focus on
building and implementing the Agency's Integrated Portal
and Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS),
developing of Environmental Indicators, and continuing to
deploy enterprise-wide IT infrastructure solutions.
The Agency's Technology Initiative builds on efforts
started in FY 2004 and FY 2005 to enhance environmental
analytical capacity for EPA, its partners and stakeholders. The Initiative is designed with the
understanding that the majority of environmental data are collected by states and Tribes, not
directly by EPA and that ready access to real time quality environmental data and analytical tools
are essential to making sound environmental decisions. Understanding these factors focused
EPA's FY 2006 Technology Initiative on five related and supporting activities:
S Building the Agency's analytical capacity to facilitate sound environmental decision-
making and address critical data gaps;
S Developing a central integrated portal to manage the flow of information to and from the
Agency;
S Providing more effective, secure, and integrated information exchange through the
environmental exchange network with our state partners;
S Streamlining, securing, and technically advancing the infrastructure through enterprise-
wide solutions across EPA; and,
S Implementing a central content management system that provides ready access to
documents and data.
EPA's Environmental Information Exchange Network Program (Exchange Network,
www.epa.gov/cdx), the Electronic Content Management System (ECMS) and EPA's 'Readiness
to Serve' enterprise-wide IT infrastructure solutions provide the foundation for states, Tribes, the
public, regulated community and EPA for improved information and data access and sharing
opportunities. The Integrated Portal manages a variety of environmental information allowing
increased data availability, better data quality and accuracy, security of sensitive data, and
prevents data redundancy. Finally, with proven infrastructures and increased data access, EPA,
its partners and stakeholders can conduct better data analyses to answer environmental questions.
Integral to the successful achievement of the Technology Initiative and the broader IT/Data
Management efforts is the quality of the data and services. In FY 2006 EPA's IT/Data
Management program will continue to provide methods to manage the quality of its
environmental data collection, generation, and use. The primary goal of the EPA Quality System
is to ensure that its environmental data are of sufficient quantity and quality to support the data's
intended use. As part of the Agency's Quality System, policies and procedures have been
S&T - 36
-------
developed to assist individual data collectors, data users, and decision makers in defining their
needs for data and assessing data against these needs, and to provide EPA management with
methods for overseeing the quality-related activities of their programs. Like the larger IT/Data
Management efforts, the Quality System is closely coordinated with the Exchange Network and
Information Security programs. This relationship ensures quality data are available and
accessible to promote sound environmental decision-making.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$570.5) The reduction in resources is a result of reduced payroll and efficiencies gained
through a restructuring of EPA's UNIX services.
Statutory Authority
Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
Clean Air Act and amendments; Clean Water Act and amendments; Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act; Toxic Substance Control Act; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Superfund Amendments and Re-
authorization Act; Government Performance and Results Act; Government Management Reform
Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; Freedom of Information Act; Computer
Security Act; Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act
S&T - 37
-------
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $2,490.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$40,936.3
$2,173.1
$43,109.4
353.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$42,907.0
$2,403.2
$45,310.2
330.7
FY 2006
Request
$41,471.7
$2,490.0
$43,961.7
327.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,435.3)
$86.8
($1,348.5)
-2.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Agency has three laboratories that validate environmental and analytical chemistry methods
to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and States have reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues
in food and in the environment. The laboratories provide Regional enforcement programs with
highly specialized pesticide chemistry services to support enforcement cases including the more
difficult to analyze older pesticides. State pesticide laboratories receive technical and quality
assurance support through check sample exercises, workshops and training in pesticide analytical
chemistry. Additionally, the laboratories support the Office of General Counsel for hearings and
the Office of Research and Development on special projects. Other initiatives that support the
Registration Program include the screening for endocrine disrupting potential of pesticides and
pursuing methods for determining chemical toxicity that reduce or eliminate animal testing.
Analytical methods are evaluated for: 1) detecting pesticide residues in the environment to
ensure that they are suitable for monitoring residues in soil and water; 2) enforcement for
product chemistry to ensure that the labels are accurate; and 3) detecting residues in food and
feed to ensure that they are suitable for monitoring and to enforce legal residue limits.
Resources are used to operate the National Pesticide Standard Repository for pesticide analytical
reference standards and to distribute the standards to Federal and state enforcement laboratories.
EPA laboratories, in cooperation with industry and state and regional laboratories, develop multi-
residue analytical methods to allow enforcement agencies to test for several different chemicals
using one test. The microbiology laboratory conducts product performance testing of
antimicrobials, evaluates new efficacy test methods for hospital disinfectants, provides support
on test methodologies and procedures, investigates new technologies and screening techniques
S&T-38
-------
for evaluating the product performance of antimicrobials, and provides technical support/training
on testing methods and procedures.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA's Laboratories will continue to support pesticide registration and reregi strati on activities.
They will provide Quality Assurance technical support and training to state FIFRA laboratories,
EPA regions, and other Federal agencies. The laboratories will continue to evaluate registered
products that are most crucial to infection control (sterilants, tuberculocides, and hospital-level
disinfectants). In conjunction with certain state laboratories, in FY 2006 they will continue to
perform efficacy tests using the same parameters (contact time, dilution of product) as noted on
the product label. The laboratories will continue to provide technical support and chemical
analyses of pesticides and related chemicals, develop new multi-residue analytical methods, and
operate the EPA National Pesticide Standard Repository.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Pesticides Registration Improvement Act (PRIA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA)
S&T - 39
-------
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $2,506.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$54,163.5
$2,303.5
$56,467.0
466.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$58,053.9
$2,417.1
$60,471.0
466.6
FY 2006
Request
$57,991.2
$2,506.1
$60,497.3
462.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($62.7)
$89.0
$26.3
-3.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's Laboratories include an analytical laboratory and a microbiology laboratory at the
Environmental Science Center (ESC) at Fort Meade, MD and an environmental chemistry
laboratory (ECL) at Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS. These laboratories support
Reregistration activities by validating environmental and analytical chemistry methods to ensure
that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Regional offices and States have reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide
residues in food and in the environment. These laboratories, in cooperation with industry and
state and regional laboratories, develop multi-residue analytical methods to allow enforcement
agencies to test for several different chemicals using one test. The microbiology laboratory
conducts product performance testing of antimicrobials related to public health including new
efficacy test methods for hospital disinfectants. The microbiology laboratory provides technical
support and training on testing methods and procedures. As EPA updates research results, the
cumulative risk policy is updated to ensure risk assessments maintain pace with advancing
science and that improvements are incorporated into the Registration Review Program.
The laboratories provide Regional enforcement programs with highly specialized pesticide
chemistry services to support enforcement cases including the more difficult to analyze older
pesticides. Laboratory services provide the Office of General Counsel information for hearings
and to the office of Research and Development for dioxin assessments and screenings.
Additional support provides screening for endocrine disrupting potential of pesticides,
biotechnology, pursuing methods for determining chemical toxicity that reduce or eliminate
animal testing, and homeland security activities.
S&T - 40
-------
The ECL supports the following functions:
Provides the state pesticide laboratories with technical and quality assurance support
through check sample exercises and workshops as well as training in pesticide analytical
chemistry;
Evaluates analytical methods for detecting pesticide residues in the environment to
ensure that they are suitable for monitoring residues in soil and water;
Evaluates enforcement analytical methods for product chemistry to ensure that the labels
are accurate;
Evaluate analytical methods for detecting residues in food and feed to ensure that they are
suitable for monitoring, and to enforce legal residue limits; and,
Operates the National Pesticide Standard Repository for pesticide analytical reference
standards and distributes the standards to Federal and state enforcement laboratories.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will continue to support the Reregi strati on program activities, including conducting
benefits assessments, post Registration Eligibility Decisions (RED) assessments, conducting
analysis of use and usage data, conducting analysis of surface water samples for risk
assessments, operating the National Pesticide Standard Repository, and conducting chemistry
and efficacy testing for antimicrobials. Additionally, the laboratories will continue to support
Homeland Security activities such as anthrax surrogate studies and ensure ability to provide
surge capacity to respond to incidents. The Homeland Security activities associated with this
program are discussed in more detail in the Homeland Security Program Project.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Pesticides Registration Improvement Act (PRIA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA)
S&T-41
-------
Radiation: Protection
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Radiation
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $2,120.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Radiation: Protection (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$11,608.6
$4,185.6
$2,223.9
$18,018.1
119.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$11,811.7
$2,847.0
$2,323.2
$16,981.9
114.4
FY 2006
Request
$11,765.1
$2,120.5
$2,387.1
$16,272.7
103.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($46.6)
($726.5)
$63.9
($709.2)
-10.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program ensures an ongoing radiation protection capability at the National Air and
Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) located in Montgomery, AL and the Radiation
and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) located in Las Vegas, NV. These
laboratories provide radioanalytical and mixed waste testing and analysis of environmental
samples to support site assessment, clean-up, and response activities
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the Agency will provide technical support for conducting site specific radiological
characterizations and clean ups by working with the public, industry, states, Tribes and other
governments. EPA, in partnership with other Federal agencies, will promote the management of
radiation risks in a consistent and safe manner at Department of Energy (DOE), Department of
Defense (DOD), state, local and other Federal sites by: assisting with site charcterizations and
providing analytical support for site assessment activities; remediation technologies, and
measurement and information systems; and, providing training and direct site assistance
including laboratory, field, and risk assessment support at sites with actual or suspected
radioactive contamination.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$950.0, -6.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources and associated payroll
from the Radiation: Protection program to the Radiation: Response Preparedness program
to support emergency response efforts.
S&T - 42
-------
Statutory Authority
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan
#3 of 1970; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA); Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-
486; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980;
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.;
Safe Drinking Water Act; Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978; Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act
S&T - 43
-------
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Radiation
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $3,576.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
Radiation: Response Preparedness (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$3,308.1
$2,109.1
$5,417.2
25.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$2,610.9
$2,239.0
$4,849.9
36.5
FY 2006
Request
$2,636.0
53,576.3
$6,212.3
42.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$25.1
57,337.3
$1,362.4
5.8
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, AL and
the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) located in Las Vegas, NV
provides field sampling and analyses, laboratory analyses, and direct scientific support to
respond to radiological and nuclear incidents. Additional functions of the labs include
measurement and monitoring of radioactive materials in the environment and providing
assessments of radioactive contamination at environmental levels. This program comprises
direct scientific field and laboratory activities to support preparedness, planning, training and
procedures development. In addition, selected staffs are members of EPA's Radiological
Emergency Response Team (RERT) and are trained to provide direct expert assistance in the
field.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA's RERT, a component of the Agency's emergency response structure, will maintain its
preparedness in the laboratories for radiological incidents including those for which EPA is the
Coordinating Agency under the National Response Plan. The laboratory RERT members will
conduct training and exercises to enhance their ability to fulfill EPA responsibilities in the field,
using mobile analytical systems and fixed labs in order to provided the necessary mix of rapid
and accurate radionuclide analyses in environmental matrices.4
Additional information can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/rert.htm last accessed 1/3/2005
S&T - 44
-------
The labs field teams that provide scientific data, analyses and updated analytical techniques for
radiation emergency response programs across the Agency; maintain readiness for radiological
emergency responses, participate in mock emergency response situations; provide on-site
scientific support to state radiation, solid waste, and health programs that regulate radiation
remediation; participate in the Protective Action Guidance(PAG) workshops; and respond as
required to radiological incidents.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+6.3 FTE, +$950.0) An increase in Radiation: Response Preparedness represents a
redirection of resources from the Radiation: Protection program. This redirection will allow
the Agency to support increased emergency preparedness efforts at the state and local levels.
This includes participation in training efforts.
There are increases and adjustments for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan
#3 of 1970; Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA); Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National
Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; Executive Order 12656 of November 1988, Assignment of
Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988; Public Health Service Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C 5121 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act; and Title XIV of the National
Defense Authorization Act of 1997, PL 104-201 (Nunn-Lugar II)
S&T - 45
-------
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $831.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations**
$22,200.8
$755.4
$22,956.2
75.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.**
$25,244.5
$906.1
$26,150.6
80.6
FY 2006
Request
$23,496.4
$831.8
$24,328.2
69.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,748.1)
($74.3)
($1,822.4)
-11.4
* Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
** Resources under this Program/Project were formerly captured under the Indoor Air: Asthma, Indoor Air:
Environmental Tobacco Smoke Program, and the Indoor Air: Schools and Workplace Program.
Program Project Description
The Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) conducts field
measurements and assessments and provides technical support for indoor air quality
remediations. The direct laboratory technical assistance provided to partners is used in assessing
and recommending indoor environmental interventions designed to reduce health impacts to
asthmatic children. R&IE also conducts training and provides technical support for development
of Tribal capacity for indoor air quality programs, such as mold remediation, assessment and
characterization of sources of volatiles and intruding vapors, and monitoring and measurement
techniques.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue conducting field measurements and assessments and providing technical
support for indoor air quality remediations in FY 2006. EPA will also continue to provide direct
laboratory technical assistance to partners to assess and recommend indoor environmental
interventions designed to reduce health impacts to asthmatic children. EPA will also conduct
several Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) intervention and remediation training courses which will
continue to support development of tribal capacity for indoor air quality programs.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for new and existing FTE.
S&T - 46
-------
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA); Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act;
Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act (SARA) of 1986
S&T - 47
-------
Research: Air Toxics
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $16,386.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Air Toxics (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$20,052.4
$20,052.4
64.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$17,638.9
$17,638.9
59.5
FY 2006
Request
$16,386.7
$16,386.7
55.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,252.2)
($1,252.2)
-3.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's air toxics research provides the scientific foundation for the Agency to fulfill its
responsibilities under the Clean Air Act by increasing our understanding of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs), reducing uncertainty in national-scale, residual risk, and community-based
assessments, and providing the tools (health hazard, exposure and emission methods, data, and
models) needed to identify and implement cost-effective approaches to reduce risks from toxic
air pollutants, including HAPs in both outdoor and indoor environments.
The Agency has developed an Air Toxics Research Strategy1 that outlines research needs and
priorities consistent with programmatic directions expressed by the Agency, Regions and other
internal and external clients. In addition, the Air Toxics Research Multi-Year Plan (MYP),2
another tool the Agency uses to plan and implement air toxics research, articulates the chief
goals of EPA's air toxics research program as reducing uncertainty in air toxics assessments and
providing tools to implement cost-effective approaches to reduce the health risks of exposure to
HAPs. (R&D Criteria: Quality)
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Air toxics research will focus on reducing uncertainty in air toxics risk assessments and
supporting Agency, State, and local efforts to implement risk reduction strategies. The former
will involve health effects and exposure research to develop and improve approaches to evaluate
risks from both acute and chronic exposures to HAPs, and develop approaches to perform
community assessments of air toxic exposures and risks.
1 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Air Toxics Research Strategy. Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed October 12,
2003. Available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/Air_Toxics.pdf
2 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Air Toxics Multi-Year Plan . Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed January 8,
2004. Available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/airtox.pdf
S&T - 48
-------
Research supporting the implementation of risk reduction strategies will concentrate on mobile
source risk assessments and emissions reductions, and the development of residual risk standards
through emissions and exposure research. Emissions research and additional exposure research
will support the development of risk reduction programs resulting from national scale
assessments. In addition, the results from the research planned will provide data to support
Federal, State, and community efforts to implement non-regulatory approaches to reduce
exposure to HAPs indoors.
Emission research also will examine sources of indoor toxic air pollutants, including transport
from outdoors, advanced approaches to measure organic air toxics, and metal speciation of
arsenic, nickel, and chromium in selected combustion systems to improve data used to develop
emission factors and risk assessments. The Agency will continue to conduct exposure research
to improve monitoring methods for HAPs in national monitoring networks, and establish
common calibration and audit standards to provide a basis for uniformity of data at the national
level, which will improve the conduct of assessments at that level.
In FY 2006, a portion of air toxics research will be accomplished using a new approach to
applied research funding at EPA. This arrangement, based on the existing collaborative
framework between the media and research offices, will help to ensure continued relevance and
quality of applied research at EPA. This program project contains funds that will be provided to
the Office of Air and Radiation to use a fee-for-service arrangement with the Office of Research
and Development to obtain additional research focusing on the Agency's highest priority air
toxics research needs.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$900.0) Under a new approach to applied research funding at EPA, these funds will be
provided to the Office of Air and Radiation to obtain additional research that focuses on
the Agency's highest priority air toxics research needs. In FY 2006, research will be
conducted to improve understanding of the sources, atmospheric distribution, and effects
of the most significant toxic air pollutants, and to provide the information needed to
address health risks and ensure adequate protection to the public.
(-$2,000.0) These resources supported coordinated efforts with the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry which are expected to be completed by FY 2006.
(-$702.0, -5.2 FTE) Workyears will be redirected from air toxics health effects research
focused on reducing uncertainty in risk assessments to support an expansion of the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program in the Human Health Risk
Assessment program under Goal 4.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CAA
S&T - 49
-------
Research: Drinking Water
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $45,690.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Drinking Water (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$43,036.6
$43,036.6
198.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$46,118.1
$46,118.1
214.7
FY 2006
Request
$45,690.0
$45,690.0
210.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($428.1)
($428.1)
-4.7
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The drinking water research program directly supports several key elements of EPA's "Strategic
Plan for Clean and Safe Water1" including developing or revising standards for contaminants of
concern, effectively implementing these standards, and protecting drinking water sources. To
help guide the program, EPA developed a Drinking Water Research Program Multi-Year Plan2
in 2003, and previous research plans for Microbial Pathogens/Disinfection Byproducts
(M/DBPs) in Drinking Water3 and Arsenic in Drinking Water4. These plans were subjected to
rigorous peer review and address those problems deemed most pressing in the area of drinking
water quality (R&D Criteria: Quality, Relevance).
To meet the requirements of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments5, EPA
conducts an integrated, multi-disciplinary research program that is closely linked to the agency's
regulatory activities and timelines. Research in this program project:
provides new scientific data and analytical methods for identifying and evaluating the
health effects of waterborne pathogens (e.g., Cryptosporidium, Norwalk virus) and
chemicals (e.g., arsenic, disinfection byproducts) that may contaminate drinking water
(assessments and methods for estimating risk to waterborne pathogens and chemicals are
conducted under the Human Health Risk Assessment Program-Project); and
1 U.S. EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. "2003 - 2008 EPA Strategic Plan: Direction for the Future. " Date of Access:
January 14,2004. Available through the internet: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf
2 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Drinking Water Research Program Multi-Year Plan, Washington, D.C.
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Research Plan for Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-Products in
Drinking Water. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. EPA 600-R-97-122. (1997).
4 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Research Plan for Arsenic in Drinking Water. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office. EPA 600-R-98-042. (1998).
s Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-182. Available through the internet:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/sdwa.html
S&T - 50
-------
develops improved technologies for cost-effective control of these risks.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, drinking water research will continue to focus on distribution systems, source water
protection, and arsenic. Three final reports detailing the results of full-scale demonstrations of
arsenic treatment technologies will be provided to the EPA Water programs, states, local
authorities, and utilities to support the implementation of the current arsenic rule. These reports
address the special needs of small systems for arsenic removal and pathogen control in order to
develop and demonstrate cost-effective treatment technologies that are easily installed and
automated.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to conduct research to characterize health effects, especially
adverse reproductive outcomes, from the highest priority byproducts and DBF mixtures. EPA
will also continue to evaluate the factors affecting DBF formation, and to develop improved
analytical methods to detect and measure DBFs (including new byproducts, such as iodinated
DBFs).
In addition to addressing regulated contaminants, research will continue to focus on microbes
and chemicals on the CCL. This research plays a critical role in assessing the need and
feasibility of controlling new contaminants under the CCL program. Research will continue to
identify cost-effective contaminant control techniques, improved analytical detection methods
for measuring the occurrence of chemicals and microbes on the CCL, improved health effects
and risk assessments, and innovative classification and prioritization methods.
In FY 2006, a portion of drinking water research will be accomplished using a new approach to
applied research funding at EPA. This arrangement, based on the existing collaborative
framework between the media and research offices, will help to ensure continued relevance and
quality of applied research at EPA. This program project contains funds that will be provided to
the Office Water to use a fee-for-service arrangement with the Office of Research and
Development to obtain additional research focusing on the Agency's highest priority drinking
water research needs.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+ $1,000.0) Under a new approach to applied research funding, these funds will be provided
to EPA's Office of Water to obtain additional research focusing on the Agency's highest
priority drinking water research needs. In FY 2006, research will support existing drinking
water research activities in areas such as epidemiological studies, microbial research
including risk management research on selected contaminants, and test methods research and
implementation.
(+$405.0, + 3.0 FTE) This increase reflects the realignment of resources from computational
toxicology to drinking water research. The work will continue to perform research to further
develop the use of computational toxicology tools in support of regulatory needs across the
Agency.
S&T-51
-------
(-$1,500.0) Redirection to drinking water research in support of the review/revision of
current rules for arsenic, disinfection byproducts (DBFs), surface water/ground water, and 6-
year review. Resources will be redirected to other higher priority research.
(-$675.0, -5.0 FTE) This shift from the drinking water research program to the water quality
research program will allow the overall water research program the flexibility to integrate
drinking water source water protection and water quality research. The shift will not
diminish the level of effort for water research as a whole.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
SOW A; CWA; MPRSA
S&T - 52
-------
Research: Endocrine Disruptor
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $8,705.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Endocrine Disruptor (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$11,616.1
$11,616.1
51.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$8,044.0
$8,044.0
55.0
FY 2006
Request
$8,705.0
$8,705.0
54.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$661.0
$661.0
-0.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Research in direct support of EPA's screening and testing programs (mandated under the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments1
(SDWAA) of 1996) will evaluate current testing protocols and develop new protocols to evaluate
potential endocrine effects of environmental agents. Research will assist decision makers in
working toward reducing and preventing exposure of humans and ecosystems to endocrine
disrupters that pose an unreasonable risk. This program underwent a PART review in 2006 and
received a rating of Adequate.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to develop and evaluate an innovative DNA microarray and other
state-of-the-art analytical methods for EDCs. EPA's endocrine disrupters research program has
developed and refined assays, and improved other screening tools using genomics and high-
speed computing capabilities so that EPA's Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
program has the necessary protocols to validate for use in the Agency's Endocrine Disrupters
Screening Program. Using genomics in the continued development of improved molecular and
computational tools that can be used to prioritize chemicals for screening and testing is within
the "Biology of Complex Systems" category highlighted as a priority for Federal investment by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP)2.
1 SDWA Section 1457
Updated Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities memo by J.Marburger and J. Bolten; August 12,2004.
S&T - 53
-------
In FY 2006, this research program expects to complete a protocol to screen environmental
chemicals for their ability to interact with the male hormone receptor. Other important areas of
research to be conducted in FY 2006 include:
Applying computational and molecular approaches to develop models that predict a
chemical's ability to cause endocrine disruption;
Continuing to study the ability of conventional wastewater treatment and drinking water
treatment process to remove EDCs;
Increasing emphasis on studying concentrated feeding operations as possible sources of
EDCs to the environment;
Continuing to examine children's exposure to EDCs through support to a longitudinal
study started in FY 2004 designed to examine very young children's aggregate exposures
to selected pesticides, EDCs, and other persistent pollutants; and
Continuing to define toxicity pathways as a basis for extrapolation across species (e.g.,
from aquatic to mammalian organisms) and levels of organization (e.g., from molecular
to cellular, tissue, organ and whole organism levels), which will lead to the reduction of
animal use in testing.
Continuing to work with EPA's Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances program to
meet programmatic objectives and statutory requirements.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$200.0) This increase reflects the realignment of resources from computational toxicology
to endocrine disrupters' research. There are no performance impacts associated with this
shift as the work will continue to perform research to further develop the use of
computational toxicology tools in support of regulatory needs across the Agency.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CAA; ERDDA; FIFRA; TSCA; FQPA; SDWA; TSCA; CWA; SDWA; RCRA; CAA;
CERCLA; PPA
S&T - 54
-------
Research: Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $3,202.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$3,542.9
$3,542.9
6.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$2,996. 8
$2,996.8
6.0
FY 2006
Request
$3,202.6
$3,202.6
4.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$205. 8
$205.8
-1.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program3 verifies the performance of
environmental technologies that address high-priority, high-risk environmental issues. These
technologies are submitted voluntarily by private industry, which cite ETV's findings to support
claims about a product's capabilities. ETV only verifies the performance of commercial-ready
technologies, allowing the program to respond to the immediate needs of the environmental
technology market. To date, ETV has verified over 300 environmental technologies and has an
active community of nearly 800 collaborating stakeholders.
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) has reviewed the ETV program twice and concluded
during its second review that "the verification testing information that is provided by the ETV
program fulfills an essential need of the environmental technology marketplace."4
ETV also supports state, national, and international efforts to address environmental issues with
technological solutions. States use ETV data and protocols to shorten site-specific pilot testing
of technologies, and some require verification of technologies used to comply with State and
Federal pollution laws. The ETV program's operating procedures and the testing protocols it
produces serve as peer-reviewed standards for the international and business communities on
how to verify different types of environmental technologies.
3 For more information, visit:
4 EPA, Science Advisory Board, Review of EPA 's Environmental Technology Verification Program, (Washington:
EPA, 2000). Available on the Internet at:
S&T - 55
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the ETV program will verify approximately 15 technologies. The program will also
work with stakeholders and independent labs to develop two to four peer-reviewed procedures
for evaluating technology categories. (R&D Criteria: Quality) To address the findings of a
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review, the program is working to better measure its
performance and evaluating its results to date. In FY 2006, ETV will conduct surveys to assess
how it has influenced vendors and develop surveys to assess its influence on technology
purchasers and permitters. The program will also reorganize its centers to focus on
environmental and pollution monitoring and air emissions controls and will establish a new
sustainability-focused component, Environmental and Sustainable Technology
Evaluation (ESTE), designed to address high-risk technology gaps and emerging issues more
flexibly.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SARA; TSCA
S&T - 56
-------
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $169,632.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$175,970.3
$0.2
$175,970.5
518.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$177,407.5
$0.0
$177,407.5
524.5
FY 2006
Request
$169,632.3
$0.0
$169,632.3
505.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($7,775.2)
$0.0
($7,775.2)
-18.6
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Agency conducts core human health and ecosystems research 1) to identify and characterize
environmentally-related human health problems, and determine exposures to and sources of
agents responsible for these health concerns and 2) to understand the condition of ecosystems,
the stressors changing that condition, the consequences of those changes, and how to prevent,
mitigate, or adapt to those changes. More targeted efforts include mercury research and research
on indicators to support the Report on the Environment that are critical to measure environmental
impacts. Under this program project, several multi-year plans (MYPs)1 (e.g., human health,
ecological research) convey our research priorities and approach for achieving its goals and
objectives. These plans were created through intra-agency support and coordination, to ensure
the research conducted supports EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment
(R&D Criteria: Relevance).
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will support research to determine the utility of emerging technologies in
harmonizing cancer and non-cancer risk assessments. Through this research, ORD will develop
emerging 'omics methodologies (genomics, proteomics, and metabonomics) for mechanistic
studies on selected high priority environmental agents. EPA will also continue examining
promising new biomarkers of exposure and effects, which can be used in future exposure and
epidemiological studies, such as the National Children's Study (NCS).
1 For additional information, please go to www.epa.gov/osp/myp
S&T - 57
-------
Research on susceptible subpopulations will continue efforts to develop emissions data, models,
and other tools that will inform school systems about the indoor environmental implications of
materials and products used in schools, and assist them in reducing exposure of susceptible
children to indoor contaminants. Also, the Agency will sponsor epidemiology studies conducted
in rural and urban communities to examine relationships describing: 1) indoor and outdoor air
contaminants levels with the onset, incidence and severity of children's asthma, and 2)
neurodevelopmental effects and children's exposure to pesticides.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) research efforts are guided by the
EMAP Research Strategy, published in 2002.2 Major efforts under EMAP include the National
Coastal Assessment (NCA), Western EMAP (WEMAP), Central Basin Integrated Assessment,
work in landscape ecology, and programs to develop and refine environmental indicators. The
WEMAP program is conducting the largest interstate, interagency, comprehensive study of
western streams. The results from WEMAP, NCA, and FY 2005 wetlands reporting efforts will
be used to guide the development of monitoring frameworks for other aquatic ecosystems.3
The Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) program extends environmental assessments at
the regional scale by using integrative technologies to predict future environmental risk in order
to support decision-making and prioritization. Diagnosis and forecasting models previously
developed are being successfully applied to provide a better scientific basis for ecosystem
protection and restoration, and provide important support for a number of programs. Restoration
research provides environmental managers with improved tools for rehabilitating watershed
ecosystems, reducing stressors, and enhancing the natural resilience of ecosystems. In FY 2006
EPA will continue research to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration options for aquatic
ecosystems, with particular emphasis on options for the Mid-Atlantic Region and the western
United States.
In FY 2006, EPA will also release the next (triennial) Report on the Environment (ROE) which
describes EPA's strategic shift beyond its historic reliance on indicators of reduction in
exposures to more direct outcome measures, while maintaining emphasis on the identification,
development, and application of existing and future indicators that extend EPA's ability to assess
environmental condition and progress.
Mercury research will focus exclusively on evaluating the cost and performance of options to
reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired utility boilers and further testing of continuous source
emission monitors (CEMs). Work on control technologies will include pilot- and full-scale
testing of systems that optimize mercury, SO2, and NOx control from the combustion of
bituminous, sub-bituminous, and lignite coals and evaluation of the performance and cost of
promising control technologies under development (e.g. new sorbents) and assessing how these
technologies impact the characteristics of coal combustion residues.
2 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program: Research Strategy.
Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. EPA 620-R-02-002. (2002). Available through the internet:
http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/resstrat02.html
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water. National Coastal Condition Report. Washington, B.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office. EPA 620-R-01-005. (2001). Available through the internet:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/chapters/cwapcover.pdf
S&T - 58
-------
The Agency's new Advanced Monitoring Initiative (AMI) will bring together information
technology advancements with advances in remote sensing. EPA and its partners will integrate
socioeconomic, human health and ecosystem databases, and monitor the health of humans and
the environment over greater expanses, in less time, and more cost-effectively than ever before.
This effort will be highly leveraged with other agencies, including the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and the Department of Energy, and is linked with the international
community through the Global Earth Observation Systems of Systems (GEOSS) program.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$5,314.8) This redirection from air research in Goal 1, and mercury and PBT research in
Goal 4 will support EPA's Advanced Monitoring Initiative (AMI). Outcomes under this
initiative are expected to be delivered in relatively short timeframes, with far-reaching
results-particularly with State and Regional entities responsible for making environmental
decisions and responding to environmental threats. Potential outcomes benefiting air
research in Goal 1 include improvements in characterizing urban air pollution through
demonstrations of optical remote sensing technologies, and the initiation of a state-of-the-
science monitoring location in an urban area. Other potential benefits include enhanced
water quality monitoring and forecasting for recreational waters, including storm event
coastal sewage contamination, and drinking water source water (Goal 2), and enhanced
tracking of major ecosystem stressors and forecasting of effects on coral reef health,
including climate and land use changes (Goal 4).
(+$1,282.5, +9.5 FTE) This redirection from the pesticides and toxics research program to
the human health research program will augment critical research on modes of action of high
priority environmental agents, such as conazoles air pollutants, and will consolidate efforts in
harmonization of cancer and non-cancer risk assessment.
(+$1,081.0) This shift redirects resources to high priority research in the human health from
computational toxicology. The Agency will increase emphasis in the areas of harmonization
of cancer and non-cancer effects and cumulative risk, which is high priority research for
many Agency program offices, the Regions, and the States.
(+$769.5, +5.7 FTE) This adjustment reflects a realignment of Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) cumulative risk research to the human health research program. The realignment
consolidates the Agency's cumulative risk research under Goal 4, which allows for greater
coordination of research efforts given the core scientific nature of this research and the focus
on mode-of-action.
(+$594.0, +4.4 FTE) This redirection of workyears from the Homeland Security research
program will support high priority research in mercury, cumulative risk and susceptible
subpopulations.
(+$486.0, +3.6 FTE) This adjustment reflects the realignment of workyears from the
Sustainability research program in Goal 5 to the human health research program, focusing on
S&T - 59
-------
children's health. This shift will support research developing emissions data, models, and
other tools that will inform school systems about the indoor environmental implications of
materials and products used in schools, and assist them in reducing exposure of susceptible
children to indoor contaminants.
(+$459.0, +4.4 FTE) This workyear increase reflects a redirection into the mercury research
program from pollution prevention research in Goal 5. This shift will provide additional
support to research on evaluating the cost and performance of options to reduce mercury
emissions from coal-fired utility boilers and further testing of continuous source emission
monitors (CEMs).
(-$5,800.0) This reduction will affect various portions of the ecosystem protection research
program (FY 2005 Base - $94,079.8), including Western EMAP, the National Coastal
Assessment (NCA), ReVA (Regional Vulnerability Assessment) tools, and watershed
modeling research. EPA is working to address findings of a Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) evaluation, which recommended that the program develop improved
performance measures.
(-$5,000.0) Reduction in the exploratory grants program (FY 2005 Base - $10,005.3), which
supports investigator-initiated research projects that address future or emerging
environmental issues. Resources will be redirected to other, higher priority Agency efforts.
The majority of FY 2006 exploratory grants will be in the field of nanotechnology.
(-$2,398.9) This reduction represents a redirection of resources from the mercury research
program to support the Advanced Monitoring Initiative (AMI). EPA expects to have
completed advance work on Clear Skies or related mercury emissions rulemakings by 2006.
This reduction will discontinue research on minimizing releases of mercury from non-
combustion sources (e.g. oil, gas, sediments) and gathering data to support guidance,
regulations, and policies for managing these relatively minor sources. EPA will continue to
conduct mercury research supporting methods to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
utility boilers and further testing of continuous source emission monitors (CEMs).
(-$2,656.4, -14.1 FTE) This represents a shift from the ecosystem protection research
program (FY 2005 Base - $94,079.8) in Goal 4 to the water quality research program in Goal
2 to more accurately reflect emphasis of strategic goals related to water quality research.
There is no change in the nature of scope of the work.
(-$1,514.1, -14.7 FTE) This reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce
adjustment described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number
of Agency authorized positions, but not to overall Agency FTE utilization.
(-$1,296.0, -9.6 FTE) Reallocation of program support workyears from human health and
ecosystems research to more accurately reflect support for Agency priorities.
(-$1,030.1, -5.8 FTE) This is a realignment of the Causal Analysis and Diagnosis Decision
Information System (CADDIS) data base from ecosystem protection research.
S&T - 60
-------
(FY 2005 Base - $94,079.8) in Goal 4 to water quality research in Goal 2. There will be no
programmatic or performance impacts associated with this shift as the work will not change
in nature or scope.
(-$904.5, -6.7 FTE) Workyears are being redirected from the human health and ecosystem
protection research program to support efforts in areas such as Homeland Security and the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) research programs.
(-$683.0) This reflects a reduction in funding for aggregate risk research. EPA will reduce
its aggregate risk research efforts related to human exposure, dose modeling, and human
health risk assessment, as well as its ability to demonstrate the applications of such research
(via case studies and chemical assessments). This reduction will also delay by two years
research that incorporates human exposure measurement data into the human exposure
database systems.
(-$547.1) This is a reduction to the ecosystem protection research program in Goal 4 and will
reduce research to develop tools necessary to assess the condition of estuaries throughout the
Gulf of Mexico.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CAA; SOW A; ERDDA; CWA; FIFRA; FFDCA; RCRA; FQPA; TSCA
S&T-61
-------
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $13,696.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Land Protection and Restoration (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$10,230.3
$627.1
$928.2
$32,264.8
$44,050.4
142.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$8,841.9
$628.5
$917.8
$22,671.1
$33,059.3
136.8
FY 2006
Request
$13,696.5
$646.2
$905.7
$23,098.7
$38,347.1
135.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$4,854.6
$17.7
($12.1)
$427.6
$5,287.8
-1.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Research performed under this program supports scientifically defensible and consistent
decision-making for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste management and
corrective action by providing a tested multimedia modeling system and technical support to
those who use the model to make environmental decisions. Research and support within this
program addresses resource conservation, corrective action, hazardous waste treatment,
multimedia modeling, landfills, leaching, containment systems, and landfill bioreactors. To guide
these research efforts, EPA has developed a draft Multi-Year Plan for Hazardous Waste19
research, with input from across the Agency, to ensure research conducted supports the Agency's
mission to protect human health and the environment (R&D Criteria: Relevance). Specific
human health risk and exposure assessments and methods and site specific risk characterizations
are discussed and conducted under the Superfund Human Health Risk Assessment Program-
Project.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In support of EPA's Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), a major national effort to reduce
waste by promoting the use of recycled products to conserve natural resources, EPA will
continue to develop prudent options for minimizing waste, and for assessing the performance of
waste minimization programs through multimedia risk assessments. In FY 2006, EPA will
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Hazardous Waste Multi-Year Plan, [online] Available:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/rcra.pdf
S&T - 62
-------
continue to collaborate with the private sector to conduct field sampling, and with the states to
optimize operations and monitoring of several landfill bioreactors and determine their potential
to provide alternative energy in the form of landfill gas while increasing the nation's landfill
capacity. EPA will continue to conduct field studies on monitored natural attenuation (MNA) of
mobile metals, which offers an alternative to more conventional cleanup methods at lower cost
and with less intrusion to the surrounding environment.
In FY 2006, a portion of the research in this program will be accomplished using a new approach
to applied research funding at EPA. This arrangement, based on the existing collaborative
framework between the media and research offices, will help to ensure continued relevance and
quality of applied research at EPA. This program project contains funds that will be provided to
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to use a fee-for-service arrangement with the
Office of Research and Development to obtain additional research focusing on the Agency's
highest priority land protection and restoration research needs.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$4,500.0) Under a new approach to applied research funding, these funds will be provided
to EPA's Solid Waste and Emergency Response program to obtain additional research
focusing on the Agency's highest priority land protection and restoration research needs. In
FY 2006, this research will address a variety of program needs, such as site remediation,
resource conservation, risk analysis and risk reduction, and waste minimization.
(+$910.0, +7.0 FTE) This increase in workyears represents a realignment of resources from
EPA's Sustainability Program Project to support ongoing hazardous waste combustion and
containment research, landfill bioreactor research, and Resource Conservation Challenge
(RCC) priorities. This research focuses on the development of emissions evaluations and
improved waste disposal and treatment options, and is essential to EPA program offices,
Regions, and the states.
(-$500.0) This reduces funding for the Multimedia, Multireceptor, Multipathway Risk
Assessment (3MRA) decision support tool, specifically the ground water/surface water
module and the integration of methodologies and software. Other priority hazardous waste
research will continue.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA
S&T - 63
-------
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $29,752.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Pesticides and Toxics (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$33,073.2
$33,073.2
163.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$29,017.7
$29,017.7
145.5
FY 2006
Request
$29,752.7
$29,752.7
124.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$735.0
$735.0
-21.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Pesticides and Toxics research program is a multidisciplinary program that examines risks
resulting from exposure to pesticides and toxic chemicals. The research is designed to support
the Agency's efforts to reduce current and future risks to the environment and to humans by
preventing and/or controlling the production of new chemicals that pose unreasonable risk, as
well as assessing and reducing the risks of chemicals already in commerce. The development of
methods and assessments for predicting risks to human health are conducted under the Human
Health Risk Assessment program/project.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, research will continue to focus on the four major goals of the pesticides and toxics
research program:
Providing predictive tools for prioritization and enhanced interpretation of exposure, hazard
identification and dose-response information: This research will develop/validate 1) predictive
biomarkers of neurotoxic effects for major classes of pesticides, 2) alternative test methods for
the hazard identification of developmental neurotoxicants, 3) virtual chemical screening methods
for risk-based prioritization and ranking needs for chronic non-cancer effects, and 4) quantitative
structure activity relationships (QSARs) to relate various structural descriptions of molecules to
toxicity endpoints.
S&T - 64
-------
Creating the scientific foundation for probabilistic risk assessment methods to protect natural
populations of birds, fish and other wildlife: This research directly supports EPA's efforts to
assure that endangered species are protected from pesticides while making sure that farmers and
communities have the pest control tools they need.
Providing the scientific underpinnings for guidance to prevent or reduce risks of human
environments within communities, homes, workplaces: Research will improve the capability to
assess the ecologic risks associated with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and provide
tools for characterizing community and regional exposures associated with the use of agricultural
pesticides (Spray Drift).
Providing strategic scientific information and advice concerning novel or newly discovered
hazards: Tools and models will be developed in FY 2006 to assess and predict risks from
exposure to perfluorinated organic chemicals. Additionally, the Agency will establish a database
of toxicity profiles for various perfluorinated organic chemicals in laboratory animal and wildlife
models in order to facilitate the risk assessment of these chemicals.
In FY 2006, a portion of Pesticides and Toxic Substances research will be accomplished using a
new approach to applied research funding at EPA. This approach, based on the existing
framework of collaboration between the media and research offices, will help to ensure
continued relevance and quality of applied research at EPA. This program project contains funds
that will be provided to the Pesticides and Toxic Substances program office to use a fee-for-
service arrangement with the Office of Research and Development to obtain additional research
focusing on the Agency's highest priority pesticides and toxics research needs. Potential areas of
focus for this new approach to research include, but are not limited to the following areas: 1)
enhancing EPA's ability to conduct screening of and set priorities for further health or
environmental effects testing of toxic chemicals and pesticides; 2) assessment of aggregate
exposure and cumulative risks for pesticides and toxic chemicals; 3) development and validation
of new or improved health and environmental effects test methods, especially those relating to
endocrine disruption.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$4,500.0) Under a new approach to applied research funding at EPA, these funds will be
provided to the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances to obtain additional
research focusing on the Agency's highest priority pesticides and toxics research needs. In
FY 2006, this research will focus in areas such as aggregate exposure, cumulative risk, test
methods, fate and transport, and hazard characterization.
(+$500.0) This increase represents realignment to safe communities' research from the
computational toxicology research program. The resources will support research on
predictive tools for prioritization and enhanced interpretation of exposure, hazard
identification and dose-response information, a high priority area for the Agency.
(-$1,282.5, -9.5 FTE) This is a realignment from the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
research program to the human health research program focusing on the harmonization of
cancer and non-cancer risk assessment.
S&T - 65
-------
(-$928.0) This shift represents a redirection of resources from research on persistent
bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) to support the Advanced Monitoring Initiative (AMI). This
reduction will discontinue support for research supporting the Routine PBT Monitoring
Strategy. However, the AMI will provide the potential opportunity to bring benefits to PBT
monitoring efforts by bringing together disparate data sets for environmental decision making
(e.g. SEQL in North and South Carolina - air quality, water quality, land use, growth
patterns, etc.) related to pollutant emission sources.
(-$769.5, -5.7 FTE) This is realignment of resources from FQPA to human health research
focusing on cumulative risk and susceptible subpopulations. The principles and
methodologies developed through FQPA research have many similarities to the cumulative
risk research in the human health program.
(-$733.5) Reduction to FQPA (cumulative risk) and biotechnology research to assess the
ecological risks associated with genetically modified organisms. Other pesticides and toxics
research will continue.
(-$634.5, -4.7 FTE) Reallocation of program support workyears to more accurately reflect
support for agency priorities.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
FQPA; FIFRA; TSCA; CWA; CAA
S&T - 66
-------
Research: Water Quality
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $55,899.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Water Quality (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$47,049.1
$47,049.1
229.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$46,809.8
$46,809.8
229.7
FY 2006
Request
$55,899.8
$55,899.8
251.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$9,090.0
$9,090.0
22.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Although the quality of the Nation's waters has shown improvement, threats to water quality
remain and new threats continue to arise. The adoption and implementation of watershed
management approaches by states and tribes require strong standards, monitoring, Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) determinations, and implementation programs (e.g., National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits) (R&D Criteria: Relevance). Water
quality research provides the sound science needed to implement effective watershed
management approaches by developing methods to: apply criteria that support designated uses of
water bodies; monitor and assess water body conditions; diagnose causes and sources of water
body impairments and; protect and restore water bodies and to forecast the effectiveness of
protect!on/restoration alternatives.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA research on diagnostic methods will continue to focus on the causes and
sources of aquatic ecosystem impairment. Specifically, this research will provide:
the scientific foundation and information management scheme for the 303(d) listing
process1, including a classification framework for surface waters, watersheds, and
regions to guide problem formulation; and
1 U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Guidance for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d)
and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, TMDL, July 21, 2003. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/policy.html.
S&T - 67
-------
diagnostic methods to distinguish among major classes of individual aquatic stressors
and/or suggest causal mechanisms that contribute to impairment of marine and
freshwater systems.
To support the protection of water quality, a number of research activities will continue. Studies
will be conducted on the transport and control of contaminants from agricultural operations that
reach the environment through surface runoff, or leaching to ground water. Research on
wetlands will compare natural and constructed wetlands to determine how seasonal changes in
hydrologic regime, stressor load, and upland land use affect the functioning of these systems.
To provide more efficient monitoring and diagnostic tools, research will continue to develop
methods of using landscape assessments for monitoring and assessing watershed conditions.
Improved fate and transport models will more accurately forecast the effectiveness of protection
and restoration alternatives. To help establish State standards that more accurately assess the
biological condition of water bodies, research will continue to improve bioassessment and
biocriteria development methods, particularly for poorly studied water bodies.
To minimize the public health risks from swimming and other recreational water activities,
research will specifically focus on both developing techniques to reduce wet weather flow
(WWF) impacts and providing data to support the development of scientifically sound criteria
for protecting recreational waters2. Guided by the "EPA Action Plan for Beaches and
Recreational Waters"3 and the Beaches Act of 2000, EPA is performing a suite of
epidemiological studies to establish a strong, defensible link between rapid water quality
indicators and swimming-associated health effects.
To make better management decisions on how to achieve the designated uses of waterbodies,
research will improve the predictive ability of stressor-response relationships and models to
assess the risk of habitat alteration and toxic chemicals on aquatic ecosystems and aquatic-
dependent wildlife.
In FY 2006, a portion of water quality research will be accomplished using a new approach to
applied research funding at EPA. This approach, based on the existing framework of
collaboration between the media and research offices, will help to ensure continued relevance
and quality of applied research at EPA. This program project contains funds that will be
provided to the Office of Water to use a fee-for-service arrangement with the Office of Research
and Development to obtain additional research focusing on the Agency's highest priority water
quality research needs.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 Budget Request (Dollars in Thousands)
(+ $3,500.0) Under a new approach to applied research funding at EPA, these funds will be
provided to the Office of Water to obtain additional research focusing on the Agency's
2 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Risk Management Research Plan for Wet Weather Flows. Available through
the internet: http://www.epa.gov/ednnrmrl/repository/wwfplan/wwf jplan.pdf
3 U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water. EPA Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. EPA 600-R-98-079. (1999). Available through the internet:
http: //www.epa. gov/ord/WebPubs/beaches/600r98079 .pdf
S&T - 68
-------
highest priority water quality research needs. This research will support existing research
activities in areas such as epidemiological studies, monitoring and diagnostic tools, biological
and chemical stressors on aquatic life along with risk management tools, test methods
research and implementation, and design and implementation of statistically valid biological
monitoring methods.
(+$2,656.4, +14.1 FTE) This research will evaluate linkages between Best Management
Practices (BMP) selection, placement and design for water quality improvements, and the
effectiveness of BMPs on a watershed scale. Research will build on existing strengths and
capabilities to address critical needs in diagnostics, restoration, and forecasting to attain water
quality standards. In addition, this collaborative research will promote a better understanding
of impairment in coastal receiving waters and identify research needs for indicator
development. These resources will be shifted from the ecosystem protection research
program in Goal 4.
(+$1,030.1, +5.8 FTE) This represents realignment from the ecosystem protection research
(diagnosis) in Goal 4 to water quality research (diagnosis) in Goal 2. These resources
support the Causal Analysis and Diagnosis Decision Information System (CADDIS) database
which helps scientists and decision makers who must determine the cause of biological
impairment so the appropriate remedial, regulatory or restoration actions can be taken.
(+$675.0, +5.0 FTE) This represents a shift within Goal 2. Resources are being redirected
from the drinking water research program to the water quality research program to support
the characterization and control of urban wet weather flow and to provide the technical basis
for TMDLs. This shift also supports research on biosolids management.
(-$679.8, - 6.6 FTE) This reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment
described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of job
positions, but not to actual FTE levels.
(-$100.0) This reduction will result in delaying a case study report on biosolids field
application.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CWA; ODBA; SPA; CVA; WRDA; WWWQA; MPPRCA; NISA; CZARA; CWPPRA;
NAWCA; FIFRA; TSCA; ESA
S&T - 69
-------
Research: Computational Toxicology
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $13,832.4 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Computational Toxicology (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,917.0
$5,917.0
31.1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$13,028.7
$13,028.7
23.0
FY 2006
Request
$13,832.4
$13,832.4
34.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$803.7
$803.7
11.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
While EPA has long worked toward obtaining the studies needed to reduce, refine, and replace
existing test methods, computational toxicology (CT) research has the potential to lead to more
sensitive and specific testing protocols and risk assessment methods and to a reduction in animal
testing by developing alternative techniques for prioritizing chemicals for further testing. EPA's
CT Research Program has three objectives: 1) improving the linkages in the source-outcome
paradigm; 2) providing tools for screening and prioritization of chemicals under regulatory
review; and 3) enhancing quantitative risk assessment.
In FY 2005, EPA created the National Center for Computational Toxicology1 to play a critical
coordination and implementation role across the agency. The center will advance the science
needed to more quickly and efficiently evaluate the potential risk of chemicals to human health
and the environment and work to develop partnerships with organizations in the public and
private sectors.
This research supports the "Molecular-level Understanding of Life Processes" activity - one of
the Administration's six interagency priority areas for research and development. (R&D Criteria:
Relevance)
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the CT program will continue developing tools and approaches for the prioritization
of screening and testing needs in the areas of endocrine disrupters, pesticidal inerts, and non-
food use anti-microbial agents. Application of these approaches to the screening and testing
1 For additional information, please go to www.epa.gov/comptox
S&T - 70
-------
needs of EPA program offices (e.g., the Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances program
and the Air program) will also be evaluated.
The CT program also expects to deliver the first alternative assay for animal testing of
environmental toxicants. This will be accomplished with an in-vitro cell line to study the
potential of chemicals to stimulate the excessive production of steroids within living systems.
This assay could be a replacement for a currently used animal-based assay in the Tier 1 screening
battery of compounds that may disrupt the body's endocrine or hormonal systems.
In addition, the CT program will add a number of new toxicological databases to the Distributed
Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) system, expand the breadth of chemicals evaluated
through computational models of nuclear receptor-ligand docking preferences, provide an
expanded list of chemicals tested through the androgen and estrogen cell lines developed by
EPA, and communicate the results of two conferences on the application of genomic
technologies to eco-toxicological and human health risk assessment processes.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$2,538.0, +18.8 FTE) This workyear increase will support the National Center for
Computational Toxicology. The Center will play a critical coordination and implementation
role across the agency and advance the science needed to more quickly and efficiently
evaluate the potential risk of chemicals to human health and the environment. These
workyears will be redirected from a variety of research areas.
(+$405.0, +3.0 FTE) Reallocations of program support workyears to more accurately reflect
support for agency priorities.
(+$250.0) This realignment to computational toxicology from National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) research will further the development of rapid screening and
prioritization approaches and will support swifter development of these tools.
(-$2,531.0, -8.8 FTE) This is a realignment of resources from computational toxicology to
high priority research areas such as drinking water, endocrine disrupters and human health.
There are no performance impacts associated with this shift as the workyears will continue to
perform research to further develop the use of computational toxicology tools in support of
regulatory needs across the Agency.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; SDWA
S&T-71
-------
Research: Economics and Decision Science (EDS)
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $2,644.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Economics and Decision Science (EDS) (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations**
$2,659.5
$2,659.5
2.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.**
$2,475.6
$2,475.6
3.0
FY 2006
Request
$2,644.6
$2,644.6
3.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$169.0
$169.0
0.0
* Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
** Resources under this Program Project were formerly captured under the Pollution Prevention Program Project.
In the FY 2005 request, the EDS portion of the Pollution Prevention Program Project was $2.5M and 3.0 FTE. The
FY 2004 obligation levels are estimates.
Program Project Description
Economics and Decision Sciences (EDS) is an environmental economics and behavioral science
research program designed to improve EPA's decision making, cost-benefit analyses, and
implementation strategies.1 EDS research focuses on areas such as:
How people value their health and the environment;
Corporate and consumer environmental behavior;
Market mechanisms and incentives; and,
Information disclosures, e.g., how the public and markets respond to publicizing
institutions' environmental behavior.
Protecting the environment depends not only on understanding the health and ecological effects
of environmental change, but also human and organizational environmental behavior. EDSthe
agency's only extramural economics research programis designed to meet this critical need.
Since its inception, the EDS program has produced dozens of published, peer-reviewed articles
that have contributed to the field of environmental decision making and been used in crafting
State and Federal environmental policies. (R&D Criteria: Quality) For example, EPA's agency-
wide guidelines for cost-benefit analyses cite 10 peer-reviewed, academic articles sponsored by
the EDS program.2To ensure high-priority research, the EDS program relies on EPA's internally-
1 For more information, visit:
2 EPA, Office of the Administrator, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, (Washington: EPA, 2000). Available on the
Internet at:
S&T - 72
-------
developed Environmental Economics Research Strategy (EERS),3 which was reviewed by
independent experts.4 A new Multi-Year Plan that reflects the priorities identified in the
recently-released EERS is scheduled for completion in the first half of 2005. In the interim,
research is guided by EPA's current environmental economics Multi-Year Plan.5 The EDS
program coordinates with other agencies such as NSF's Directorate for Social, Behavioral and
Economic Sciences (SEE),6 USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS),7 DOJ's National
Institute of Justice,8 NIH, and DHS's Science & Technology Directorate.9 (R&D Criteria:
Relevance)
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the program will support research on environmental economic priorities and
research gaps identified by program offices, evaluate research tools, and serve the Agency's
strategic research needs as identified by Agency programs in EPA's Environmental Economics
Research Strategy (EERS). Projects will include efforts to promote interdisciplinary research
that integrates the risk sciences and economics disciplines, so that the Agency can develop more
complete measures of the economic benefits of environmental improvements. The Agency will
support the collection of data that serves the Agency's and external community's research needs,
and promote the communication and dissemination of the Agency's research findings.
In FY 2006, EDS research will be conducted using a new approach to applied research funding
at EPA. This arrangement, based on the existing collaborative framework between the media
and research offices, will help to ensure continued relevance and quality of applied research at
EPA. This program project contains funds that will be provided to EPA's Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation to use fee-for-service arrangements in order to obtain additional
research from the Office of Research and Development focusing on the Agency's highest
priority environmental economic research and analysis needs.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$158.3) Reduction in EDS extramural research as EPA transitions to new funding
arrangement with the Policy, Economic and Innovation program.
Includes increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CAA; CWA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SARA; TSCA
3 EPA, Environmental Economic Research Strategy, (Washington: EPA, 2004). The 2003 SAB review draft is available on the
Internet at:
4 EPA, Science Advisory Board, Advisory Panel on the Environmental Economics Research Strategy, Review of the
Environmental Economics Research Strategy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington: EPA, 2004). Available
on the Internet at:
EPA, Office of Research and Development, Draft Economic, Social, and Behavioral Science Research Program Multi-Year
Plan (Washington: EPA, 2001).
6 For more information, visit:
For more information, visit:
8 For more information, visit:
For more information, visit:
S&T - 73
-------
Research: Fellowships
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $8,326.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Fellowships (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$2,183.3
$2,183.3
0.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$8,261.6
$8,261.6
2.5
FY 2006
Request
$8,326.8
$8,326.8
2.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$65.2
$65.2
0.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
To ensure an educated and trained scientific workforce for the future, EPA offers four fellowship
programs that encourage promising students to obtain advanced degrees and pursue careers in
environmentally related fields. EPA is the only federal agency that provides higher education
assistance and career development in the environmental sciences. (R&D Criteria: Relevance)
Fellowships are awarded through a competitive, merit-based process that incorporates external
review. (R&D Criteria: Quality) EPA's fellowship programs have awarded cumulatively over
1,200 fellowships and produced highly-praised, student-driven research in fields such as forest
ecology, entomology, evolutionary biology, and nanotechnology.
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship Program'1 EPA provides stipends, tuition
assistance, and research support to graduate students in environmentally-related fields for
up to three years.
Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Fellowship Program:1 EPA provides stipends,
tuition assistance, and research support to undergraduate and graduate students in
environmentally-related fields for up to two (undergraduate) or three (graduate) years.
'The GRO program serves higher education institutions that receive less than $50 million
annually in federal science and engineering funds2 to create opportunities for minorities
and less-privileged students.
For more information, visit:
2 As determined by the National Science Foundation. NSF, Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges,
and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2001 (Arlington: NSF, 2003), 65-89. Available on the Internet at:
S&T - 74
-------
Environmental Science and Technology (EST) Fellowship Program'^ In conjunction with
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), EPA hosts post-
doctoral students for up to two years at EPA headquarters. Fellows work independently
with support from staff mentors on projects of their own design that advance the use of
science in decision making.
Environmental Public Health (EPH) Fellowship Program:4 In conjunction with the
Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH), EPA places graduates from public
health programs in its research laboratories and centers for up to two years to conduct
projects that relate to EPA's public health mission.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will award new STAR, GRO, EST, and EPH fellowships and support the
second and third years of fellows initially funded in FYs 2004 and 2005. Applicants to the
programs will be encouraged to choose research projects that contribute to the Agency's research
priorities. (R&D Criteria: Relevance) Fellowship recipients will complete progress and exit
reports. STAR and GRO fellows will also agree to maintain contact with the Agency for at least
five years after graduation.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; NCA; RCRA; SOW A; TSCA
3 For more information, visit:
4 For more information, visit:
S&T - 75
-------
Research: Global Change
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $20,534.4 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Global Change (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$16,791.9
$16,791.9
39.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$20,689.6
$20,689.6
41.8
FY 2006
Request
$20,534.4
$20,534.4
36.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$155.2)
($155.2)
-5.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's Global Change Research Program is focused on understanding the potential consequences
of global change on human health, ecosystems, and social well-being in the United States. The
goal of the program is to produce information that can be readily used by policymakers to
understand the various potential impacts of global change and to formulate strategies to
effectively respond to the risks and opportunities presented by global change. For example, the
program has worked with the International Joint Commission's Water Quality Board (IJC) and
Environment Canada to identify the potential impacts of global change on the Great Lakes Basin
and provide insight on what can be done to adapt to these changes.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA's Global Change Research Program activities have been coordinated with the Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP) in a manner that is consistent with the CCSP Strategic Plan1
(R&D Criteria: Relevance). In FY 2006, the Research Program will concentrate on the potential
effects of global change on air quality and aquatic ecosystems and, to a lesser extent, on water
quality and human health. The primary focus of FY 2006 activities will be on ecosystems,
including the development of tools to build the capacity to assess and respond to global change
impacts on coastal ecosystems. Tools are being developed to facilitate the evaluation of
interactions of changes in temperature, UV radiation, water quality, and land-based human
activities with coral reefs in the Florida Keys and elsewhere. Coral ecosystems are expected to
react to global change before other, less sensitive ecosystems.
1 Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program. Available on the Internet:
-------
In consultation with the CCSP, the Agency will realign its programs to provide tools that can be
used by State and local decision-makers to evaluate options for adapting to climate change.
Additional efforts in FY 2006 include ongoing air quality research and assessment activities. FY
2006 activities related to water quality will include preliminary work on the potential impacts of
global change on combined sewer overflows and on the operations and management of publicly-
operated treatment works.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$594.0) This increase will support new research efforts to develop tools that can be used by
State and local decision-makers to evaluate options for adapting to climate change. These
new efforts were identified as high priority because they support CCSP synthesis products
scheduled for completion within the next two years.
(-$594.0) Resources supporting research on future year estimates of air emissions from the
transportation and energy sectors will be redirected within EPA's global change research
program to support higher priority efforts to develop tools that can be used by State and local
decision-makers to evaluate options for adapting to climate change.
(-$339.9, -3.3 FTE) This reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment
described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of job
positions, but not to actual FTE levels.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
USGCRA; NCPA
S&T - 77
-------
Research: NAAQS
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $71,451.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: NAAQS (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations**
$68,617.8
$68,617.8
179.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.**
$68,591.7
$68,591.7
198.2
FY 2006
Request
$71,451.5
$71,451.5
190.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$2,859.8
$2,859.8
-7.9
* Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
** Resources under this Program Project were formerly captured under the Paniculate Matter and Tropospheric
Ozone Program Projects. The combined request of these Program Projects in FY 2005 was $68.6M and 198.2 FTE.
The FY 2004 obligation levels are estimates.
Program Project Description
This research provides the scientific basis to support implementation and review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)1 for particulate matter (PM), tropospheric ozone,
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead. Development and revision of Air
Quality Criteria Documents (AQCDs) is conducted and discussed under the Human Health Risk
Assessment Program/Project. NAAQS research focuses on particulate matter, and includes
research on the other NAAQS pollutants on an "as needed" basis.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Tropospheric Ozone and PM Research Program Projects will combine to form the NAAQS
Research program in order to allow for better integration and coordination of the research. EPA's
PM research portfolio is aligned with the ten priority research topics for PM identified by the
National Research Council (NRC)2 (R&D Criteria: Quality).
In FY 2006, PM research will focus on a subset of the ten NRC research topics, including: 1)
differentiating between the health effects of PM and the health effects of other air pollutants; 2)
identifying the health effects and biological mechanisms of PM sizes and constituents (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic and elemental carbon, and metals); 3) understanding the quantitative
1 For more information on EPA's programs to reduce NAAQS pollutants, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/air.htm
2 For the latest report, see National Research Council. (2001) Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter. III. Early
Research Progress. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available on the internet:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309073375/htmV (6/4/03).
S&T - 78
-------
relationship between exposure to different particles and various health effects; and, 4)
understanding human exposures to PM constituents and sources of PM. Additional research
efforts will support implementation of the PM NAAQS. This research will include improving
estimates of source emissions, advancements in air quality models including improved
atmospheric chemistry and meteorology, improved ambient monitoring methods, and studies to
evaluate and validate emissions inventories and air quality models. The new PM Research
Centers, which will initiate work in FY 2006, will support research that contributes to all of these
areas. Consistent with recommendations of EPA's Science Advisory Board, the Agency will
augment research to improve understanding of the health effects of exposures to PM constituents
and sources.
In FY 2006, additional NAAQS research will be accomplished using a new approach to applied
research funding at EPA. This arrangement, based on the existing collaborative framework
between the media and research offices, will help to ensure continued relevance and quality of
applied research at EPA. This program project contains funds that will be provided to the Office
of Air and Radiation to use a fee-for-service arrangement with the Office of Research and
Development to obtain additional research focusing on the Agency's highest priority NAAQS
research needs.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$3,600.0) Under a new approach to applied research funding at EPA, these funds will be
provided to the Office of Air and Radiation to obtain research focusing on the Agency's
highest priority air toxics research needs., In FY 2006, this research will support direction
provided by the NRC, the Agency's Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Science
Advisory Committee, to support an enhanced air quality management system by: identifying
the most significant exposures, risks and uncertainties; addressing the most significant
exposures and risks; and, using an airshed-bases approach with a focus on performance.
Research will support implementation of the NAAQS standards and identifying what
emissions to best reduce and how to monitor progress toward meeting the new standards.
(+$405.0, +3.0 FTE) The Agency will redirect resources from sustainability research in Goal
5 in order to enhance PM implementation-related risk management research addressing the
health implications of PM emissions from specific source categories, consistent with
recommendations from EPA's Science Advisory Board.
(-$1,547.0) This redirection from NAAQS research will support the Advanced Monitoring
Initiative (AMI) in Goal 4. Work to develop tools to implement the NAAQS for tropospheric
ozone will be discontinued, including work to elucidate atmospheric processes and
atmospheric chemistry for tropospheric ozone, measure ozone precursors, identify the
relative source contribution of ozone, and work to develop improved emissions models.
(-$968.2, -9.4 FTE) This reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment
described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of job
positions, but not to actual FTE levels.
S&T - 79
-------
(-$250.0) This realignment to Computational Toxicology research in Goal 4 will further the
development of rapid screening and prioritization approaches for hazardous pollutants. The
resources, which were associated with research to better understand the health effects of
short-term exposures to PM through the development of in-vitro methods and
genomic/proteomic approaches, will support research cutting across programmatic goals of
the Computational Toxicology and PM research programs, which will result in more rapid
development of these tools.
There are additional increases for payroll, cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CAA
S&T - 80
-------
Research: Sustainability
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation S&T: $23,187.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Sustainability (S&T)
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2004
Obligations**
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.**
FY 2006
Request
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
Science & Technology $46,609.6 $30,991.9 $23,187.8 -$7,804.1
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
$593.0
$47,202.6
121.6
$593.0
$$31,584.9
126.2
$0.0
$23,187.8
77.2
-$593.0
-$8,971.1
-49.0
* Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
** Resources under this Program Project were formerly captured under the Research: Pollution Prevention Program
Project. The FY 2005 resources represent the Sustainability (S&T) portion of the FY 05 Research: Pollution
Prevention Program Project request. In the FY 2005 request, the Sustainability (S&T) portion of the Pollution
Prevention Program Project was $3 l.OM and 126.2 FTE. The FY 2004 obligation levels are estimates.
Program Project Description
In addition to researching human health and environmental threats, EPA is committed to
promoting Sustainabilityachieving economic prosperity while protecting natural systems and
quality of life. Specific Sustainability research areas include:
Pollution Prevention Tools:1 This research creates tools that the public and private sectors
use to improve environmental decision making.
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program'2 As required by the Small
Business Act as amended,3 EPA sets aside 2.5% of its external research budget for
contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental
technologies.
Cleaner Chemistry and Technology (CC&T):4 CC&T research develops chemicals and
manufacturing processes that are environmentally preferable to current industrial
practices, which prevent pollution before it occurs.
National Environmental Technology Competition (NETC):5 The People, Prosperity, and
the Planet (P3) Award6 is a student competition to develop solutions to Sustainability
1 For more information, visit:
2 For more information, visit:
3 U.S. Public Law 219. 79th Congress, 2nd session, 22 My 1982. Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. More
information is available on the Internet at:
4 For more information, visit:
5 For more information, visit:
S&T-81
-------
challenges. The Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability
(CNS) is a competitive grants program that funds regional projects that address a stated
problem or opportunity relating to Sustainability.
Sustainable Environmental Systems (SES):7 The SES program develops methodologies
for understanding and managing large, complex environmental systems such as
metropolitan areas and watersheds.
EPA is drafting a new Sustainability research strategy and Multi-Year Plan. In the interim,
research will be guided by the agency's pollution prevention Research Strategy8 and draft Multi-
Year Plan.9 (R&D Criteria: Relevance)
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Pollution prevention tools research in FY 2006 will include continuing work on life cycle
assessment, i.e., identifying the environmental implications of a material or process from cradle
to grave; developing computer software that can assess the environmental impacts of policy
options or manufacturing methods; and integrating individual environmental management
methods into more complete decision tools.
In FY 2006, the SBIR program will award contracts that address the needs of EPA's
Water program and Regional offices. CC&T research will develop safer substitute chemicals
and chemical syntheses, make catalyses more efficient so that lower quantities of chemicals are
needed, and enhance computational chemistry. The CC&T program will also study polymers
produced from biological feedstocks and environmentally benign coatings.
In FY 2006, CNS will partner with academics, nonprofits, communities, and states to fund
projects that address Sustainability problems or opportunities while involving decision makers.
These projects will consider economic, social, and environmental priorities in the context of a
system, such as an ecosystem, watershed, industrial network, or the urban environment. Finally,
the SES program will complete a survey of methods for combining economic, ecological,
hydrological, and legal approaches to managing and restoring watersheds.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$3,000.0, -10.0 FTE) Support for the NETC program, as well as pollution prevention and
clean chemistry research will be reduced to fund other Agency priorities. NETC will
alternate grants each year between the P3 Sustainability competition and CNS. The decrease
to pollution prevention and clean chemistry research will affect activities such as software
6 For more information, visit:
7 For more information, visit:
8 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Pollution Prevention Research Strategy (Washington: EPA, 1998). Available on
the Internet at:
EPA, Office of Research and Development, Draft Pollution Prevention and New Technologies for Environmental Protection
Multi-Year Plan (Washington: EPA, 2003).
S&T - 82
-------
and technology development. Redirected workyears will support research concerning
homeland security, safe communities, drinking water, water quality, mercury, the Research
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
(-$2,835.0, -21.1 FTE) Realignment of workyears and associated workforce costs to support
research in the areas of NAAQS, land restoration and preservation, human health, mercury,
biotechnology, and computational toxicology. This reduction will affect clean chemistry
research, such as delaying identification of antimicrobial solutions to biological building
contaminants.
(-$2,802.9, -3.0 FTE) Under a new approach to applied research funding at EPA, funds will
be provided to the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI) to use a fee-for-
service arrangement with the Office of Research and Development to obtain research
focusing on the Agency's highest priority EDS research needs. In FY 2006, EDS workyears
and associated resources will appear in the Research: Economics and Decision Sciences
program project. In collaboration with OPEI, research will continue on topics such as
estimating the value of environmental and public health improvements; corporate
environmental behavior; improving cost-benefit analyses; and evaluating the effectiveness of
market mechanisms, incentives, and information disclosures.
(-$1,404.0, -10.4 FTE) Realignment of workyears to support efforts in areas such as
homeland security, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), and computational
toxicology.
(-$661.5, -4.9 FTE) Reallocation of program support workyears to more accurately support
Agency priorities.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SBA; SARA; TSCA
S&T - 83
-------
-------
Index - Science and Technology
Civil Enforcement 19, 20
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs. 1, 3
Climate Protection Program 1, 6
Congressionally Mandated Projects 1
Criminal Enforcement 20
Drinking Water Programs 1, 8
Endocrine Disrupters 53
Exchange Network 35, 36, 37
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 1,10
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management 1, 12
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program ... 1,
14
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification 1, 15, 16
Forensics Support 1, 19
Homeland Security
Critical Infrastructure Protection 1,21
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. 1,
2,24
Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure 1, 2, 28
Human Health Risk Assessment 1, 2, 30, 49,
50, 62, 64, 78
Indoor Air
Radon Program 1, 2, 33
Information Security 37
IT / Data Management 1,2,35
Pesticides
Registration of New Pesticides 1, 2, 38
Review / Reregi strati on of Existing
Pesticides 1, 2, 40
Pollution Prevention Program 72, 81
Radiation
Protection 1, 2, 42
Response Preparedness 1, 2, 44
Research
Air Toxics 1, 2, 48
Computational Toxicology 1, 2, 70
Drinking Water 1,2, 50
Endocrine Disrupter 1, 2, 53
Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) 1,2,55
Fellowships 1, 2, 74
Global Change 1, 2, 76
Human Health and Ecosystems .... 1, 2, 57
Land Protection and Restoration... 1, 2, 62
Particulate Matter 2
Pesticides and Toxics 1, 2, 64
Pollution Prevention 2, 81
Water Quality 1, 2, 67
Science Advisory Board 55, 73, 79
TRI / Right to Know 2
-------
Table of Contents - Environmental Program and Management
Resource Summary Table 1
Program Projects in EPM 2
Acquisition Management (EPM) 5
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights 5
Administrative Law (EPM) 7
Alternative Dispute Resolution (EPM) 9
Beach / Fish Programs (EPM) 10
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands) 12
Brownfields (EPM) 13
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance (EPM) 15
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination (EPM) 17
Civil Enforcement (EPM) 19
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance (EPM) 22
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs (EPM) 25
Clean School Bus Initiative (EPM) 28
Climate Protection Program (EPM) 29
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (EPM) 33
Compliance Assistance and Centers (EPM) 35
Compliance Incentives (EPM) 37
Compliance Monitoring (EPM) 39
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations (EPM) 41
Criminal Enforcement (EPM) 45
Drinking Water Programs (EPM) 47
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights 47
Endocrine Disrupters (EPM) 51
Enforcement Training (EPM) 53
Environment and Trade (EPM) 55
Environmental Justice (EPM) 57
Exchange Network (EPM) 59
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (EPM) 61
Federal Stationary Source Regulations (EPM) 63
Federal Support for Air Quality Management (EPM) 66
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program (EPM) 69
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management (EPM) 71
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay (EPM) 73
Geographic Program: Great Lakes (EPM) 75
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico (EPM) 79
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain (EPM) 81
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound (EPM) 83
Geographic Program: Other (EPM) 85
Great Lakes Legacy Act (EPM) 88
Homeland Security: Communication and Information (EPM) 90
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPM) 92
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (EPM) 94
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Thousands of Dollars) 95
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure (EPM) 96
Statutory Authority 97
Human Resources Management (EPM) 98
Indoor Air: Radon Program (EPM) 100
Information Security (EPM) 102
International Capacity Building (EPM) 104
IT / Data Management (EPM) 108
Legal Advice: Environmental Program (EPM) 112
Legal Advice: Support Program (EPM) 113
LUST / UST (EPM) 114
Marine Pollution (EPM) 116
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways (EPM) 120
NEPA Implementation (EPM) 122
Pesticides: Field Programs (EPM) 124
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides (EPM) 127
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides (EPM) 129
Pollution Prevention Program (EPM) 132
POPs Implementation (EPM) 135
Radiation: Protection (EPM) 137
Radiation: Response Preparedness (EPM) 139
RCRA: Corrective Action (EPM) 141
RCRA: Waste Management (EPM) 143
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling (EPM) 146
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air (EPM) 149
Regional Geographic Initiatives (EPM) 151
Regional Science and Technology (EPM) 153
Regulatory Innovation (EPM) 155
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis (EPM) 158
Science Advisory Board (EPM) 160
Science Policy and Biotechnology (EPM) 162
Small Business Ombudsman (EPM) 164
Small Minority Business Assistance (EPM) 166
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness (EPM) 169
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs (EPM) 171
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund (EPM) 173
Surface Water Protection (EPM) 175
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management (EPM) 179
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction (EPM) 182
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program (EPM) 185
TRI / Right to Know (EPM) 187
Tribal - Capacity Building (EPM) 189
US Mexico Border (EPM) 191
Wetlands (EPM) 193
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Environmental Program & Management
Resource Summary Table
Environmental Program &
Management
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2004
Obligations
$2,223,528.1
10,985.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$2,316,958.0
11,271.0
FY 2006
Request
$2,403,764.0
11,048.1
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$86,806.0
-222.9
BILL LANGUAGE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT
For environmental programs and management, including necessary expenses, not otherwise
provided for, for personnel and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or
allowances therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate
payable for senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; library memberships in societies or
associations which issue publications to members only or at a price to members lower than to
subscribers who are not members; construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation
of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project; and not to exceed $9,000 for official reception
and representation expenses, [$2,313,409,000] $2,353,764,000, which shall remain available
until September 30, [2006] 2007 including administrative costs of the brownfields program under
the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002. (Department of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2005.)
( The language below, when coupled with subsequent legislation that will propose changes to
toxics and pesticides fees, would provide the additional $50,000,000 to bring the EPM total to
$2,403,764,000.;
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT
(LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL NOT SUBJECT TO PAYGO)
Such sums as may be deposited to the Pesticide Registration account may be transferred to and
merged with this account, to remain available until expended, for purposes of pesticide
registration. In addition, such sums as may be deposited to Pre-Manufacture Notice account may
be transferred to and merged with this account, to remain available until expended for the
purpose of pre-manufacture notice activities. In addition, such sums as may be deposited to the
Pesticide Tolerance account may be transferred to and merged with this account, to remain
available until expended, for purposes of establishing and reassessing pesticide tolerances.
EPM- 1
-------
Program Projects in EPM
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Acquisition Management
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Beach / Fish Programs
Brownfields
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency
Coordination
Civil Enforcement
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Clean School Bus Initiative
Climate Protection Program
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Congressionally Mandated Projects*
Criminal Enforcement
Drinking Water Programs
Endocrine Disrupters
Enforcement Training
Environment and Trade
Environmental Education*
Environmental Justice
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
FY 2004
Obligations
$23,081.3
$4,484.0
$793.2
$3,321.8
$21,948.6
$62,360.2
$4,804.6
$106,875.9
$9,413.3
$17,471.3
$4,990.4
$88,524.8
$4,918.1
$27,177.2
$10,131.3
$64,141.7
$53,015.2
$92,862.2
$31,107.0
$90,553.9
$7,917.5
$4,094.0
$1,810.9
$7,105.2
$6,274.1
$18,816.9
$299,417.3
$22,039.2
$86,964.0
$25,983.9
$347.7
$18,854.2
$23,185.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$24,264.3
$4,929.3
$1,014.9
$3,237.6
$28,002.3
$64,486.8
$6,801.1
$113,406.6
$12,414.2
$17,495.8
$0.0
$91,961.3
$3,948.8
$28,574.5
$9,420.7
$84,297.3
$48,166.0
$0.0
$33,260.2
$97,947.9
$9,037.3
$3,302.4
$1,723.1
$0.0
$4,230.5
$25,419.7
$326,793.8
$24,302.0
$93,283.6
$25,181.2
$0.0
$20,328.9
$20,816.6
FY 2006
Request
$23,054.6
$5,109.1
$1,051.0
$3,263.8
$29,637.5
$72,790.2
$6,889.6
$117,462.2
$12,529.6
$18,234.2
$0.0
$95,529.9
$4,209.9
$29,097.1
$9,622.2
$93,412.1
$49,753.3
$0.0
$37,326.3
$101,089.9
$9,096.8
$2,498.7
$1,787.0
$0.0
$3,979.7
$22,739.4
$358,045.6
$23,509.2
$110,891.2
$25,431.4
$0.0
$19,915.9
$20,746.4
FY 2006 Request
V.
FY 2005 Pres.
Bud.
($1,209.7)
$179.8
$36.1
$26.2
$1,635.2
$8,303.4
$88.5
$4,055.6
$115.4
$738.4
$0.0
$3,568.6
$261.1
$522.6
$201.5
$9,114.8
$1,587.3
$0.0
$4,066.1
$3,142.0
$59.5
($803.7)
$63.9
$0.0
($250.8)
($2,680.3)
$31,251.8
($792.8)
$17,607.6
$250.2
$0.0
($413.0)
($70.2)
EPM-2
-------
Program Project
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Geographic Program: Other
Great Lakes Legacy Act
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel
and Infrastructure
Human Resources Management
IT / Data Management
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Information Security
International Capacity Building
LUST/UST
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Marine Pollution
NEPA Implementation
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
POPs Implementation
Pesticides: Field Programs
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing
Pesticides
Pollution Prevention Program
RCRA: Corrective Action
RCRA: Waste Management
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Regional Science and Technology
Regulatory Innovation
FY 2004
Obligations
$17,098.6
$4,055.7
$2,181.5
$2,640.1
$2,824.6
$4,598.0
$4,226.2
$5,960.5
$766.7
$5,431.3
$41,725.0
$101,091.2
$5,125.3
$7,067.5
$11,370.6
$6,833.7
$33,516.3
$12,554.2
$10,049.1
$12,452.4
$21,527.0
$2,174.0
$23,679.0
$40,936.3
$54,163.5
$16,039.4
$38,419.8
$60,460.2
$11,043.4
$11,608.6
$3,308.1
$22,200.8
$9,902.0
$2,612.2
$19,738.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$21,194.8
$4,477.8
$954.8
$477.4
$6,789.7
$45,000.0
$4,320.3
$6,840.8
$1,839.8
$6,344.3
$44,139.5
$108,359.4
$5,667.1
$4,188.3
$7,174.2
$7,094.5
$34,678.8
$12,521.7
$12,296.0
$12,654.2
$19,229.3
$2,235.4
$27,185.9
$42,907.0
$58,053.9
$22,496.2
$40,975.6
$67,422.3
$14,301.7
$11,811.7
$2,610.9
$25,244.5
$8,799.5
$3,626.2
$24,392.2
FY 2006
Request
$21,519.1
$4,467.5
$954.8
$477.4
$13,186.1
$50,000.0
$6,680.3
$6,946.9
$3,348.2
$6,403.0
$38,871.6
$105,999.0
$5,918.3
$3,888.3
$6,449.5
$7,719.4
$36,314.3
$13,087.7
$12,279.2
$12,440.3
$19,445.5
$2,806.4
$24,682.6
$41,471.7
$57,991.2
$19,989.8
$42,710.2
$68,727.9
$14,376.1
$11,765.1
$2,636.0
$23,496.4
$8,862.0
$3,642.8
$25,021.2
FY 2006 Request
V.
FY 2005 Pres.
Bud.
$324.3
($10.3)
$0.0
$0.0
$6,396.4
$5,000.0
$2,360.0
$106.1
$1,508.4
$58.7
($5,267.9)
($2,360.4)
$251.2
($300.0)
($724.7)
$624.9
$1,635.5
$566.0
($16.8)
($213.9)
$216.2
$571.0
($2,503.3)
($1,435.3)
($62.7)
($2,506.4)
$1,734.6
$1,305.6
$74.4
($46.6)
$25.1
($1,748.1)
$62.5
$16.6
$629.0
EPM-3
-------
Program Project
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
Science Advisory Board
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Small Business Ombudsman
Small Minority Business Assistance
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Surface Water Protection
TRI / Right to Know
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
Tribal - Capacity Building
US Mexico Border
Wetlands
FY 2004
Obligations
$15,534.1
$4,820.3
$1,668.5
$1,657.1
$2,977.8
$11,690.0
$5,884.2
$10,863.6
$177,600.2
$14,144.7
$10,897.9
$46,031.2
$11,831.1
$10,188.0
$4,680.1
$18,282.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$16,151.8
$4,757.1
$1,707.2
$3,838.7
$2,282.0
$12,134.8
$5,839.6
$13,500.0
$191,796.6
$15,940.9
$9,514.2
$45,878.8
$11,082.6
$10,641.7
$5,784.8
$19,752.8
FY 2006
Request
$16,713.3
$4,881.0
$1,751.1
$3,910.6
$2,347.8
$12,327.9
$3,969.0
$13,500.0
$194,801.5
$14,753.7
$9,057.7
$44,523.1
$10,548.9
$11,049.0
$5,975.3
$20,374.5
FY 2006 Request
V.
FY 2005 Pres.
Bud.
$561.5
$123.9
$43.9
$71.9
$65.8
$193.1
($1,870.6)
$0.0
$3,004.9
($1,187.2)
($456.5)
($1,355.7)
($533.7)
$407.3
$190.5
$621.7
! There is no factsheet for this program because there are no resources being requested.
EPM-4
-------
Acquisition Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $23,054.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Acquisition Management (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$23,081.3
$347.9
$17,465.1
$40,894.3
359.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$24,264.3
$366.7
$19,028.5
$43,659.5
365.3
FY 2006
Request
$23,054.6
$346.5
$20,367.4
$43,768.5
364.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,209.7)
($20.2)
$1,338.9
$109.0
-0.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Resources in this program support EPM contract and acquisition management at Headquarters,
Regions, Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati. EPA focuses on maintaining a high level of
integrity in the management of its procurement activities and fostering relationships with state
and local governments to support the implementation of environmental programs.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will improve electronic government capabilities and enhance the education of its
contract workforce. EPA will utilize the central contractor registry, which is the single
government-wide database for vendor data and part of the Integrated Acquisition Environment
(IAE)1. Contract actions will be sent to the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation
(FPDS-NG)2 as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The Agency will work to
eliminate paper-processing in the acquisition process and manage acquisition records
electronically.
1 Integrated Acquisition Environment available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/intemal/acquisition.htm
2 More information on the FPDS-NG is available at http://www.fpds-ng.com/questions.html
EPM-5
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
EPA's environmental statutes; annual Appropriations Act; Federal Acquisitions Regulation
(FAR); contract law
EPM-6
-------
Administrative Law
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $5,109.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Administrative Law (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,484.0
$4,484.0
35.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $4,929.3
$4,929.3
39.5
FY 2006
Request
$5,109.1
$5,109.1
35.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$179.8
$179.8
-4.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Administrative Law Judges preside in hearings and issue decisions in cases initiated by EPA's
enforcement program concerning those accused of environmental violations. The
Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) issues final decisions in environmental adjudications that
are on appeal to the Board. Judges issue decisions under the authority delegated by the
Administrator. The Judges' decisions establish the Agency's legal interpretation on the issues
presented. The EAB and ALJ, as appropriate, make policy determinations in the course of
resolving matters before it. In addition, the Judges serve as the final approving body for
proposed settlements of enforcement actions initiated by the Agency's headquarters offices.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) will issue final Agency decisions in environmental
adjudications on appeal to the EAB. These decisions are the end point in the Agency's
administrative enforcement and permitting programs. The right of affected persons to appeal
these decisions within the Agency is conferred by various statutes, regulations and constitutional
due process rights. The Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) will preside in hearings and issue
initial decisions in cases brought by EPA's enforcement program against those accused of
environmental violations under various environmental statutes. The Agency has sought
efficiencies in the process. The ALJs have increased their use of alternative dispute resolution
techniques to facilitate the settlement of cases and, thereby, avoided more costly litigation. The
EAB and ALJs use videoconferencing technology to reduce expenses for parties involved in the
EPM-7
-------
administrative litigation process. By adjudicating disputed matters, the ALJs and EAB further
the EPA's long-term strategic goals of protecting public health and the environment.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CERCLA; FIFRA; CWA; TSCA; RCRA; SOW A; EPCRA; as provided in Appropriations Act
funding
EPM-8
-------
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $1,051.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Alternative Dispute Resolution (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$793.2
$0.0
$793.2
6.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $1,014.9
$874.7
$1,889.6
8.0
FY 2006
Request
$1,051.0
$984.8
$2,035.8
7.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$36.1
$110.1
$146.2
-0.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's General Counsel and the Offices of Regional Counsel will provide environmental
Alternative Dispute Resolution services.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the Agency will provide conflict prevention and alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) services to EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices and external stakeholders on
environmental matters. The national ADR program assists in developing effective ways to
anticipate, prevent and resolve disputes and makes neutral third parties - such as facilitators and
mediators - more readily available for those purposes. Under EPA's ADR Policy, the Agency
encourages the use of ADR techniques to prevent and resolve disputes with external parties in
many contexts, including adjudications, rulemaking, policy development, administrative and
civil judicial enforcement actions, permit issuance, protests of contract awards, administration of
contracts and grants, stakeholder involvement, negotiations and litigation.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) of 1996; Regulatory Negotiation Act of 1996
EPM-9
-------
Beach /Fish Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $3,263.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Beach / Fish Programs (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$3,321. 8
$3,321.8
8.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$3,237.6
$3,237.6
7.7
FY 2006
Request
$3,263. 8
$3,263.8
7.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$26.2
$26.2
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program supports the Agency's efforts to protect people from contaminated fish and
shellfish and from contaminated recreational waters.
Fish & Shellfish Programs
The Fish and Shellfish Programs provide sound science, guidance, technical assistance, and
nationwide information to State, tribal, and Federal agencies on the human health risks
associated with eating locally caught fish/shellfish or wildlife with excessive levels of
contaminants. The Agency pursues the following activities to support this program: (1) publish
criteria guidance that States and Tribes can use to adopt health-based water quality standards,
assess their waters, and establish permit limits; (2) develop and disseminate sound scientific risk
assessment methodologies and guidance that States and Tribes can use to sample, analyze, and
assess fish tissue in support of waterbody-specific or regional consumption advisories, or a
determination that no consumption advice is necessary; (3) develop and disseminate guidance
that States and Tribes can use to communicate the risks of consuming chemically contaminated
fish; and (4) gather, analyze, and disseminate information to the public and to health
professionals that enable informed decisions on when and where to fish, and how to prepare fish
caught for recreation and subsistence.
Beaches Program
The Beaches Program protects human health by reducing exposure to contaminated recreation
waters. Agency activities include: (1) issuance of guidance to improve beach monitoring and
public notification programs, including effective strategies to communicate public health risks to
EPM- 10
-------
the public; (2) development and dissemination of sound scientific risk assessment methods and
criteria for use in evaluating recreational water quality, prioritizing beach waters for monitoring,
and warning beach users of health risks or closure of beaches; (3) promulgation of Federal water
quality standards where a State or Tribe fails to adopt appropriate standards to protect coastal
and Great Lakes recreation waters; and (4) providing publicly accessible Internet-based
information about local beach conditions and closures.
(See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ for more information.)
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Fish and Shellfish Programs
Recreational waters, especially beaches in coastal areas and the Great Lakes, provide recreational
opportunities for millions of Americans. Swimming in some recreational waters, or eating
locally caught fish or shellfish, can pose a risk of illness as a result of exposure to microbial
pathogens or other pollutants. For FY 2006, EPA's national strategy for improving the safety of
recreational waters will:
Fish Program - In FY 2006. EPA will:
Complete the statistical analyses of the analyzed samples from the fish tissue lake study,
publish the findings of the survey, and make them available on the Agency's website;
Continue to work with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and public health
agencies to develop and distribute outreach materials related to the joint guidance issued
by the EPA and the FDA for mercury and assess the public's understanding of the
guidance.
Continue to work with the FDA to investigate the extent and risk of contaminants in fish,
including the potential need for advisories for other pollutants, and to distribute outreach
materials;
Continue to strengthen its support to States in their monitoring of mercury in fish.
Release its summary of information on locally issued fish advisories and safe-eating
guidelines. This information is provided to EPA annually by States and Tribes;
Begin to implement the recommendations from the FY 2005 national shellfish program
review; and,
Perform site selection for study to develop improved monitoring techniques for shellfish
waters. The study will be conducted in concert with FDA, NOAA, and ISSC with the
goal of developing unified methodologies across agencies.
Beaches Program - In FY 2006. EPA will:
Publish new pathogen criteria for freshwaters in early 2006;
Continue to work with coastal and Great Lakes States and territories to adopt water
quality standards that are as protective of human health as EPA's most current water
quality criteria for pathogens.
EPM - 11
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act; Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000.
EPM - 12
-------
Brownfields
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $29,637.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Brownfields (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$21,948.6
$20.9
$21,969.5
121.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$28,002.3
$0.0
$28,002.3
146.2
FY 2006
Request
$29,637.5
$0.0
$29,637.5
121.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,635.2
$0.0
$1,635.2
-24.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Note: The FY 2005 President Budget total reflects Agency budget restructuring whereby three
management offices no longer directly charge resources to this program.
Program Project Description
The Brownfields program is designed to empower states, Tribes, local communities and other
stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together to assess, safely cleanup, and reuse
Brownfields. EPA's Brownfields program funds pilot programs, research efforts, clarifies
liability issues, enters into Federal, state, and local partnerships, conducts outreach activities, and
creates related job training and workforce development programs. EPA's work is focused on
removing barriers and creating incentives for brownfield redevelopment. The program provides
financial assistance for:
Training with regard to hazardous substances for organizations representing the interests
of states and tribal co-implementors of the Brownfields law;
Tribal technical outreach support to address environmental justice issues and support
Brownfields research; and
Administrative, legal and programmatic support to the Agency to implement the
Brownfields program, including logistical support for grant competition and for
measurement of program outcomes.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In addition to supporting the operations and management of the Brownfields program, funds
requested will provide financial assistance for training on hazardous waste to organizations
EPM- 13
-------
representing the interests of state and tribal co-implementers of the Brownfields law (Small
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (SBLRBRA)), and outreach
support for environmental justice issues involving tribal and native Alaskan villages or
communities that have been disadvantaged due to perceived or real hazardous substance
contamination. EPA will also provide technical assistance to communities which were awarded
funding to combine smart growth policies with Brownfields redevelopment or national groups
which use the funding to address general issues of vacant properties and infrastructure decisions.
EPA will also conduct further research on incentives for brownfields redevelopment, pilot
additional techniques to accomplish redevelopment within communities, identify new policy and
research needs and create examples and best practices that can be copied in other communities.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
+ ($1,635.2) this change reflects Agency budget restructuring. The total resources
requested in FY 2006 for the entire Brownfields program are the same.
Statutory Authority
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act (CERCLA) as
amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (P.L. 107-
118); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 8001; Government
Management Reform Act (1990); Solid Waste Disposal Act; Federal Grant and Cooperative Act.
EPM - 14
-------
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (GEL), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $72,790.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$62,360.2
$723.6
$19,945.2
$83,029.0
525.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$64,486.8
$950.4
$20,945.5
$86,382.7
562.4
FY 2006
Request
$72,790.2
$935.9
$22,445.0
$96,171.1
548.1
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$8,303.4
($14.5)
$1,499.5
$9,788.4
-14.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Activities under the Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program/project support the
management of integrated planning, budgeting, financial management, performance and
accountability processes and systems to ensure effective stewardship of resources. Also included
is EPA's Environmental Finance Program that provides grants to a network of university-based
Environmental Finance Centers which deliver financial outreach service such as technical
assistance, training, expert advice, finance education and full cost pricing analysis to states, local
communities and small businesses. (See http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm for additional
information).
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue efforts to modernize the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
The modernization effort will reduce cost, comply with Congressional direction, and new Federal
financial systems requirements. This work is framed by the Agency's Enterprise Architecture
and will make maximum use of enabling technologies for e-Gov initiatives including e-
Procurement, e-Payroll, and e-Travel. In FY 2006, the Agency will become a customer of the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS for e-payroll and convert its electronic Travel
System to e-Travel.
EPM- 15
-------
EPA plans further improvements to its budgeting and planning system, financial data warehouse,
business intelligence tools and reporting capabilities. These improvements will support EPA's
"green" score in financial performance on the President's Management Agenda scorecard by
providing more accessible data to support accountability, cost accounting, budget and
performance integration, and management decision-making. Also during FY 2006, EPA will
continue reorganizing its financial services to achieve greater efficiency.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to support program efforts to develop more outcome-based
annual performance goals and efficiency measures, develop new sources of performance data,
improve the quality and usability of existing data sources and develop tools to set strategic
priorities and track performance. EPA will work with state partners in targeted efforts to
improve performance goals and measures that strengthen results-based management. EPA will
complete its revised Strategic Plan by September 30, 2006.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$5,200) For modernization of major Agency financial systems. The total increase for
this investment is $6,500, of which $1,300 is requested in the Superfund appropriation.
(+$1,600) For migration of the Agency's Payroll functions to the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS) in support of the administration's e-Payroll initiative. The
total increase for this investment is $2,000, of which $400 is requested in the Superfund
appropriation.
(-7.0 FTE) General and directed FTE reduction.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Annual Appropriations Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act; Computer Security Act; E-Government Act of 2002; Electronic
Freedom of Information Act; EPA's Environmental Statutes, and the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act; Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act; Federal Acquisition
Regulations, contract law and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46,
47); Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act (1982); Freedom of Information Act; Government
Management Reform Act (1994); Improper Payments Information Act; Inspector General Act of
1978 and Amendments of 1988; Paperwork Reduction Act; Privacy Act; The Chief Financial
Officers Act (1990); The Government Performance and Results Act (1993); The Prompt
Payment Act (1982); Title 5 United States Code.
EPM- 16
-------
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $6,889.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations**
$4804.6
$4804.6
18.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$6,801.1
$6,801.1
16.0
FY 2006
Request
$6,889.6
$6,889.6
15.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$88.5
$88.5
-0.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
**In FY 2004, the Children and Other Sensitive Populations program was restructured to more accurately reflect the
Agency's activities that are funded by these resources.
Program Project Description
The Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP) advocates for and facilitates the
consideration of children's environmental health risks across activities identified in the Agency's
"National Agenda to Protect Children's Health from Environmental Threats," and Executive
Order 13045, "Protection of Children's Health from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks." EPA also recognizes that older adults are more susceptible to environmental health risks
than the general population. EPA's Aging Initiative is another emphasis within this program.
This cross-cutting, non-regulatory program works with other EPA offices, other federal agencies,
States, Tribes, the public, healthcare providers, industry, and non-governmental organizations to
achieve its mission. Core activities focus on building capacity, providing tools and information
to inform decisions, and engaging in outreach activities.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Examples of outcomes that this program contributes to are decreasing the frequency and severity
of asthma attacks in children through reduction and avoidance of key asthma triggers and
reducing children's exposure to lead, particularly in low income minority neighborhoods where
children living in older housing are much more likely to be exposed to lead. For more
information, visit http://www.epa.gov/lead/fedstrategy2000.pdf.
Another program emphasis is to ensure that EPA has the tools and information to enable decision
makers to consider approaches that protect children and older adults from heightened public
health risks. Coordination efforts will include:
EPM- 17
-------
Work with other Agency offices to develop guidance designed to assist the agency in
considering health risks to children in rule making and evaluating the application of such
guidance throughout EPA.
Work within EPA to generate and apply new scientific research, tools and assessments
and promote easy access to information regarding children's environmental health. For
example, collaboration with Region 5 assisted with an expansion of the Toxicity and
Exposure Assessment for Children's Health (TEACH) online database which
complements existing children's health information resources by providing a listing and
summary of scientific literature applicable to children's health risks due to chemical
exposure. The Agency also promotes advancing the state of scientific understanding
regarding how children and adults differ when it comes to assessing respiratory risks.
For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/teach/.
Provide tools, information, and support to build capacity in States, Tribes and local
governments so that they can take effective action to protect children from environmental
health risks, e.g., launching the Healthy Schools Environmental Health Assessment Tool
(pilot tested in FY 2005) and marketing it to schools nationwide.
Continue to support partners outside of the Agency to ensure that individuals, health care
providers, environmental professionals and other civic entities have access to tools and
information. The program will launch the Children's Environmental Health Awards
program in 2006 with outreach campaigns targeted toward specific organizations and
corporations to celebrate and encourage behavioral change necessary to protect children
from environmental health risks .
Provide information and tools needed to understand and address issues related to aging
and the environment. Publish educational outreach materials related to common chronic
conditions caused or exacerbated by environmental toxicants and other hazards targeted
at older adults and their caregivers, public health professionals, and professionals in the
field of aging.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Executive Order 13045
EPM- 18
-------
Civil Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $117,462.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Civil Enforcement (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations**
$106,875.9
$1,583.2
$131.4
$108,590.5
924.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$113,406.6
$1,628.7
$659.3
$115,694.6
952.7
FY 2006
Request
$117,462.2
$1,789.5
$883.2
$120,134.9
960.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$4,055.6
$160.8
$223.9
$4,440.3
8.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
**The increase represents a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and
Compliance Incentives program projects.
Program Project Description
The Civil Enforcement program's overarching goal is to protect human health and the
environment, targeting enforcement actions according to degree of health and environmental
risk. The program works with the Department of Justice to ensure consistent and fair
enforcement of all environmental laws and regulations. The program aims to level the economic
playing field by ensuring that violators do not realize an economic benefit from noncompliance,
and seeks to deter future violations. The civil enforcement program develops, litigates and
settles administrative and civil judicial cases against serious violators of environmental laws.
This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an
overall rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Appendix Section. For more
information, visit: www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/index.html: and www.epa.gov/ epaoswer
/hazwaste/ca/b ackgnd. htm
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Civil Enforcement program coordinates with states and within EPA to establish priorities
based on risk and patterns of compliance. In FY 2006 the Agency will continue to build on its
work on sector priorities established in FY 2005, including the Petroleum Refinery Sector; the
EPM- 19
-------
Clean Water Act (CWA)/Wet Weather sector; the Clean Air Act (CAA)/New Source
Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) sector; the CAA/Air Toxics sector;
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)TMineral Processing sector; and the
RCRA/Financial Responsibility sector.
The Federal program will also focus its FY 2006 resources on national program priorities,
including environmental and human health problems, trans-boundary pollutants, and multi-state
industrial violators. The Federal facilities enforcement program will continue to expeditiously
pursue enforcement actions at Federal facilities where significant violations are discovered. The
civil enforcement program's work will also supports the environmental justice program, by
focusing enforcement actions on industries that have repeatedly violated environmental laws in
disproportionately affected communities, including minority and/or low-income areas.
The cleanup at treatment, storage, or disposal facilities is termed "RCRA Corrective Action."
Corrective action at these types of facilities may be accomplished through a variety of
permitting, enforcement, and other mechanisms. The RCRA Corrective Action enforcement
program recently launched a "Corrective Action Smart Enforcement Strategy (CASES)" which
is a targeted approach to get hazardous waste facilities to address contamination, focused on high
priority facilities that have not adequately addressed potential human exposures.
EPA is currently evaluating financial responsibility to determine whether it should be pursued as
a priority under both RCRA and CERCLA beginning in FY 2006. Financial assurance
requirements ensure that adequate funds are available to address closure and clean up of facilities
that handle hazardous wastes, hazardous substances, toxic materials, or other pollutants. Placing
more emphasis on financial responsibility will facilitate timely clean-up at contaminated sites
and closure of waste management units that are no longer being actively used, and will also keep
closure and remediation costs from being shifted to the public.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$589.0, +5.0 FTE) This increase is for transfer of five civil investigators from the
Forensics Support program in goal 5, objective 4. This shift implements a
recommendation from the November 2003 Management Review of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics, and Training by transferring the civil investigators to the
Regulatory Enforcement program.
(+$399.2) This increase reflects a redistribution of resources from the Congressional,
Intergovernmental, and External Relations program. These resources support the review
of regulatory and Agency initiatives and Congressional requests and better support the
civil enforcement program.
(+$100.0) This increase reflects redirection of funds for the biannual enforcement
conference to the Civil Enforcement program.
(-$1,464.6) This increase reflects a redistribution of working capital fund resources.
EPM - 20
-------
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR; NEPA; SBLRBRERA; CERCLA; PPA; CERFA; AEA; PPA; UMTRLWA.
EPM-21
-------
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $12,529.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$9,413.3
$9,413.3
61.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$12,414.2
$12,414.2
74.8
FY 2006
Request
$12,529.6
$12,529.6
71.4
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$115.4
$115.4
-3.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Office of Civil Rights activities include policy direction and guidance on EEO, civil rights,
affirmative employment and diversity issues for Headquarters' program offices, Regions and
Labs. Programs include Title VI compliance and review, the intake and processing of
complaints of discrimination from agency employees and applicants for employment under Title
VII, and implementation of processes and programs in support of reasonable accommodations
and the Minority Academic Institutions (MAIs); and diversity initiatives, especially those related
to issues on ageism and sexual orientation. The functions involve accountability for the
implementation, program evaluation and compliance monitoring of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Titles VI, VII, IX), legislative requirements and executive orders covering civil rights,
affirmative employment, disability, and MAIs. Interpretation of policies and regulations,
execution of Civil Rights Laws and EEOC regulations and determinations help advance equal
employment initiatives, and uphold the civil rights of employees and prospective employees of
the Government, as required by federal statutes and executive orders.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency expects to conduct compliance reviews of five (5) recipient agencies. While the
number of complaints that allege discrimination by a recipient of EPA financial assistance varies
annually, over the past three years, there have been approximately 10 complaints per year. The
Civil Rights External Compliance Program expects to improve its processing of external
complaints. The Agency will:
EPM - 22
-------
Work with the U.S. Department of Justice on the development of any non-discrimination
regulations, guidance, or findings of discrimination, and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services on issues regarding age discrimination, the U.S. Department of
Education on issues regarding discrimination on the basis of sex, and other federal
agencies that may simultaneously receive discrimination complaints from the same
complainant regarding a particular recipient agency.
Work to reduce the backlog of employment complaints while completing all new
discrimination complaints within required time frames.
Provide training and guidance to over 100 EEO Counselors in the Regional offices. The
Agency will train EEO Officers in the Discrimination Complaint Tracking System
(DCTS) and provide technical assistance as needed.
Continue to examine ways to more effectively and efficiently reduce the number of
pending complaints, increase the number of compliance reviews conducted, and improve
recipient agencies civil rights programs through guidance and/or training.
Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the reasonable accommodation process.
Continue to provide technical assistance to managers, supervisors, employees and the
designated Local Reasonable Accommodation Coordinators in the form of expert training
and consultation by the NRAC to insure efficient implementation of the policy and
procedures.
Monitor the Agency's compliance with various statutes, EEOC regulations, EPA policy
and procedures related to the reasonable accommodation of qualified applicants and
employees with disabilities.
The Affirmative Employment and Diversity staff (AE&D) will provide programs that increase
the cultural awareness of minorities and women; highlight the accomplishments of EPA
employees involved in ensuring equal employment opportunity; develop special emphasis
programs and initiatives that involve management, unions, and community groups; develop an
annual Affirmative Employment Plan; meet on a regular basis with external and union officials
to increase communication and relationships, and coordinate the development of recruitment and
retention strategies.
The MAI program will conduct information exchange sessions with agency managers from each
region and program office; meet with representatives from minority colleges; introduce
representatives from minority colleges to appropriate agency personnel; participate on
interagency workgroups that support federal assistance for minority colleges; and facilitate
constructive dialogues that will advance the goals of the MAI program.
As a result of these activities, the Agency's mission and cornerstone themes are supported by a
workforce that is motivated, treated in a fair and non-discriminatory manner and produces
positive outcomes with respect to the Agency's goals.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousand)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
EPM - 23
-------
Statutory Authority
Civil Rights Act of 1964, VII, as amended; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Section 13
of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Age Discrimination Act of
1975; Rehabilitation Act of 1974, as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as
amended; Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990, as amended; Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, as amended EEOC Management Directive 715; Executive Orders
13163, 13164, 13078, 13087, 13171, 11478, 13125, 13096, 13230, 13256 February 12,2002
(HBCUs), 13270 July 3, 2002 (Tribal Colleges), 13339 May 13, 2004 (Asian American
Participation in Federal Programs)
EPM - 24
-------
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $18,234.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$17,471.3
$4,236.6
$21,707.9
94.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$17,495.8
$9,352.9
$26,848.7
86.4
FY 2006
Request
$18,234.2
$9,352.9
$27,587.1
86.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$738.4
$0.0
$738.4
-0.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Acid Rain Program, established under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
requires major reductions in SC>2 and NOX emissions from electric utilities. The authorizing
legislation specifies two phases and numerous deadlines for both the SC>2 and NOX program
components. The U.S. is also committed under the U.S.-Canada Air Quality Agreement of 1991
to making reductions in 862 and NOX emissions. EPA's Acid Rain Program provides affected
sources flexibility to select their own methods of compliance so the required emission reductions
are achieved at the lowest cost. The SC>2 program component uses a market-based approach with
tradable units called "allowances" (one allowance authorizes the emission of one ton of 862) and
sets a permanent cap in 2010 on the total amount of 862 that may be emitted by affected sources
at approximately one-half the amount these sources emitted in 1980. Both the SO2 and NOX
program components require accurate and verifiable measurement of emissions. The Acid Rain
Program continues to be recognized as a model for flexible and effective air pollution regulation,
both in the U.S. and abroad.
While significant progress has been made under the existing Clean Air Act, further benefits
could be achieved faster, with more certainty, and at less cost to consumers through Clear Skies
- an Administration legislative proposal that expands the current Acid Rain program to
dramatically reduce nationwide power plant emissions of SC>2 and NOX, as well as, for the first
time ever, reduce mercury emissions from power plants. Clear Skies would reduce emissions of
these three pollutants by nearly 70 percent while encouraging innovation and the deployment of
cleaner, more cost effective technologies. This legislation was submitted to Congress in 2002
and the Administration continues to promote its enactment.
EPM - 25
-------
Although Clear Skies is the more comprehensive and cost effective approach and therefore the
strongly preferred solution, the Administration is pursuing a regulatory path that would achieve
many of the same benefits should legislation not be enacted. EPA has proposed the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) which regulates the transport of powerplant emissions of SO2 and NOX
across state lines via a market-based approach similar to Clear Skies and the existing Acid Rain
program. CAIR is projected to further reduce pollution from electrical power generation sources
by close to an additional 70%, when fully implemented.
Both Clear Skies and CAIR call for utilities to utilize a cap and trade program modeled after the
Acid Rain SC>2 Allowance Trading Program. The Acid Rain Program provides incentives for
operators of power plants to find the best, fastest, and most efficient ways to make the required
reductions in emissions as well as to do make reductions earlier than required.
Another market-based cap and trade program managed by EPA is the NOX Budget Program
(NBP). EPA administers this program for affected States. It requires reductions of NOX
emissions and transported ozone in the eastern U.S. The initial program under the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) went into effect in the summer of 1999. By 2001, this voluntary
regional control program for the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) had expanded to include 9
States plus the District of Columbia (D.C.). Through OTC, ozone-season1 NOX emissions from
approximately 970 affected sources were reduced by over 250,000 tons (60%) from the 1990
baseline and 12% below allowance allocations.2 In 2003, the OTC program ended as a separate
entity, integrating fully with the broader regional NBP under the NOX SIP Call. Implementation
of the NOX SIP Call rule began in 2003 for the affected OTC States and in 2004 for other States.
Based on data reported to EPA, there are nearly 2,600 affected and operating units in the 19 NBP
States and D.C.3
This program was included in the Air Toxics PART review in 2006, which received an overall
rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Appendix Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In support of Clear Skies and CAIR, in FY 2006 EPA will conduct data analysis and develop
modeling tools for States to identify sources, assess their contributions and determine control
options that would lead to attainment and optimal benefits for noncriteria pollutants. EPA will
help States to manage attainment programs so sources contributing more to transport and
nonattainment are controlled more. Over the next five years, States, interstate organizations and
the RPO's will be engaged in developing State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that require a
collection of technical air quality data analyses, emissions inventory, air quality modeling and
emissions strategy development and applications. Quantifiable characterization of the specific
effects attributed to Clear Skies or CAIR is required, in order to adequately assess the underlying
problems of an area's air quality and to develop effective State and local emission strategies.
1 Ozone season is between May and September each year.
2 U.S. EPA., Acid Rain Program 2003 Progress Report (September 2004). (EPA 430-R-04-009). Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp03/2003report.pdf (last accessed December 2004).
3 U.S. EPA., Acid Rain Program 2003 Progress Report (September 2004). (EPA 430-R-04-009). Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp03/2003report.pdf (last accessed December 2004).
EPM - 26
-------
The tools developed for this support will enable States and other organizations to interface the
impacts of Clear Skies or CAIR with the estimated benefits of locally developed programs that
likely will focus on source categories markedly different from the major energy production
sources addressed in Clear Skies or CAIR. Such tools will include the capability of integrating
air quality model and measured data to adequately characterize benefits both from a multiple
pollutant perspective, but also with far greater spatial and temporal coverage offered by existing
tools.
Through the Acid Rain program, emissions are measured, quality assured and tracked for SC>2,
NOX, and CO2 with those emissions recorded by Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs) or
equivalent monitoring methods at more than 3,400 electric utility units. The Program conducts
audits and certifies emissions monitors. Through SC>2 allowance tracking system, allowance
transfers are recorded and reconciled for all affected sources to ensure compliance.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to assist the States with implementation, especially related to the
emissions trading program, compliance supplement pool, and monitoring; operate the centralized
NOX Allowance Tracking System; and reconcile emissions and allowances for all affected
sources, which include boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units from a diverse set of
industries as well as electric utility units. In 2004, the volume of emissions data processed by
EPA increased 2V2 times over the volume under the OTC program. This surge in emissions
reporting and allowance reconciliation activity is one factor that has required the program to
increase and accelerate investment in software re-engineering for the Clean Air Markets Division
Business System.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act
EPM - 27
-------
Clean School Bus Initiative
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $0.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Clean School Bus Initiative (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,990.4
$0.0
$4,990.4
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$65,000.0
$65,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$0.0
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
($55,000.0)
($55,000.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
In FY 2004, this program supported diesel retrofit pilot projects. As part of this program, EPA
worked with state and local governments and other non-governmental organizations to reduce
children's exposure to diesel emissions from buses and other sources by applying new,
innovative diesel emission reduction technologies to the existing school bus fleet, promoting
anti-idling strategies, and encouraging the use of low sulfur fuel.
In the FY 2005 President's Budget Request, this funding was transferred to the STAG
appropriation to support the national diesel school bus retrofit program.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Resources for this program are now in the STAG appropriation, supporting similar
efforts.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
Resources for this program are now in the STAG appropriation.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act
EPM - 28
-------
Climate Protection Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity; Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $95,529.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Climate Protection Program (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$88,524.8
$21,794.6
$110,319.4
218.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$91,961.3
$17,458.9
$109,420.2
224.0
FY 2006
Request
$95,529.9
$17,732.5
$113,262.4
216.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$3,568.6
$273.6
$3,842.2
-7.7
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program focuses on EPA's voluntary government/industry partnership programs designed
to capitalize on the opportunities that consumers, businesses, and organizations have for making
sound investments in efficient equipment, policies, and practices.
EPA manages a number of efforts, such as the ENERGY STAR1 programs and voluntary
transportation efficiency programs including the SmartWay Transport initiative, to help remove
barriers in the marketplace and deploy technology faster in the residential, commercial,
transportation, and industrial sectors of the economy. EPA's Climate Protection Programs work
by overcoming widely acknowledged barriers to energy efficiency: lack of clear, reliable
information on technology opportunities; lack of awareness of energy efficient products and
services; lack of financing options to turn life cycle energy savings into initial cost savings for
consumers; low incentives to manufacturers for efficiency research and development; and lack of
awareness about more energy efficient transportation choices.
EPA's Climate Protection Program efforts have encouraged the reduction of emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases such as methane and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). As
many of the investments promoted through EPA's climate programs involve energy efficient
equipment with lifetimes of decades or more, the investments that have been spurred to date will
continue to deliver environmental and economic benefits through 2012 and beyond. EPA
1 The ENERGY STAR program crosses two climate change program areas: Buildings and Industry. The total FY 2006 budget
request for the ENERGY STAR program is $50. Smillion.
EPM - 29
-------
currently estimates that based on investments in equipment already made due to EPA's
programs, organizations and consumers across the country could net sizable cost savings and
greenhouse gas emission reductions. These programs continue to be cost-effective approaches
for delivering environmental benefits across the country.
Internationally, EPA works with the Department of State to provide technical assistance to
developing countries and economies-in-transition on greenhouse gas reduction programs. EPA is
assisting a number of key developing countries to: (1) design and implement programs to
increase the use of low and zero greenhouse gas technologies; (2) identify, evaluate and
implement strategies for achieving multiple social and health or economic benefits while
reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and (3) accurately assess GHG emissions from the
transportation sector. In 2004, EPA's efforts in Russia, along with our project partners, resulted
in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 3-5 million tons. In 2005, we expect to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 5 -7 million tons.
EPA's international activities have contributed to greater information and technical capacity
available for developing and industrialized countries to implement emissions reductions policies
and climate protection programs. In addition, EPA works with state and local governments
interested in technical, educational, and outreach assistance for clean energy projects that reduce
carbon emissions.
This program underwent a PART review in 2006 and received a rating of adequate; more
information is included in the Appendix Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue to build upon its voluntary government/industry partnership efforts to achieve
additional greenhouse gas reductions in support of the President's goal to reduce greenhouse gas
intensity by 18 percent in 2012.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue implementation of the Methane to Markets Partnership - a U.S.
led international initiative that promotes cost-effective, near-term methane recovery and use as a
clean energy source. The Partnership has the potential to deliver by 2015 annual reductions in
methane emissions of up to 50 MMTCE or recovery of 500 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural
gas. Methane to Markets builds on the success of EPA's domestic methane voluntary programs
by creating an international forum to promote methane recovery and use projects in developing
countries. The Partnership will achieve its goals through collaboration among developed
countries, developing countries, and countries with economies in transition - together with
strong participation from the private sector, development banks, and other governmental and
non-governmental organizations.
EPM - 30
-------
In FY 2006, EPA's climate change programs will:
Work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from projected levels by up to 100 MMTCE;
Work to reduce energy consumption from projected levels by up to 145 billion kilowatt hours
annually;
Work to reduce other forms of pollution, including air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides
(NOX), particulate matter, and mercury;
Continue to expand the ENERGY STAR program for energy efficiency in the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors and work toward avoiding up to 30 MMTCE in 2006;
Continue to implement the Climate Leaders program.
Develop voluntary partnerships with the freight industry to increase the market penetration of
diesel engine retrofits, anti-idling technologies, speed management practices, improved
aerodynamic truck designs and other practices under the SmartWay Transport initiative;
Continue to expand the Best Workplaces for Commuters program which provides incentives
for US businesses to provide energy efficient commute options including telework, carpools,
vanpool and transit, which could reduce vehicle miles of travel by up to two billion miles.
Assist state and local governments by providing technical, outreach, and education services
for clean energy projects;
Implement the Methane-to-Markets Partnership internationally by assessing the feasibility of
methane recovery and use projects at landfills, coal mines, and natural gas and oil facilities
and by identifying and addressing institutional, legal, regulatory and other barriers to project
development in Partner countries
Work with USDA to, analyze, identify, and develop specific opportunities to sequester
carbon in agricultural soils, forests, other vegetation, and commercial products, with
collateral benefits for productivity and the environment;
Assist developing countries and countries with economies-in-transition in building their
capacity to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases through cost-effective measures and
participate actively in international discussions of climate protection and assist in the
fulfillment of the U.S. obligations under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) to facilitate technology transfer to developing countries;
Produce measurable international greenhouse gas emission reductions through clean
industrialization partnerships with key developing countries;
EPA will continue and expand cooperation with China, Mexico, Brazil, and India, consistent
with Administration efforts under the climate change bilaterals; build the capacity in major
emitter countries (e.g., Mexico) to develop reliable emission inventories in support of
sustained emissions reduction strategies, consistent with the goals of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC); improve energy efficiency practices in buildings in the former Soviet Union;
continue to assist key developing countries in their efforts to identify and quantify mitigation
measures.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$4,000) This increase provides additional funding for the implementation of the
international Methane-to-Markets Partnership program.
EPM-31
-------
(-$2,700) This decrease represents the elimination of the Waste Wise program.
(-6.2 FTE, -$700) This reduces 6.2 FTE from the Climate Protection program.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. - Sections 102, 103, 104, and 108; Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. - Section 104; Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq. - Section 8001; Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. - Sections 6602, 6603,
6604, and 6605; National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. - Section 102;
Global Climate Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2901 - Section 1103; Federal Technology Transfer
Act, 15 U.S.C. - Section 3701a, Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.- Section 104
Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.- Section 8001
EPM - 32
-------
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks; Communities
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $4,209.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,918.1
$4,918.1
7.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$3,948.8
$3,948.8
6.0
FY 2006
Request
$4,209.9
$4,209.9
7.4
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$261.1
$261.1
1.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program/Project Description
The Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was created by a side agreement to the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the mission of facilitating cooperation
and public participation to conserve and improve the North American environment, in the
context of increasing economic, trade and social links among Canada, Mexico, and the United
States. EPA has worked to make the products of the CEC more environment and health results-
oriented and based on sound science. In 2004 the "Puebla Declaration" set a new direction
focused on three priorities: 1) developing quality information across the three countries; 2)
building capacity for environmental protection, particularly in Mexico, for the benefit of the
environment and human health; and 3) building synergies and taking advantage of the
environmental benefits of increased trade. EPA's continuing leadership and management of the
CEC is critical to ensure that activities generate concrete results, consistent with U.S. goals and
priorities
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights:
In FY 2006, EPA will support the CEC in developing projects to promote policies and actions
that achieve benefits for both the environment and trade. For example, by increasing the ability
of border inspectors and environmental investigators to anticipate, identify and address illegal
and environmentally harmful activities associated with the import and export of hazardous
wastes, chemicals, and wildlife, through training, information exchange, and improvement in
compliance assistance materials. To support all three countries in our domestic economic
commitments to renewable energy, EPA also will work with the CEC and other NAFTA parties
to enhance the development of a North American market for renewable energy.
EPM - 33
-------
EPA will support the CEC to develop quality information that helps decision-makers and the
public understand the state of the environment, including an annual report measuring pollutant
releases from the three countries and new developments on environmental laws in the three
countries. In FY 2006, EPA will support work on specific projects related to air quality,
children's health, and biodiversity to help the three countries develop compatible information
systems. These systems will enable all people to access consolidated environmental information
across North America
In the area of capacity building, EPA will support the CEC in specific projects related to
integrated environmental management, beginning with two pilot projects in Mexico. EPA will
support collaborative projects to engage small and large companies in voluntary stewardship
activities throughout North America. In addition, the CEC will complete a needs-assessment to
identify the greatest capacity building needs in Mexico and to help identify resources to fill those
needs.
FY 2006 Change from 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
North American Free Trade Agreement; North American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation.
EPM - 34
-------
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $29,097.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance Assistance and Centers (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations**
527,777.2
$463.5
$251.6
$0.0
$27,892.3
204.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$28,574.5
$585.3
$276.6
$26.6
$29,463.0
213.8
FY 2006
Request
$29,097.1
$773.6
$286.5
$22.5
$30,179.7
212.4
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
5522.6
$188.3
$9.9
($4.1)
$716.7
-1.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
**The increase represents a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and
Compliance Incentives program projects.
Program Project Description
To improve compliance with environmental laws regulated entities, Federal agencies and the
public benefit from easy access to tools that help them understand these laws and find efficient,
cost-effective means for putting them into practice. To achieve these goals the Compliance
Assistance and Centers program provides information, training and technical assistance to the
regulated community, to increase its understanding of statutory and regulatory environmental
requirements, thereby gaining measurable improvements in compliance and reducing risks to
human health and the environment. The program also provides tools such as plain-language
guides; interactive virtual compliance assistance centers; training; and assistance to other
compliance assistance providers, enabling them to more effectively help the regulated
community comply with environmental requirements. This program was included in the Civil
Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more
information is included in the Appendix Section. For more information, visit:
www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html; www.epa.gov/clearinghouse; and www.assist
ancecenters.net.
EPM-35
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006 EPA will continue to provide general and targeted compliance assistance to the
regulated community and to integrate assistance into its enforcement and compliance efforts. In
partnership with trade associations and other assistance providers, the Agency will continue to
support the Compliance Assistance Centers Program. The 13 existing centers provide one-stop
shopping for regulatory environmental and technical assistance, pollution prevention activities,
and other information particularly suited to specific small and medium business sectors and to
governments.
The Federal Facility Enforcement Program will continue to provide technical guidance to other
Federal agencies on compliance with executive orders and applicable environmental laws. EPA
will also continue working with other Federal agencies to support the new Federal Facilities
Stewardship and Compliance Assistance Center (www.fedcenter.gov) in FY 2006.
The Agency will improve and expand local and state-specific information (e.g. state regulatory
requirements) available in new and existing Centers. EPA will also continue to integrate the
centers and clearinghouse with the "Business Gateway" Initiative; one of the President's 24 e-
government initiatives. In FY 2006, EPA will also refine data elements to ensure accurate
reporting into the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), and build the Agency's
capacity to measure compliance assistance outcomes.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$450.0) This reduction reflects a redirection of resources from compliance assistance to
support Compliance Monitoring program efforts.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; CERCLA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR.
EPM - 36
-------
Compliance Incentives
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $9,622.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance Incentives (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations**
$10,131.3
$564.2
$10,695.5
79.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$9,420.7
$188.8
$9,609.5
78.5
FY 2006
Request
$9,622.2
$168.1
$9,790.3
76.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$201.5
($20.7)
$180.8
-1.7
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
**The increase represents a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and
Compliance Incentives program projects.
Program Project Description
EPA will continue to implement EPA's Audit/Self-Policing Policy (Audit Policy); Small
Business Compliance Policy; and Small Local Governments Policy as core elements of the
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program. EPA's Audit Policy encourages corporate
audits of environmental compliance and subsequent correction of self-discovered violations,
providing a uniform enforcement response toward disclosures of violations. Under the Audit
Policy, when companies voluntarily discover and promptly correct environmental violations,
EPA may waive or substantially reduce civil penalties. This program was included in the Civil
Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more
information is included in the Appendix Section. For more information, visit:
www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/programs/index.html.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA is currently working on many efforts to encourage corporate self-disclosures, with emphasis
on corporate-wide disclosures of environmental violations under various environmental statutes.
Since FY 2001, over 5,000 facilities have disclosed and corrected violations. In FY 2006, the
Agency will continue to expand use of the Audit Policy through aggressive outreach to
industries. One example of the EPA's outreach is a compliance incentive program being
developed for the "Grocers" sector to address CFC-related violations. EPA actively encourages
disclosures at multiple facilities owned by the same regulated entity, because such disclosures
EPM - 37
-------
allow each entity to review their operations holistically, which more effectively benefits the
environment.
In F Y 2006, the Compliance Incentives program continues to promote the use of Environmental
Management Systems (EMSs). EMSs provide organizations with an approach to minimizing
environmental impacts - regulated and unregulated - by integrating environmental concerns into
business decisions and practices. EPA will continue to implement the National Environmental
Performance Track Program (NEPT) which is a program that recognizes and motivates top-
performing facilities that consistently meet their legal requirements, have implemented EMS,
and made tangible improvements to their environmental performance.
In FY 2006, the Agency will support and encourage states' efforts to adopt the innovative
Environmental Results Program (ERP). ERP consists of a set of three linked tools - compliance
assistance, self-evaluation and certification, and inspections and performance measurement - that
work together to hold facility owners and operators accountable for their environmental
obligations. In Massachusetts, where ERP was developed, the program improved performance
for small businesses, and resulted in savings for businesses, allowing the state and EPA to focus
resources on higher priority environmental problems.
Compliance Incentives activities are reported and tracked in several different compliance
information systems; efforts will continue to focus on modernizing those systems into the
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), to enable the Agency to make strategic
decisions for the best utilization of resources and tools, and to respond to increasing demands for
compliance and environmental information.
EPA will continue to make multi-media compliance incentives information available to the
public through the Enforcement and Compliance History On-line (ECHO) Internet website
during FY 2006. ECHO is heavily used (approximately 75,000 queries per month in FY 2004),
with visits to the site increasing each year.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$244.3) This increase reflects a redirection of resources into the Compliance Incentives
program to support information technology systems.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
EPM-38
-------
Compliance Monitoring
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $93,412.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance Monitoring (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations**
$64,141.7
$0.0
$64,141.7
569.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$84,297.3
$881.8
$85,179.1
624.1
FY 2006
Request
$93,412.1
$1,156.7
$94,568.8
627.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$9,114.8
$274.9
$9,389.7
3.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
** The increase represents a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and
Compliance Incentives program projects.
Program Project Description
The Compliance Monitoring program reviews and evaluates the activities of the regulated
community to determine compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permit conditions, and
settlement agreements. It also responds to tips and complaints from the public, and determines
whether conditions exist that may present imminent and substantial endangerment to human
health or the environment. This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review
for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more information is included in the
Appendix Section. For more information, visit: www. epa. gov/compliance/monitoring
/index.html.
The Agency also reviews and responds to 100 percent of the notices for trans-boundary
movement of hazardous waste, ensuring that these wastes are properly handled in accordance
with international agreements and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations. For
more information about the Import/Export program, visitwww.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring
/programs/importexport/hazard.html.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA, in tandem with states and Tribes, plans to conduct approximately 18,500 inspections,
evaluations, and civil and criminal investigations during FY 2006. These activities will be
targeted to areas that pose risks to human health or the environment, display patterns of
noncompliance, or involve disproportionately exposed populations. EPA is working with states
EPM - 39
-------
and Tribes to identify where these inspections, evaluations and investigations will have the
greatest impact on achieving environmental results. Program activities will focus on the national
program priorities established through the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's
FY 2005/2007 National Program Guidance. Additional information can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/npmguidance/index.htm
The Agency plans to release the first version of its modernized Permit Compliance System (PCS)
in December 2005, to improve the ability of EPA and the states to manage the Clean Water Act
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The December 2005
release of the modernized PCS will cover approximately fourteen states, with additional states
being added in another release in June 2006. Development of a modernized PCS, through
integration into ICIS, will continue throughout FY 2006, with a goal of completing the
modernization of PCS and moving all states to modernized PCS by the end of FY 2007.
EPA will continue to make multi-media compliance monitoring information available to the
public through the Enforcement and Compliance History On-line (ECHO) Internet website
during FY 2006. ECHO is heavily used (approximately 75,000 queries per month in FY 2004),
with visits to the site increasing each year.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$4,353.2) This increase reflects a redistribution of working capital fund resources that
support the program's workforce and mainframe computer system.
(+$1,169.2) This increase reflects a redistribution of regional program support funding
for Compliance Monitoring program activities.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
EPM - 40
-------
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $49,753.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$53,015.2
$162.7
$53,177.9
395.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$48,166.0
$184.0
$48,350.0
394.7
FY 2006
Request
$49, 753.3
$161.0
$49,914.3
384.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,587.3
($23.0)
$1,564.3
-9.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Congressional and Intergovernmental activities help provide the vision and leadership needed to
enable EPA to meet its commitments to protect public health and the environment. These efforts
coordinate or respond to Congressional requests for information, written and oral testimony,
briefings, and briefing materials. Developing legislative strategies to support the program offices
and coordinating Agency appearances before Congress. External relations emphasizes informing
the public (including State, Local and tribal Governments) about environmental problems and
goals; strengthening communications with the State, local and tribal governments, and
organizations as well as the public and news media; increasing public awareness and enhancing
public perceptions of environmental issues and their technological and scientific solutions.
Work with States, local and tribal governments and their associations focuses on ensuring that all
concerns are considered in Agency policies, guidance, and regulations and serving as EPA's lead
on issues relating to the National Environmental Performance Partnerships System (NEPPS).
Another essential function is to log, assign, track, and respond to correspondence received by the
Administrator and Deputy Administrator and, in the Regions, the Regional Administrator.
The Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations program also disseminates
information about enforcement actions, compliance monitoring and the availability of
compliance assistance. Monthly Enforcement Alerts, Compliance Assistance newsletters, regular
news briefs about enforcement and compliance assistance activities and a vibrant website with
EPM - 41
-------
easily accessible tools for retrieving information are all elements of the public awareness work.
Comprehensive reports and Agency documents are also posted in a timely manner.
A portion of this program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for FY 2006
which received an overall rating of adequate; more information is included in the Special
Analysis heading.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The emphasis and priority of these programs is to provide the vision and leadership for the full
range of EPA's mission. The Regional Administrators and their staffs will provide leadership to
their respective Regions and the States they serve. They will work with the States and negotiate
performance partnerships to agree on environmental outcomes the States will achieve with
resources received from EPA.
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations efforts will:
Lead and support the Administration's efforts to pass legislation to protect human health
and the environment (such as Clear Skies, the Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants,
Energy, Transportation, and Water Resources).
Help facilitate EPA's involvement in the White House Conference on the Facilitation of
Cooperative Conservation Presidential Executive Order.
Support the President's Executive Order on intergovernmental consultation through the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) and Local
Government Advisory Council (LGAC). The LGAC and Intergovernmental Relations
team will outreach to local governments to facilitate implementation of the Executive
Order on Intergovernmental Consultation.
Provide national policy and program management to more fully integrate the NEPPS
framework and principles into the Agency's core business practices. Key activities
include: (a) developing policy/program guidance, outreach tools and training to promote
the value and benefits of Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs) and Performance
Partnership Grants (PPGs); (b) improving opportunities for bilateral joint planning and
work sharing agreements, evaluating its influence, and facilitating continuous
improvement; and (c) increasing the use and effectiveness of PPAs and PPGs as
definitive joint planning and management tools to achieve environmental results at the
national, state, and local level.
Improve the management of EPA's cooperative agreement with the Environmental
Council of the States (ECOS) through close coordination and greater involvement of
several of EPA's program offices.
Executive Secretariat emphasizes responsiveness and efficiency. The program:
Manages the Agency's correspondence tracking and workflow management software
application. Indicators of success include an increase in Agency wide usership, meeting
or exceeding all user support commitments, and delivering service and meeting user
needs within the program's annual budget.
Is responsible for mail distribution and performs vital records management functions for
the Immediate Office. Indicators of success are determined through a customer feedback
EPM - 42
-------
process and workflow tracking to help ensure same-day delivery, timely responses to
FOIA and discovery requests, and compliance with all NARA mandates.
Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM) functions will:
Ensure that EPA's 67 federal advisory committees are in compliance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act through policy creation, oversight of federal advisory
committees, program office staff training, surveying federal advisory committee
members and stakeholders, identifying and sharing best practices, and training
Agency Designated Federal Officers and committee Chairs. These efforts have
helped to ensure consistent application of an open process throughout all of EPA's
federal advisory committees by developing a new membership approval process.
Manage four committees in a manner that ensures they will make significant
contributions to the conduct of Agency programs. Specifically, the National
Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) will develop
recommendations to the Administrator on ways the Agency can leverage its existing
environmental technology programs and on potential new environmental technology
programs that take advantage of collaborative opportunitiesparticularly market
incentives. The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) will develop
recommendations to the President and the Congress on collaborative approaches to
address environmental problems along the U.S. - Mexico border. The National and
Governmental Advisory Committees (NAC and GAC) will develop recommendations
to the Administrator and the U.S. Government on collaborative approaches and
market incentives that the U.S., Canada, and Mexico can adopt to more efficiently
deal with environmental impacts throughout the North American Market.
Public Affairs efforts support achievement of Agency strategic goals by communicating Agency
proposals, actions, policy, data, research and information through mass media and directly via
the Web. Coordination is needed with all program and regional offices to develop, coordinate
and manage print, broadcast and Web-based background and content information to enhance
public understanding of Agency policy and actions. Recognizing the importance of the Web in
the communication of Agency information, in FY 2006, a major review and consolidation of
Agency Web content is a priority to ensure Web information is current, consistent, accurate and
easy to find.
Public Affairs efforts support achievement of Agency strategic goals by communicating Agency
proposals, actions, policy, data, research and information through mass media and directly via
the Web. Coordination is needed with all program and regional offices to develop, coordinate
and manage print, broadcast and Web-based background and content information to enhance
public understanding of Agency policy and actions. Recognizing the importance of the Web in
the communication of Agency information, in FY 2006, a major review and consolidation of
Agency Web content is a priority to ensure Web information is current, consistent, accurate and
easy to find.
During FY 2006, the Agency will continue to foster public awareness of Superfund
environmental issues and the federal government's role in monitoring compliance and enforcing
Superfund laws. This awareness and support are critical to public support and to the Agency's
EPM - 43
-------
success in meeting its goals. The Agency will issue the following informational materials:
monthly enforcement alerts; quarterly compliance assistance newsletters; annual
accomplishments reports, daily updating of the website; weekly news alerts; six specialized list-
serves with periodic postings; and news releases as Superfund major cases are concluded.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$399.2 / -3.0 FTE) Reflects a redistribution of resources to the civil enforcement program.
These resources support the review of regulatory and Agency initiatives and Congressional
requests and better support the civil enforcement program.
(-$23.0) Reflects a reduction to support working capital fund investments.
(-9.9 FTE) The reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment described in
the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of job positions, but not to
actual FTE levels.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
As provided in Appropriations Act funding; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Enterprise for the
Americas Initiative Act; North America Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; RLBPHRA;
NAAED; LPA-US/MX-BR; CERCLA
EPM - 44
-------
Criminal Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $37,326.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
Criminal Enforcement (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$31,107.0
$7,764.8
$38,871.8
261.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$33,260.2
$8,635.7
$41,895.9
267.1
FY 2006
Request
$37,326.3
$9,504.2
$46,830.5
273.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$4,066.1
$868.5
$4,934.6
6.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Criminal Enforcement program, mandated by the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990,
forcefully deters violations of environmental laws and regulations by demonstrating that the
regulated community will be held accountable, through jail sentences and criminal fines, for
serious, willful statutory violations. The program thus serves as a deterrent for potential
violators, thereby enhancing aggregate compliance with laws and regulations.
The criminal enforcement program conducts investigations and refers for prosecution cases
which reduce pollution and help secure plea agreements or sentencing conditions that will
require defendants to improve their environmental management practices (e.g., by securing
permits or developing environmental management systems to enhance performance). The
Agency also develops information to support grand jury inquiries and decisions, and works with
other law enforcement agencies to present a highly visible and effective force in the Agency's
overall enforcement strategy. Cases are referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution,
with special agents serving as key witnesses in the proceedings.
The program also participates in task forces with state and local law enforcement, and provides
specialized training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA.
FLETC provides one of the few opportunities for state, local, and tribal environmental
enforcement professionals to obtain criminal investigation training. This program underwent a
PART review in 2006 and received a rating of Adequate; more information is included in the
Appendix Section. For more information, visit: www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/ index.html.
EPM - 45
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the Criminal Enforcement program will continue implementation of revised case
screening procedures that enhance integration with the Civil Enforcement program. This
integration will be achieved through an increased emphasis upon national and regional
enforcement priorities, and repeat, chronic or long-term civil violations. This strategy is also
improving the Agency's ability to target enforcement resources towards the most serious and
culpable violators.
FY 2006 efforts to upgrade to the criminal enforcement data system, the Criminal Case
Reporting System, will also enable the program to more systematically develop an aggregate
"profile" of its criminal enforcement cases. This will improve analysis of case attributes,
including the extent to which cases support Agency-wide, OECA-wide, or Regional enforcement
and compliance priorities, and the identification of the components of "complex" cases, such as
those involving specific sector initiatives or global plea agreements affecting multiple facilities
that have significant pollutant impacts.
In addition, the Criminal Enforcement program will develop the baseline for, and begin
measuring and reporting data on, three additional GPRA measures: a recidivism measure that
will identify the specific deterrent effect of the program; a pollutant impact measure to assess the
annual aggregate amount of illegal pollution released into the environment that cannot be
remediated, treated or otherwise reduced; and an environmental management improvement
measure that assesses the extent to which concluded criminal enforcement cases result in
improved or additional environmental management practices.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$1,732.6, +6.0 FTE) This increase is for the Administrator's Protection Detail.
(+435.1) This increase reflects a redistribution of workforce-related costs funded from the
working capital fund.
(+$300.0) This increase reflects the shift of resources from enforcement training for the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) which provides training to the
Agency's criminal investigators.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR; Pollution Prosecution Act; Powers of Environmental Protection Agency.
EPM - 46
-------
Drinking Water Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $101,089.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Drinking Water Programs (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$90,553.9
$2,941.9
$93,495.8
585.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$97,947.9
$2,999.7
$100,947.6
597.9
FY 2006
Request
$101,089.9
$3,068.5
$104,158.4
588.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$3,142.0
$68.8
$3,210.8
-9.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program comprises the multiple-barrier approach to protecting public health from unsafe
drinking water. Under this approach, EPA protects public health through: source water
assessment and protection programs; promulgation of new or revised, scientifically sound and
risk-based National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs); training, technical
assistance, and financial assistance programs to enhance systems' capacity to comply with
existing and new regulations; and the national implementation of NPDWRs by state and tribal
drinking water programs through regulatory, non-regulatory, and voluntary programs and
policies to ensure safe drinking water. (For more information visit
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/)
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Safe drinking water and clean surface waters are critical to protecting human health. Over 260
million Americans rely on the safety of tap water provided by water systems that are subject to
national drinking water standards.7 In support of the goal that 94 percent of the population
served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meet all of the health-based
standards with compliance dates of December 2001, EPA will continue in FY 2006 to protect
sources of drinking water from contamination; develop new and revise existing drinking water
standards; support states, Tribes, and water systems in implementing standards; and, promote
sustainable management of drinking water infrastructure. Due to these efforts, by the end of FY
2006, the Agency will have ensured that 93% of the population served by community water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED),
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html
EPM - 47
-------
systems, and 90% of the population served by community water systems in Indian country,
receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards.
Drinking Water Standards
In FY 2006, EPA will:
Prepare a final determination whether to regulate at least five contaminants from the
second drinking water contaminant candidate list (CCL). EPA will review and address
comments upon the draft determination (published in 2005), continue to evaluate health
effects and occurrence information, and assess the opportunity for health risk reduction;
Begin the health risk reduction and cost analyses to support proposed rulemakings for the
contaminant(s) from the second CCL that the Agency determines to regulate;
Continue analysis to prepare the Agency's third CCL. EPA will implement key
recommendations of NAS and the National Drinking Water Advisory Committee. EPA
will evaluate a broad universe of chemical and microbial agents and identify the
contaminant candidates with a greater likelihood of occurring in drinking water supplies
at levels that could affect human health;
Continue to assess available data on health effects, occurrence, analytical methods, and
technologies to remove currently regulated contaminants. EPA will determine what
revisions are appropriate to drinking water regulations, as part of the second National
Primary Drinking Water Rule Review required in 2008. The revisions could include
changes to the Lead and Copper Rule identified in the comprehensive Lead and Copper
Rule Review that began in 2004; and,
Continue to develop revisions to the Total Coliform Rule by initiating a stakeholder
process and analyzing upcoming NAS recommendations.
Drinking Water Implementation
By FY 2006, the Agency will have promulgated the Cryptosporidium (Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule), Disinfection (Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts
Rule), and Ground Water Rules. EPA will be responsible for directly implementing the early
monitoring requirements under these rules. In addition, initial monitoring requirements under
the revised arsenic rule and revised radionuclides rule will be underway. Hydrologic sensitivity
assessments under the Ground Water Rule will also be underway. In order to facilitate
compliance with these new rules, as well as existing rules, EPA will:
Continue to provide guidance, training, and technical assistance on the implementation of
drinking water regulations to states, Tribes, and systems;
Ensure proper certification of water system operators;
Develop new, easily accessible tools to assist states and water systems;
Ensure on-site reviews of the operation, condition, and management of public water
systems as required by regulations;
Promote consumer awareness of the safety of drinking water supplies;
Focus on training and assistance on the use of cost-effective treatment technologies,
proper waste disposal, and compliance with high priority contaminant requirements,
EPM - 48
-------
including initial monitoring under the revised arsenic rule, radionuclides rule, LT2 rule,
Stage 2 rule, and hydrologic sensitivity assessments under the Ground Water Rule;
Even though regulatory development activities for the M-DBP Rule cluster have been
completed, EPA has committed to implementing early requirements under new rules as
well; and
The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) modernization should be
complete by the end of 2005. EPA will continue to work with states to improve data
completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency through: 1) training on data entry,
error correction, and regulatory reporting; 2) conducting data verifications and analyses;
and 3) implementing quality assurance and quality control procedures to identify missing,
incomplete, or conflicting data under the data reliability action plan.
Sustainable Infrastructure
EPA provides affordable, flexible financial assistance through the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund. To help states and municipalities address their drinking water infrastructure
needs, the Agency will:
Continue to implement its sustainable infrastructure leadership initiative in partnership
with drinking water utilities. Through this initiative, EPA and its partners will identify
leaders in the utility industry who have established best practices in drinking water asset
management, innovations, efficiency, and who are interested in employing watershed-
based approaches to managing water resources;
Work closely with states, utilities, and other stakeholders to develop a strategy to
facilitate the voluntary adoption of these best practices. The initiative will support
sustainable drinking water utilities that are able to maximize the value of safe drinking
water by improving system performance at the lowest possible cost; and
The Partnership for Safe Water a voluntary activity by which primarily large systems
implement effective practices aimed at mitigating microbes and pathogens in drinking
water - will serve as a model for this initiative.
Source Water Protection
EPA will continue to support state and local efforts to protect source waters by identifying and
addressing significant sources of contamination. These efforts could be an integral part of the
utility efforts in the sustainable infrastructure leadership initiative. By the end of FY 2006, the
Agency expects that all EPA-approved state source water assessment programs will have
completed high-quality baseline assessments for public water systems nationwide. States with
assistance from many Federal programs will be working with community water systems to take
voluntary measures to prevent, reduce, or eliminate threats of contamination to source water
areas. In FY 2006, the Agency will:
Work with national, state, and local stakeholder organizations and other Federal agencies
to manage significant sources of contamination identified in the source water assessments
through broad-based efforts;
EPM - 49
-------
Continue to support source water protection efforts by: 1) providing training, technical
assistance, and technology transfer capabilities to states and localities; and 2) facilitating
the adoption of geographic information system (GIS) databases to support local decision-
making;
Work with states and Tribes to educate and assist operators of all classes of underground
injection control wells; collaborate with industry and stakeholders to collect and evaluate
data on high priority endangering shallow injection wells; and explore best management
practices for closing and permitting these shallow wells and for otherwise protecting
underground sources of drinking water; and
Continue to provide grants for studies and demonstrations associated with source water
and drinking water.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
-9.0 FTE: The reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment
described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of
Agency authorized positions, but not to overall Agency FTE utilization.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA); Clean Water Act (CWA)
EPM - 50
-------
Endocrine Disrupters
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks; Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $9,096.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Endocrine Disrupters (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$7,917.5
$7,917.5
17.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$9,037.3
$9,037.3
15.5
FY 2006
Request
$9,096.8
$9,096.8
15.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$59.5
$59.5
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Implementation of the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) is currently proceeding
in three areas: 1) Developing and validating the test assays; 2) Chemical selection; and, 3)
Regulatory Implementation and Procedures.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The EDSP will complete the validation of eight assays that will identify the ability of chemicals
to interact with the endocrine system, and submit the results for scientific peer review, in FY
2006. The Agency will generate and release for public comment a preliminary list of the first
chemicals to be tested in the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program. EPA will continue to
move forward on the validation of in-depth, longer-term assays that can confirm the ability of
chemicals to interact with the endocrine system and which will provide information that can be
used in risk assessment. This effort will leverage international interest in validation of endocrine
disrupter assays where possible to minimize costs incurred by the U.S. and to maximize
international harmonization of test guidelines while maintaining scientific integrity. The EDSP
also expects to release for public comment a proposal for the Regulatory Framework of the
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program. All of these activities further the goal of protecting
communities from harm from substances in the environment which may adversely affect health
through specific hormonal effects. This program was included in the Endocrine Disrupter PART
review in 2006 which received an overall rating of "Adequate"; more information is included in
the Appendix Section.
EPM-51
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as amended; Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act;
Oil Pollution Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Clean Air Act and amendments; Clean Water Act
and amendments; Toxic Substances Control Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Emergency Planning and Right to Know Act; Ocean Dumping
Act; Pollution Prosecution Act.
EPM - 52
-------
Enforcement Training
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $2,498.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Enforcement Training (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,094.0
$1,034.6
$5,128.6
29.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$3,302.4
$755.7
$4,058.1
16.7
FY 2006
Request
$2,498.7
$613.9
$3,112.6
17.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($803.7)
($141.8)
($945.5)
0.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
As mandated by the Pollution Prosecution Act, the Agency's Enforcement Training program
provides environmental enforcement training nationwide, through the National Enforcement
Training Institute (NETI). The program oversees the design of core and specialized enforcement
courses, and their delivery to lawyers, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators, and technical
experts. This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for 2006 which
received an overall rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Appendix Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the program will develop and deliver training to support national teams formed to
address national enforcement priority areas. The program also maintains a training center on the
Internet, "NETI Online," which offers targeted technical training courses to national and
international audiences. The site also provides for tracking individual training plans, as well as
developing, managing and improving the program's training delivery processes.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$300.0) This decrease reflects the shift of resources to the Criminal Enforcement
program for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) which provides
training to the Agency's criminal investigators.
(-$300.0) This decrease is for the four State Environmental Enforcement Associations.
EPM - 53
-------
(-$175.9) This reduction is a redirection to support working capital fund investments.
Statutory Authority
PPA; RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA'; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; TSCA; FIFRA; ODA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
EPM - 54
-------
Environment and Trade
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $1,787.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Environment and Trade (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$1,810.9
$1,810.9
11.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,723.1
$1,723.1
7.0
FY 2006
Request
$1,787.0
$1,787.0
8.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$63.9
$63.9
1.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 requires environmental reviews of trade
agreements, provisions in each agreement against lowering environmental standards or
weakening the enforcement of existing laws to attract investment or trade. It also calls for the
provision of U.S. assistance to promote sustainable development and increase the capacity of
U.S. trading partners to develop and implement environmental protection standards.
EPA contributes to the development, negotiation and implementation of environment-related
provisions in all new free trade agreements, the development of environmental reviews of such
agreements, and the negotiation and implementation of environmental capacity agreements
related to each new trade agreement. One of the Agency's key objectives in this work is to help
ensure that other trading partner countries enforce their domestic environmental laws, which
helps to level the playing field for U.S. businesses while promoting improved environmental
conditions.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
During FY 2006, the U.S. will conclude at least three new free trade agreements (most likely
with Panama, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates), and their associated environmental reviews
and environmental cooperation agreements. EPA will provide targeted capacity building support
for existing trade and environmental agreements with Jordan, Chile, Bahrain, Morocco,
Singapore, six countries in Central America, three countries in the Andean region, and with our
Middle East Trade and Investment Framework Agreement partners Algeria, Egypt, Kuwait,
Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. These countries will
receive training in the effective implementation and enforcement of environmental laws as well
EPM - 55
-------
as in the design and implementation of effective environmental impact assessment decision-
making processes. In addition, EPA will assist with the establishment and start-up of an
independent institution that will administer the public submission/ factual record mechanism
required by the environment chapter of the trade agreement between the U.S. and a number of
Central American nations.
In FY 2006, EPA will undertake selected trade- and environment-related projects with other
countries (e.g., China, India) that, by virtue of their booming growth in economic output and
trade flows, pose increasingly grave environmental and health threats of a transboundary and
even global nature. For example, China's growth rate has resulted in levels of air pollution,
desertification, soil erosion, and other problems that are felt far beyond its borders, including in
the U.S.
EPA also will continue to provide the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) with policy and
analytical inputs for ongoing work within the World Trade Organization and other fora that
could potentially influence or even constrain environmental practices in the U.S. and other
countries. In this context, EPA will continue to support USTR in negotiating the "Doha
Development Round" provisions to further liberalize trade in goods and services around the
world. EPA will make a major contribution to the U.S. government's environmental review of
the Doha Round and help to assess the U.S. approach to conducting environmental assessments.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Trade Act of 2002; Executive Order 13141 (Environmental Review of Trade Agreements);
World Trade Organization Agreements; North American Free Trade Agreement; North
American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation; Pollution Prevention Act
EPM - 56
-------
Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $3,979.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Justice (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$6,274.1
$1,092.5
$7,366.6
21.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$4,230.5
$800.0
$5,030.5
18.0
FY 2006
Request
$3,979.7
$845.2
$4,824.9
18.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($250.8)
$45.2
($205.6)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Environmental Justice program addresses environmental and human health concerns in all
communities, especially minority and/or low-income communities segments of the population
that have been, or could be disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and risks. The
program provides education, outreach, and data to communities and facilitates the integration of
environmental justice principles into Agency activities. The Agency also supports state and
tribal environmental justice programs and conducts outreach and technical assistance to states,
local governments, and stakeholders on environmental justice issues.
In order to be able to respond to an allegation of environmental injustice, it is essential to identify
"affected geographic areas." EPA has developed the Environmental Justice Geographical
Information System Assessment Tool for the Internet, to provide all stakeholders with
information about all geographic areas in the 48 contiguous states. The Environmental Justice
Tool reflects environmental data available from the agency's data warehouse, and demographic
data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Links are provided to the Department of Health and
Human Services' health-related database. This program was included in the Civil Enforcement
PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more information is
included in the Appendix Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will maintain the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving (CPS)
Cooperative Agreement Program. This program provides financial assistance to affected local
community-based organizations who wish to engage in constructive and collaborative problem-
EPM - 57
-------
solving. This is achieved by utilizing tools developed by EPA and others to find viable solutions
for their community's environmental and/or public health concerns. EPA will continue to
manage its Environmental Justice Small Grants program, which assists community-based
organizations in developing solutions to local environmental issues. The program has awarded
more than 1,000 grants of up to $20,000 each to community-based organizations and other
entities such as universities, Tribes, and schools.
The Agency also will continue to chair the Federal Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice (IWG), composed of 11 Federal agencies, to ensure that environmental
justice concerns are incorporated into all Federal programs. In 2006, the IWG will continue its
efforts to work collaboratively and constructively with all levels of government, and throughout
the public and private sectors. The IWG will also effectively address the environmental, health,
economic and social challenges facing our communities by continuing to monitor the
demonstration and revitalization projects underway which have used the collaborative problem-
solving model as a tool for addressing local environmental and/or public health issues.
In FY 2006 the Agency will continue to stress the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as
an alternative means of addressing local disputes by training local community organizations on
its use. Through the use of ADR, the Agency expects to reduce time and resources
accompanying litigation and anticipates that decisions reached will be more efficient and
favorable for all parties involved.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$250.8) This reduction reflects a redistribution of working capital fund investments.
Statutory Authority
Executive Order 12898; RCRA; CWA; DWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA;
ODA; NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA; Pollution Prosecution Act.
EPM - 58
-------
Exchange Network
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $22,739.4 (Dollars in Thousands)
Exchange Network (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$18,816.9
$2,631.4
$21,448.3
45.7
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$25,419. 7
$2,342.5
$27,762.2
48.1
FY 2006
Request
$22, 739. 4
$1,676.2
$24,415.6
47.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($2,680.3)
($666.3)
($3,346.6)
-0.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program supports the development and maintenance of the Environmental Exchange
Network (the Exchange Network), an integrated information system that facilitates information
sharing among EPA and its partners using standardized data formats and definitions providing a
centralized approach to receiving and distributing information, and improving access to timely
and reliable environmental information. This program provides resources for the development,
implementation, and operation and maintenance for the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX,
www.epa.gov/cdx), the point of entry on the Exchange Network for data submissions to the
Agency. The program also develops the regulatory framework to ensure that electronic
submissions are legally acceptable, establishes partnerships with states, Tribes, Territories and
tribal consortia; and, supports the e-Rulemaking e-Government initiative. E-Rulemaking is
designed to improve the public's ability to find, view, understand and comment on Federal
regulatory actions.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Major focuses for EPA's Information Technology community in FY 2006 center on the Agency's
Technology Initiative and fulfilling the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) commitments. The
Agency's Technology Initiative builds on efforts started in FY 2004 and FY 2005 to enhance
environmental analytical capacity for EPA, its partners and stakeholders. The Initiative is
designed with the knowledge that the majority of environmental data are collected by states and
EPM - 59
-------
Tribes, not directly by EPA and that ready access to real time quality environmental data and
analytical tools is essential to making sound environmental decisions.
The Exchange Network program provides a cornerstone of the Agency's FY 2006 Technology
Initiative, providing the secure, integrated exchange of environmental information. In FY 2006
EPA, states, and Tribes will continue to migrate from the old, inaccessible, "stove pipe" data
systems of the past in favor of new, secure, high quality, integrated air, water, and waste
information systems. These new systems are being designed to include "network portals"
through which data can be exchanged over the internet between EPA, states, Tribes, the regulated
community and the public. In FY 2006 the Agency will add ten more states and/or Tribes to the
Network and six more databases for the States to access through the Central Data Exchange
(CDX) for a total of 35 and 6 respectively. These efforts are closely coordinated with the
Agency's IT/Data Management Program where the Integrated Portal effort as well as system data
registries and standards are being developed and maintained.
EPA's Technology Initiative capitalizes on the Exchange Network and CDX efforts to continue
to improve access to and availability of relevant program databases for state, Tribe and Direct
Report participants. Additional CDX capabilities to accept Direct Report information and
program databases increase user cost and time efficiencies and focuses the long-term goal of
improving analytical capacity.
Effective implementation of the Exchange Network activities relies on close coordination with
the Information Security and Agency Infrastructure and data management activities.
Coordination helps ensure necessary system security measures are adhered to, system platforms
follow the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and data management follows documented data
standards.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$3,346.4, -0.5 FTE) The reduction in resources reflects a shift of activities from the
Exchange Network program to the IT/Data Management program. The System of Registry
(SOR) and Facility Registry System (FRS) are being moved to the IT/Data Management
program to be more closely aligned with the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and Integrated
Portal functions.
Statutory Authority
Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Clean Air Act and
amendments; Clean Water Act and amendments; Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act; Toxic Substance Control Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Safe Drinking Water Act and amendments;
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Superfund
Amendments and Re-authorization Act; Government Performance and Results Act; Government
Management Reform Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; Freedom of
Information Act; Computer Security Act; Privacy Act Electronic Freedom of Information Act.
EPM - 60
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $358,045.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$299,417.3
$9,331.4
$31,382.3
$862.1
$499.1
$62,299.2
$403,791.4
355.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$326, 793. 8
$8,715.8
$31,418.0
$883.9
$504.4
$70,981.9
$439,297.8
441.8
FY 2006
Request
$358,045.6
$8,715.8
$28,718.0
$883.9
$504.4
$72,725.9
$469,593.6
438.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$31,251. 8
$0.0
($2,700.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$1,744.0
$30,295.8
-3.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPM resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Project are used to fund
rent, utilities, and security, and also manage activities and support services in many centralized
administrative areas such as health and safety, environmental compliance, occupational health,
medical monitoring, fitness/wellness and safety, and environmental management functions at
EPA. Resources for this program also support a full range of ongoing facilities management
services including: facilities maintenance and operations; Headquarters security; space planning;
shipping and receiving; property management; printing and reproduction; mail management; and
transportation services.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with GSA and other private landlords
by conducting rent reviews and verifying monthly statements to ensure the charges are correct.
These resources also help to improve operating efficiency and encourage the use of new,
advanced technologies and energy. EPA will continue to direct resources towards acquiring
EPM-61
-------
alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger cars and light trucks to meet the goals
set by Executive Orders (EO) 131491, Greening the Government through Federal Fleet and
Transportation Efficiency and EO 131232, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy
Management. Additionally, the Agency will attain the Executive Order's goals through several
initiatives including comprehensive facility energy audits, sustainable building design in Agency
construction and alteration projects, energy savings performance contracts to achieve energy
efficiencies, the use of off-grid energy equipment, energy load reduction strategies, green power
purchases, and the use of Energy Star products and buildings.
EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order (EO)
13ISO3 "Federal Workforce Transportation."
In FY 2006, the Agency will also complete its Headquarters space consolidation project for the
offices in Crystal City, VA and the new facility in Region 8 (Denver, CO).
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$14,141.7) Provides additional resources for increases in rent costs;
(+$1,454.5) Provides additional resources for increases in utilities costs;
(+$1,520.7) Provides additional resources for increases in security costs.
(+$8,700.0) Provides additional resource for the Crystal City consolidation project at
Potomac Yards and the new Region 8 facility in Denver, CO;
(-$270.0) reduction to Energy Conservation resources - the Agency will focus its efforts
towards the most inefficient facilities; and
There are additional increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; annual Appropriations
Act; Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive Orders 10577 and
12598; Department of Justice United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of
Federal Facilities Report; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection)
1 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3149.htm
2 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3123.htm
3 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
EPM - 62
-------
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $23,509.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Federal Stationary Source Regulations (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$22,039.2
$22,039.2
103.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$24,302.0
$24,302.0
106.8
FY 2006
Request
$23,509.2
$23,509.2
105.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($792.8)
($792.8)
-1.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is responsible for setting, reviewing, and revising the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as for setting emission standards for sources
of air toxics. These national standards form the foundation for air quality management and air
toxics programs implemented at the national, State, local and tribal levels, and establish goals
that protect public health and the environment.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act
established two types of national air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect
public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the
elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against
decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. EPA establishes
NAAQS for the six most pervasive air pollutants: particulate matter (PM), ozone, sulfur dioxide
(862), nitrogen dioxide (NC^), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead.
This program includes activities related to the development of maximum achievable control
technology (MACT), combustion, and area source standards, the Stationary Source Residual
Risk Program, and associated national guidance and outreach information.
This program was included in the Air Toxics PART review in 2006, which received an overall
rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Appendix Section.
EPM - 63
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The following chart shows the current status of the NAAQS reviews:
Criteria Pollutant*
PM (Fine & 10)
Ozone
CO
Lead
Proposal
December 2005
March 2007
March 2008
September 2008
Final
September 2006
December 2007
December 2008
May 2009
* There are currently no schedules for reviewing the SO2 & NOX standards.
In FY 2006, EPA plans to promulgate five residual risk standards and propose another two
source categories.
Promulgations:
Dry Cleaning
Industrial Process Cooling Towers
Magnetic Tape
Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers
Gasoline Distribution
Proposals:
Halogenated Solvents
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)
EPA is required to regulate 70 source categories through area source standards. EPA has
completed 15 source categories, with an additional one to be proposed in 2006.
In FY 2006, EPA also plans to promulgate three New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and propose an additional NSPS.
Promulgations:
NSPS for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Industrial and Commercial Boilers
(Da, Db, DC)
NSPS for Combustion Turbines
NSPS for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines - Compression Ignition Engines
Proposals:
NSPS for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines - Spark Ignition Engines
EPA also plans to promulgate the revisions to the large municipal waste combustors (MWC)
under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act.
EPM - 64
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$1,000.0) As implementation efforts at the State level increase, EPA will reduce
Federal support for regulations. EPA will focus on toxics regulations that are under
court-ordered deadlines and on those sources with the greatest emissions and toxicity.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act
EPM - 65
-------
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $110,891.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Federal Support for Air Quality Management (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$86,964.0
$10,497.3
$97,461.3
704.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$93,283.6
$10,048.7
$103,332.3
732.4
FY 2006
Request
$110,891.2
$10,015.9
$120,907.1
715.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$17,607.6
($32.8)
$17,574.8
-16.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Federal support for air quality management program provides support to State, tribal, and
local air pollution control agencies for the development, implementation, and evaluation of
programs to implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA develops
federal measures and regional strategies that reduce emissions from stationary and mobile
sources. States and Tribes must develop the additional clean air measures necessary to meet the
NAAQS. EPA partners with States, Tribes, and local governments to create a comprehensive
compliance program to ensure that vehicles and engines pollute less. For each of the criteria
pollutants, EPA tracks two kinds of air pollution trends: air concentrations based on actual
measurements of pollutant concentrations in the ambient (outside) air at selected monitoring sites
throughout the country, and emissions based on engineering estimates of the total tons of
pollutants released into the air each year. EPA works with States and local governments to help
ensure the technical integrity of the source controls in the State implementation plans (SIPs).
EPA also assists areas in identifying the most cost-effective control options available. EPA
works with other Federal agencies to ensure a coordinated approach, and works with other
countries to address sources of air pollutants that lie outside our borders, but pose risks to public
health and air quality within the U.S. This program supports the development of risk assessment
methodologies for the criteria air pollutants.
In addition, EPA will address particulate matter (PM) and ozone pollution through the National
Clean Diesel Initiative, which is designed to complement strict new diesel engine emission
standards by reducing emissions across the existing fleet of approximately 11 million diesel
engines.
EPM - 66
-------
This program was included in the Air Toxics PART review in 2006, which received an overall
rating of Adequate. This program was also included in the Mobile Sources PART review in
2006, which received an overall rating of Moderately Effective; more information is included in
the Appendix Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Beginning in FY 2006, through the National Clean Diesel Initiative, EPA will focus on reducing
emissions from the legacy fleet of diesel engines through technology verification and assistance,
direct grants to support emission reduction strategies, and the creation of partnerships to advance
the application of emission reduction strategies in all sectors that use diesel engines. The five
sectors targeted for emissions reductions from the existing fleet include: freight, construction,
school buses, agriculture, and ports. EPA's goal is to reduce emissions in approximately 11
million engines across these sectors by 2014 and prevent 1,200 tons of particulate matter
emissions.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to assess particle pollution and the transport of particle pollution
and provide support to States and Tribes in developing control strategies for attaining the PM2 5
NAAQS. EPA will also support States and Tribes in developing plans for attaining the 8-hour
ozone standard. The Agency will review issues on reactivity of volatile organics and will revise
the volatile organic compound (VOC) control policy. Finally, EPA will continue to address
visibility through region-specific programs.
EPA will assist State, tribal, and local agencies in implementing and assessing the effectiveness
of national programs using a broad suite of analytical tools. These tools include source
characterization analyses, emission factors and inventories, statistical analyses, source
apportionment techniques, quality assurance protocols and audits, improved source testing and
monitoring techniques, cost/benefit tools to assess control strategies, and urban and regional-
scale numerical grid air quality models (for more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/).
Application of these tools is the basis for assessing regional control strategies and measuring
progress toward meeting regional haze goals, and developing SIPs and tribal implementation
plans (TIPs). EPA will continue to improve and automate associated data and technology
exchange/transfer. Through the EPA's Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI), technical air
pollution training will be provided to State, tribal and local air agency professionals. For more
information on APTI, visit: http://www.epa.gov/apti/.
The AIRNow Program will offer air quality (AQ) forecast maps, developed in conjunction with
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) and using data from the NOAA prototype
AQ Forecast Model. Program activities include streamlining existing processes; developing new
products including web services, tools, XML, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS); and
producing new maps, forecasts and information as additional monitors, forecast cities, and
agencies join the program. A tribal map showing real-time data for the nation's tribal agencies
will also be developed. For more information on AIRNow, visit: http://airnow.gov.
EPA will modify the Air Quality System (AQS) to reflect new ambient monitoring requirements
and to ensure that it complies with programmatic needs and EPA's enterprise architecture and
EPM - 67
-------
data standard requirements. For more information on AQS, visit: http://epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs.
The AQS Data Mart will continue to operate as a method for the scientific community and others
to obtain air quality data via the internet.
EPA will continue to focus on the timely issuance of Part 70 renewal permits. EPA also will
continue to develop periodic monitoring rules and address monitoring issues in underlying
Federal and State rules. EPA will begin implementing recommendations from the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee regarding Title V program performance and the OAR Action Plan which
resulted from EPA's Inspector General (OIG) evaluation of the Title V program.
As part of implementing the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards, in F Y 2006 EPA will continue to
provide State and local governments with substantial assistance in implementing the conformity
rule during this period. The first conformity determinations for the 8-hour ozone standard will
be due by June 15, 2005. The first conformity determinations for the PM2 5 standard will be due
in early 2006.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(- 16.5 FTE) for PM Implementation Guidance, ozone economic support, new source
review reform and source measurements and monitoring. The reduction is in accordance with the
Agency workforce adjustment described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to
the total number of Agency authorized positions, but not to overall Agency FTE utilization.
(+ $15,000.0) for the National Clean Diesel Initiative that is expected to leverage at least
an additional $30 million in funding assistance and reduce PM by 1,200 tons, achieving an
estimated $360 million in health benefits.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act
EPM - 68
-------
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $25,431.4 (Dollars in Thousands)
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$25,983.9
$2,168.1
$28,152.0
151.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$25,181.2
$2,582.9
$27,764.1
147.7
FY 2006
Request
$25,431.4
$2,264.6
$27,696.0
144.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$250.2
($318.3)
($68.1)
-2.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Federal support for the air toxics programs provides support to State, tribal and local air pollution
control agencies for: modeling, inventories, monitoring, assessments, strategy and program
development; community-based toxics programs; voluntary programs including those that reduce
inhalation risk and those that reduce deposition to water bodies and ecosystems; international
cooperation to reduce transboundary and intercontinental air toxic pollution; National Toxics
Inventory development and updates; Great Waters; the development of risk assessment
methodologies for the toxic air pollutants; and Persistent Biocummulative Toxics (PBT)
activities. This program also includes training for air pollution professionals, activities for
implementation of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards and the
National Air Toxics Assessment.
This program was included in the Air Toxics PART review in 2006, which received an overall
rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Appendix Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will complete an air toxic version of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
for the year 2002, which can be used by EPA, States, and others to analyze the public health
risks from air toxics, and develop strategies to manage that risk
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html). To aid the Agency in characterizing risk, EPA
will continue to work with State and local agencies, via the National Air Monitoring Steering
Committee, to implement the National Air Toxics Monitoring Network. The network has two
main components: the National Air Toxics Trends Sites (NATTS), and Community Assessment
EPM - 69
-------
Projects (CAPs). The NATTS are comprised of 22 permanent monitoring sites, designed to
capture the impacts of widespread pollutants. The CAPs are comprised of several short-term
monitoring sites, each designed to address specific local issues. Additional community scale
monitoring projects will be initiated in FY 2006. For information on air toxics monitoring, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtxfil. html.
EPA will provide information to States and communities through case examples, documents,
websites, and workshops on tools to help them in conducting assessments and identifying risk
reduction strategies for air toxics. This will allow State, local and tribal governments, industry,
public interest groups, and local citizens to work together to determine if actions are needed, and
if so, what should be done.
EPA will continue its efforts under the Air-Water Interface Work Plan to address and prevent
adverse effects of atmospheric deposition to coastal and inland waterways (i.e., Great Waters
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/gr8water/). EPA will begin implementation of the revised Air-
Water Interface Work Plan. These efforts involve the development and support of multi-media
approaches to reduce risk and achieve water quality standards. Up-to-date information regarding
air deposition, emission sources, monitoring technologies, and toxic effects will be provided to
State and local governments as well as a number of multi-state organizations.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act
EPM - 70
-------
Financial Assistance Grants /IAG Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $19,915.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$18,854.2
$24.5
$3,054.2
$21,932.9
188.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$20,328.9
$0.0
$2,933.2
$23,262.1
163.1
FY 2006
Request
$19,915.9
$0.0
$2,578.9
$22,494.8
163.4
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($413.0)
$0.0
($354.3)
($767.3)
0.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Resources in this program support activities are related to the management of Financial
Assistance Grants/IAG and suspension and debarment at Headquarters and Regions. This
program focuses on maintaining a high level of integrity in the management of EPA's assistance
agreements, and fostering relationships with state and local governments to support the
implementation of environmental programs. A key component of this program is ensuring that
EPA's management of grants, which comprise over half of the Agency's budget, meets the
highest fiduciary standards and produces measurable environmental results.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will achieve key objectives under its long-term Grants Management Plan.
These objectives include strengthening accountability and implementing new and revised
policies on at-risk grantees, environmental outcomes, and competition. * In furtherance of the
Plan, in 2006 EPA will enhance efforts to reform grants management by providing funding for
additional Regional on-site and pre-award reviews of grant recipients and applicants, indirect
cost rate reviews, tribal technical assistance and the development of an Agency-wide training
program for project officers.
1 US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-R-03-001, April 2003. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/fmakeport.pdf
EPM-71
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$500.0) This increase will provide funding to increase support for grants management
reforms. The reforms focus on pre- and post-award oversight, negotiation of non-profit
indirect costs rates, and training and technical assistance.
There are additional increases/decreases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
EPA's environmental statutes; annual Appropriations Act; Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act; Section 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts: 30, 31, 35, 40, 45, 46, and 47
EPM - 72
-------
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $20,746,4 (Dollars in Thousands)
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$23,185.6
$23,185.6
23.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$20,816.6
$20,816.6
22.4
FY 2006
Request
$20,746.4
$20,746.4
21.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($70.2)
($70.2)
-0.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's work in the Chesapeake Bay is based on a regional partnership formed to direct and
conduct restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. Partners include Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative
body; EPA, which represents the Federal government; and participating citizen advisory groups.
Delaware, New York and West Virginia, representing the Bay's headwaters, also participate in
Bay Program water quality restoration activities.
A comprehensive and far-reaching agreement will guide restoration and protection efforts
through 2010. That agreement, Chesapeake 2000, focuses on improving water quality as the
most critical element in the overall protection and restoration of the Bay and its tributaries.
To achieve improved water quality and restore submerged aquatic vegetation, Bay 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
strategies to achieve these reductions include: the implementation of advanced treatment of
wastewater to reduce nutrient discharges, the use of 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.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
One of the key measures of success in achieving improved Bay water quality will be the
restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). SAV is one of the most important biological
communities in the Bay, producing oxygen, nourishing a variety of animals, providing shelter
EPM - 73
-------
and nursery areas for fish and shellfish, reducing wave action and shoreline erosion, absorbing
nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, and trapping sediments.
While recent improvements in water quality have contributed to a modest increase in SAV
(from a low of 38,000 acres in 1984 to a cumulative total of 64,709 acres), more improvements
are needed. As a measure of improved water quality in the Bay, in FY 2006, there will be
100,000 acres of SAV.
EPA has identified a number of actions that will contribute to achievement of the program goals.
For example, EPA will work with the Bay Program partners to implement:
Strategies and water quality criteria to protect SAV;
Collaboration efforts with the U.S. Forest Service to ensure effective strategies to
conserve forest buffers;
Efforts to ensure that States are implementing existing tributary strategies and are on
schedule to implement new water quality standards and allocations through actions such
as installation of biological nutrient removal at wastewater treatment facilities and
effective stormwater and CAFO permits.
EPA continues to work with Bay participants and will continue communication and
outreach activities through resources such as the Chesapeake Bay homepage on the
interenet. (www.chespeakebay.net/wqcpartnership.htm)
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
Resources are largely unchanged.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act
EPM - 74
-------
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $21,519.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Geographic Program: Great Lakes (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$17,098.6
$17,098.6
56.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$21,194.8
$21,194.8
52.1
FY 2006
Request
$21,519.1
$21,519.1
52.1
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$324.3
$324.3
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
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. The
goal of the Agency's Great Lakes Program is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. Activities include:
Conducting and reporting annual air and water monitoring (nutrients, toxics and biota)
for 5 lakes in partnership with other federal, state and Canadian agencies to stakeholders
and public (as required by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) with
Canada and by the Clean Water Act);
Operating the binational Great Lakes Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network and
completing analyses and issuing data reports;
Expanding public access to Great Lakes environmental information and expand the Great
Lakes environmental monitoring database to enhance public;
Performing toxics reduction activities;
Implementing the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy for reduced
loadings of targeted pollutants in accordance with the GLWQA;
Performing demonstrations and investigations related to contaminated sediments in Great
Lakes rivers and harbors;
EPM - 75
-------
Protecting and restoring habitat to (1) decrease loss of high quality ecological
communities and rare species and (2) increase ecosystem conditions and functions
providing habitat with the necessary size, mixture, and quality to sustain native plants and
animals;
Working with partners to address invasive species, emphasizing prevention of additional
introductions; and
Supporting commitments under the GLWQA and the Clean Water Act, including
coordination with the 8 Great Lakes States, Canada, and the International Joint
Commission (IJC); developing basin-wide policy, technical assistance, and overall
coordination for management plans for the Lakes and their Areas of Concern (AOCs);
and drafting reports to Congress and the IJC on the Great Lakes ecosystem that reflect
major trends and program accomplishments.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In 2006, EPA will continue implementation of a local, state, tribal, and Federal Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration focusing on outcomes like cleaner water and sustainable fisheries, and
targeting measurable results. The Regional Collaboration was called for as part of the
President's May 2004 Executive Order directing EPA to establish the Great Lakes Task force to
coordinate the Federal effort to improve water quality in the Great Lakes. EPA will continue
working with partners to restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great
Lakes ecosystem, by implementing Clean Water Act core water protection programs and other
actions pursuant to Great Lakes Strategy 2002: A Plan for the New Millennium.1 Objectives in
the Strategy include the clean up and de-listing of at least 10 Areas of Concern by 2010, a 25
percent reduction in PCB concentrations in lake trout and walleye (see graph below), and the
restoration or enhancement of 100,000 acres of wetlands within the Great Lakes basin. The
Strategy also sets goals for the clean up of all Areas of Concern by 2025, and for 90 percent of
monitored Great Lakes beaches to be open 95 percent of the season.
The Great Lakes Strategy incorporates the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, a
groundbreaking international toxics reduction effort that targets a common set of persistent, toxic
substances for reduction and elimination (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo^s/documents.html).2 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, non-governmental
organizations, and other stakeholders. Fish and air toxics monitoring programs support the
Toxics Strategy and Lakewide Management Plans by measuring actual progress in the
environment.
1 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/ghipo/gls/glsvideotest.html.
2 U.S. EPA. Great Lakes National Program Office. April 1997. The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. Washington, DC.
Available online at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/p2/bns.html.
EPM - 76
-------
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Trends in Great Lakes fish tissue*
"Lake Trout (Walleye in Lake Erie)
c
o
0)
Q.
W
c
ra
Q.
W
00
o
Q.
1972 "P1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
Source: Great Lakes National Program Office annual monitoring program, Great Lakes Environmental Database
EPA will lead development of management recommendations to address the low dissolved-
oxygen levels in Lake Erie, which have resulted in an increasing "dead zone." Despite U.S. and
Canadian success in achieving total phosphorus load reductions, phosphorus in the central basin
of Lake Erie has increased since the early 1990's to levels substantially in excess of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement Objective of 10ug-P/l (see Figure 1). During 2005, EPA will
continue to investigate the depleted oxygen conditions in Lake Erie and will initiate actions to
update models of Lake Erie's response to nutrients. In 2006, efforts will focus on information
gaps which are identified through the modeling process regarding nutrient dynamics and on the
identification of management implications for Lake Erie restoration.
Rguel: Gartral Lake Erie Total Phosphorus
6) ^prirg 1983-2003
TOCbjective
o
0.
196196196196199199199199199 200 200 200
246802468024
This chart shows changes in Phosphorus levels and direction over time. The regression lines for periods, 1983-1988 and 1990-
2003 are highly significant. Note the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Objective of 10ug-P/l.
Source: Great Lakes National Program Office annual monitoring program, Great Lakes Environmental Database. See
http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/glindicators/index.html
EPM - 77
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act (Great
Lakes Legacy Act); Clean Water Act; Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration
Act of 1990; Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; North American Wetlands Conservation
Act; US-Canada Agreements; Water Resources Development Act (WRDA); 1909 The Boundary
Waters Treaty; 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA); 1987 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement; 1987 Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances; 1996 Habitat
Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy;
EPM - 78
-------
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $4,467.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,055.7
$4,055.7
11.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $4,477.8
$4,477.8
13.4
FY 2006
Request
$4,467.5
$4,467.5
13.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($10.3)
($10.3)
-0.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's efforts in the Gulf of Mexico directly support a collaborative, multi-organizational Gulf
states-led partnership comprised of regional, business and industry, agriculture, State and local
government, citizens, environmental and fishery interests, and numerous Federal departments
and agencies. The Gulf of Mexico Program ( www.epa.gov/gmpo) is designed to assist the Gulf
States and stakeholders in developing a regional, ecosystem-based framework for restoring and
protecting the Gulf of Mexico through coordinated Gulf-wide and priority area-specific efforts.
The qualitative, long-term goals of the Gulf of Mexico Program provide a blueprint for building
the framework while supporting projects and actions at the local level in order to achieve
environmental results. The Gulf States strategically identify the key environmental issues and
then work at the regional, state, and local level to define, recommend, and voluntarily implement
the supporting solutions. To achieve the Program's environmental objectives, the partnership
must target specific Federal, state, local, and private programs. The partnership must also
identify processes and financial authorities in order to leverage the resources needed to support
the state and community actions. EPA supports the partnership to enhance its capacity to protect
and restore the health and productivity of this complex ecosystem in ways consistent with the
economic well-being of the region.
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM
ACRES RESTORED/PROTECTED/
ENHANCED FY 200O-2004
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2007 2008 2009
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Gulf of Mexico issues can be broadly categorized as
affecting water quality, public health, and habitat
loss. Activities of the Gulf of Mexico Program and
its partners include:
EPM - 79
-------
Support efforts to achieve the 2006 target to restore 20% of impaired segments in the 13
priority coastal areas to achieve water and habitat quality levels that meet state water quality
standards;
Support projects with the goal of creating, restoring or protecting 2400 acres of important
coastal and marine habitats in the Gulf of Mexico;
Support State and coastal community efforts to manage harmful algal blooms (HABs) by
implementing an integrated binational early-warning system;
Assist the Gulf States in reducing contamination of seafood and local beaches through efforts
to establish effective bacterial source tracking methods and technologies;
Assist in consumer awareness/educational efforts to reduce the rate of shell-borne Vibrio
vulnificus illnesses caused by consumption of commercially-harvested raw or undercooked
oysters;
Support efforts to reduce nutrient loadings to watersheds;
Support national and Gulf-wide efforts to address multi-jurisdictional problems such as the
hypoxic zone and mercury in the Gulf of Mexico;
Foster regional stewardship through Gulf Guardian Awards
and outreach projects.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
Resources are largely unchanged.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act
EPM - 80
-------
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $954.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$2,181.5
$2,181.5
0.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $954. 8
$954.8
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$954. 8
$954.8
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Efforts to protect Lake Champlain support the successful interstate, interagency, and
international partnership undertaking the implementation of "Opportunities for Action." This
plan is designed to address various threats to the Lake's water quality, including phosphorus
loadings, invasive species and toxic substances. Further information about this program can be
found at: http://www.lcbp.org and http://www.epa.gov/NE/eco/lakechamplain/index.html
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In the Lake Champlain Basin Program, EPA will work with state and local governments to
restore and protect Lake Champlain and its surrounding watershed for future generations.
Activities include:
Addressing high levels of phosphorus, which encourage algae blooms in parts of the lake.
Reducing levels of persistent toxic contaminants in the lake's sediments and fish;
Addressing invasive, non-native aquatic plants and animals such as zebra mussels, and
water chestnuts, which displace native species and reduce recreational values;
Continued work on cyanobacteria, particularly microcystin;
Continued limnological monitoring;
Continued education/outreach and training;
Continued restoration through community involvement;
Aquatic nuisance species control;
Possible hydrodynamic investigation.
EPM-81
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change from FY 2005
Statutory Authority
1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes
and Lake Champlain Act; Clean Water Act; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; U.S.-
Canada Agreements; and Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
EPM - 82
-------
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $477.4 (Dollars in Thousands)
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$2,640.1
$2,640.1
0.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $477.4
$477.4
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$477.4
$477.4
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA supports protection and restoration activities in the Long Island Sound, implementing the
Sound's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), approved in September
1994 under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act as amended.
The CCMP is a product of the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) a bi-state cooperative effort to
restore and protect the Sound authorized under Section 119 of the Clean Water Act. The LISS
includes EPA, Connecticut, New York, scientific researchers, user groups, industry, and other
concerned organizations and individuals. The LISS organized a number of committees to help
ensure broad input into development of, and continuing implementation of the CCMP. These
committees represent policy, management, citizen, and scientific and technical interests from
around the Long Island Sound region. Restoration and protection actions focus on six areas
identified in the CCMP that require special attention: hypoxia, toxic contamination, pathogens,
floatable debris, the impact of habitat degradation and loss on the health of living resources, land
use and development, and public education, information, and participation.
Further information about this program can be found at http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue to ensure implementation of the LISS CCMP in 2006 through coordinating
the actions of the LISS Management Conference authorized under the Clean Water Act Section
EPM - 83
-------
320 and 119. Efforts will focus in the following four primary areas cleanup and restoration
actions; water quality monitoring; scientific research; and public information and education.
Nitrogen reduction from point and nonpoint sources of pollution to reduce large areas of the
Sound that are seasonally impaired as habitat for fish and shellfish because of low dissolved
oxygen levels, a condition called hypoxia.
Habitat restoration and protection to improve the productivity of tidal wetlands, intertidal
zones, and other key habitats that have been adversely affected by unplanned development,
overuse, or pollution.
Watershed protection and nonpoint source pollution controls to reduce the effects of runoff
pollution on rivers and streams discharging to the Sound, and to restore and protect
streamside buffer zones.
Stewardship of ecologically and biologically significant areas, and identification and
management of recreationally important areas and compatible public access and use.
Monitoring of water quality, including environmental indicators such as dissolved oxygen
levels, temperature, salinity, and water clarity, and biological indicators such as chlorophyll
a, to assess environmental conditions that may contribute to impaired water quality.
Scientific research into the causes and effects of pollution on the Sound's living marine
resources, ecosystems, water quality and human uses.
Public education and information to report on implementation progress and the status of
environmental and other indicators of ecosystem health.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; Clean Water Act; Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990; Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; North
American Wetlands Conservation Act; Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
EPM - 84
-------
Geographic Program: Other
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities; Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $13,186.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Geographic Program: Other (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$2,824.6
$2,824.6
7.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$6,789.7
$6,789.7
14.7
FY 2006
Request
$13,186.1
$13,186.1
12.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$6,396.4
$6,396.4
-2.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Agency targets efforts to protect and restore various communities and ecosystems impacted
by environmental problems. Under this program, the Agency works with communities to
develop and implement community-based approaches to mitigate diffuse sources of pollution
and cumulative risk. The Agency also fosters community efforts to build consensus and
mobilize local resources to target highest risks.
The South Florida Program takes the lead on special initiatives and planning activities in the
south Florida region, which includes the Everglades and Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem.
Implementing, coordinating, and facilitating activities include the Section 404 Wetlands
Protection Program of the Clean Water Act, Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), Brownsfield Program, and other Waste Division
programs.
The Northwest (NW) Forest program implements is a collaborative planning and management
framework that supports efforts needed to generate interagency management agreement and joint
funding for watershed assessment, planning, protection, and restoration efforts. The NW aquatic
and watershed monitoring effort contributes to aquatic and riparian monitoring under the NW
Forest Plan and the Pacific NW Aquatic Monitoring Partnership. These two efforts contribute to
the achievement of national examples of watershed scale aquatic monitoring and collaborative
monitoring across Federal, tribal, state, and private lands.
EPM - 85
-------
The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program strives to restore the ecological health of the
Basin by developing and funding restoration projects and related scientific and public education
projects.
The Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) is a community-based, multimedia
program designed to help local communities address the cumulative risk of toxics exposure.
Through the CARE program, EPA provides technical support for communities, helps them use
collaborative processes to select and implement local actions, and awards Federal funding for
projects to reduce exposure to toxic pollutants. Much of the risk reduction comes through the
application of over 25 EPA voluntary programs from across the Agency.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
South Florida
Assist with coordinating and facilitating the ongoing implementation of the Water Quality
Protection Program for the FKNMS, including long-term status and trends monitoring
projects (water quality, coral reef, and seagrass) and the associated data management
program.
Conduct studies to determine cause and effect relationships among pollutants and biological
resources, implementation of wastewater and storm water master plans, and public education
and outreach activities.
Provide monetary and/or technical/managerial support for priority environmental projects
and programs in south Florida, including the following:
Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative,
Water Quality Protection Strategy for the South Florida Ecosystem;
Integrated Mercury Study;
REMAP Monitoring Program (assess ecosystem characteristics and conditions
throughout the Everglades ecosystem);
Wetlands Conservation, Permitting, and Mitigation Strategy; and
FY 2006 resources total $2.5 million.
Northwest Forest - Federal, State, and tribal partners implement shared responsibilities for the
Aquatic Monitoring Strategy, including broad scale monitoring indicators, protocols, and design
framework. Other activities include:
Implement intensive effectiveness monitoring network in 3 to 5 basins in OR/WA;
Develop shared data standards and data sharing network/tools (State, tribal, Federal); and
Complete watershed condition/trend monitoring in 25 to 30 watersheds in CA/OR/WA.
FY 2006 resources total $1.2 million.
Lake Pontchartrain:
Implement restoration projects and studies recommended in the Comprehensive Management
Plan.
Conduct outreach and public education projects.
FY 2006 resources total $1.0 million.
EPM - 86
-------
CARE - In FY 2006, EPA is providing initial resources to work with communities to implement
this multi-media, collaborative program. Several EPA offices: Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Air, Water, Toxics, Pesticides will provide technical support and award funding for
projects to reduce exposure to toxic pollutants. EPA expects to establish 80 CARE programs
across the nation in FY 2006, building on experience gained from 10 projects started in 2005.
CARE uses two sets of cooperative agreements. In FY 2006, EPA plans to initiate 40 of the
smaller Level I agreements, in which the community, working with EPA, creates a collaborative
problem-solving group made up of the various stakeholders in the community. That group
assesses the community's toxic exposure problems and begins to identify potential solutions.
EPA plans to initiate 40 larger Level II agreements, in which the community, working with EPA,
selects and funds projects that reduce risk and improve the environment in the community.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$7,000.0) With additional funding, EPA will establish CARE collaborative
community-based programs to reduce toxics in 80 communities in FY 2006 and add 80
additional communities every two years. EPA will work with organizations such as
ECOS, NACO and the National Conference of Majors to obtain state and local
government support for CARE projects.
There are changes for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
South Florida: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990; National
Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992; Clean Water Act, RCRA, and CERCLA.
Northwest Forest: Clean Water Act; Economy Act of 1932; and Intergovernmental Cooperation
Act.
Lake Pontchartrain: Clean Water Act.
CARE: As a multi-media program CARE uses grant authority from all the major statutes (CAA,
CWA, SWDA, TSCA, etc.)
EPM - 87
-------
Great Lakes Legacy Act
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $50,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Great Lakes Legacy Act (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,598.0
$4,598.0
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$45,000.0
$45,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$5,000.0
$5,000.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Great Lakes Legacy Act funding supports a program to clean up contaminated sediments in the
31 U.S. or binational Great Lakes Areas of Concern; perform research and development
regarding innovative ways to clean up these sediments; and provide public information on these
cleanups. (For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediment/legacy/index.html).
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Great Lakes Legacy Act request targets additional resources to clean up contaminated
sediments. Sediment contamination is a significant source of Great Lakes toxic pollutants and
can impact human health via the bio-accumulation of toxic substances through the food chain.
Reporting in 2006 is expected to show that EPA and its partners will have remediated a
cumulative total of 4 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments since tracking began in
1997. In 2006, the third year of the program, EPA will support four to six projects for
remediation which would result in cleanup of over a quarter million cubic yards of contaminated
sediments.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$5,000.0) provided to operate the program's sediment remediation activities at the
authorized level.
EPM - 88
-------
Statutory Authority
2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act (Great Lakes Legacy Act); Clean Water Act; Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990; Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of
2000; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA); 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1978
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA); 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
1987 Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances; 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 Canada-
U.S. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy; and US-Canada Agreements
EPM - 89
-------
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $6,680.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
Homeland Security: Communication and Information (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,226.2
$0.0
$4,226.2
5.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $4,320.3
$0.0
$4,320.3
3.0
FY 2006
Request
$6,680.3
$300.0
$6,980.3
13.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$2,360.0
$300.0
$2,660.0
10.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program coordinates development and implementation of homeland security policy and
related information security across the Agency. EPA coordinates its homeland security policy
with other Federal partners as well as within the Agency through implementation of its
Homeland Security Strategy. EPA also works to ensure rapid access to relevant communication
tools, accelerated transfers of data, the development of models and maps to support response
activities, and effective Agency wide communication in emergency situations.
The Strategy and development of an Agency wide collaborative network on Homeland Security
support the Agency's ability to effectively implement its broad range of homeland security
responsibilities; ensures consistent development and implementation of homeland security
policies and procedures, and build an external network of partners so that EPA's homeland
security efforts are integrated into the Federal effort, complementing the work of other Federal
partners. It also serves to capitalize on the concept of "dual-benefits" so that EPA's homeland
security efforts enhance and are integrated into EPA core environmental programs that serve to
protect human health and the environment.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will develop a new EPA Homeland Security Strategy to present the Agency's
priorities through 2009, integrating and identifying the specific assignments for EPA from
EPM - 90
-------
Homeland Security Presidential Directives, White House Homeland Security Council and
directives from the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies related to
Homeland Security.
Key FY 2006 Program Activities
Deliver increased network capacity
Provide high speed communication and data access tools
Ensure secure and reliable systems
Implement secure system backup operations
Establish and deploy Agency mobile LANs
EPA's FY 2006 homeland security
resources for information systems will
continue support for the Agency's rapid
response infrastructure by delivering
increased network capacity. Expanding the
Agency's bandwidth and functions (e.g.,
Voice over IP) will allow secure, reliable,
and high-speed data access and
communication to first responders, on-scene coordinators, emergency response teams, and
investigators wherever they are located.
In FY 2006, EPA will ensure emergency access to the Agency's information resources by
establishing an integrated Internet/WAN/LAN solution - Mobile Laboratory LAN-in-a-Box
that can be immediately deployed anywhere to equip mobile laboratories with high speed, secure
access to the Internet and the EPA WAN, and the ability to share information on scene. On-scene
equipment would include a satellite dish, laptop computers, router, UPS, secure wireless access
points, satellite phones, and printer/fax/scanner equipment. In addition, Homeland Security
information technology efforts are closely coordinated with the Agency-wide Information
Security and Infrastructure activities coordinated and managed in the Information Security and
IT/Data Management programs.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$1,100.0, +10 FTE) Increase reflects addition of 10 FTE for homeland security related
coordination.
(+$1,200.0) Increase reflects resource levels required to support the deployment and
maintenance of five mobile local area networks (LANs) to facilitate remote, real-time, secure
information and data access.
Statutory Authority
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); CERCLA; SOW A,
Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act, Homeland Security Act of 2002; Defense Against Weapons of
Mass Destruction Act (Title XIV of Public Law 104-201).
EPM-91
-------
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $6,946.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,960.5
$17,822.3
$1,447.7
$25,230.5
44.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$6,840.8
$3,515.6
$852.6
$11,209.0
47.0
FY 2006
Request
$6,946.9
$47,568.7
$1,052.6
$55,568.2
59.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$106.1
$44,053.1
$200.0
$44,359.2
12.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program involves several EPA activities that help protect the nation's critical public
infrastructure from terrorist threats. EPA activities support effective information sharing and
dissemination to help to protect critical water infrastructure. Support to state and local
governments also helps them develop methods to detect anomalies in ambient air. EPA also
provides subject matter expertise in environmental criminal investigative and training support for
terrorism-related investigations.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the EPA will continue to build its capacity to identify and respond to threats to
critical national infrastructure.
EPA will expand its National Counter Terrorism Evidence Response Team (NCERT)-Weapons
of Mass Destruction/ Environmental Crime Scene/Forensic Evidence Collection training to all
EPA criminal investigators, and will provide associated specialized response and evidence
collection equipment. This will enable all EPA criminal investigators to collect evidence and
EPM - 92
-------
process a crime scene safely and effectively in a contaminated environment (hot zone). EPA
criminal investigators support criminal cases and the FBI in the event of a terrorist attack
anywhere in the United States.
In FY 2006, EPA's wastewater and drinking water security efforts will continue to support the
implementation of information sharing tools and mechanisms to provide timely information on
contaminant properties, water treatment effectiveness, detection technologies, analytical
protocols and laboratory capabilities for use in responding to a water contamination event. EPA
will continue to support effective communication conduits to disseminate threat and incident
information and to serve as a clearing-house for sensitive information. EPA promotes
information sharing between the water sector and such groups as environmental professionals
and scientists, law enforcement and public health agencies, the intelligence community, and
technical assistance providers. Through such exchange, water systems can obtain up-to-date
information on current technologies in water security, accurately assess their vulnerabilities to
terror acts and work cooperatively with public health officials, first responders and law
enforcement officials to respond effectively in the event of an emergency.
EPA will continue to provide support for infrastructure protection by assisting state and local
governments to develop methods for detection of anomalies in ambient air. EPA will work with
State and local agencies to measure and report air pollutants in real time during emergency
response episodes, including those associated with homeland security.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$100.0) For training and equipping criminal investigators to safely collect and process
evidence in a contaminated environment (hot zone).
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Safe Drinking Water Act; Clean Water Act; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency
and Response Act of 2002; Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act; Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f); RCRA; TSCA; Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction
Act; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation; 1983 La
Paz Agreement on US/Mexico Border Region; Pollution Prosecution Act.
EPM - 93
-------
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $3,348.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$766.7
$14,763.9
$63,979.9
$79,510.5
141.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $1,839.8
$25,396.0
$29,163.2
$56,399.0
97.6
FY 2006
Request
$3,348.2
$44,116.2
$48,964.9
$96,429.3
165.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,508.4
$18,720.2
$19,801.7
$40,030.3
68.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Through this program EPA continues to increase the state of preparedness for homeland security
incidents. One area of emphasis is to prepare for incidents that release or introduce dangerous
chemicals or certain foreign plant or animal pathogens or other pests into the United States.
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) are also needed by first responders and Chemical
Risk Managers to help guide response and preparedness efforts. In addition to dictating
evacuation or shelter-in-place decisions, they are used to help guide the development of chemical
protective equipment and chemical detection limits.
Introduction of dangerous pathogens or pests could cause significant crop or livestock diseases,
which could result in catastrophic damage to the multi-billion dollar U.S. food and agriculture
sectors. These sectors' economies, including international trade, public health, and the public's
confidence in the food supply could be seriously affected. EPA will focus on addressing the
need for readily available chemical pesticides to mitigate virulent crop or animal pests of high
consequence if introduced into the U.S.
EPM - 94
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA is requesting additional resources to augment work in this area. EPA, in
collaboration with other Federal and state agencies and industry, will make regulatory decisions
to approve selected pesticides. These preparatory efforts are necessary to ensure appropriate
pesticides will be available in advance that are safe and effective to protect crops and
decontaminate livestock and food facilities from pests of concern identified by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). In FY 2006, the Agency will make regulatory decisions on
three pesticides for use against potentially dangerous crop and/or livestock pests. EPA will
review extensive scientific data on each of these pesticides to determine the potential risks to
human health and the environment if used to mitigate these crop or animal pests. EPA will also
assess and establish by regulation maximum pesticide residue limits in treated crops for
consumption by the general public and livestock.
EPA will accelerate development of Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) that are needed
by First Responders and Chemical Risk Managers for use in chemical emergency and counter-
terrorism planning, prevention and response programs.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Thousands of Dollars)
(+$1,000.0) This increase will be used to review scientific data and to complete
registration and tolerance decisions on three pesticides to protect the food and agriculture
sectors from virulent, foreign crop and livestock disease pathogens.
(+$500.0) This increase will be used to accelerate development of Proposed AEGL
values in 2006, which are needed by on-scene responders.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Oil Pollution Act; Pollution Prevention Act;
Resource Conversation and Recovery Act; Emergency Planning and Right to Know Act; Safe
Drinking Water Act; Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Ocean
Dumping Act; Public Health Service Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; Executive Order
10831 (1970); Public Law 86-373; Pesticides Registration Improvement Act (PRIA).
EPM - 95
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $6,403.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,431.3
$1,663.1
$12,488.7
$677.8
$20,260.9
3.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $6,344.3
$2,100.0
$11,500.0
$600.0
$20,544.3
3.0
FY 2006
Request
$6,403.0
$2,100.0
$11,500.0
$600.0
$20,603.0
3.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$58.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$58.7
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and that the Agency is prepared to conduct its essential functions during an emergency or threat
situation. This involves safeguarding EPA's staff, ensuring the continuity of operations and
protecting the capability of EPA's vital infrastructure assets.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will improve its personnel security program by expanding background checks and
investigations to include contractors, grantees, and other personnel with access to EPA space.
EPA will enhance security operations to include increased guard services and improvements to
the Agency's Occupant Emergency Planning.
The Agency will provide funding for two E-Gov initiatives. The first is the procurement of
universal, technology-enhanced smart cards and equipment for identifying and credentialing
appropriate personnel that will grant access to EPA facilities and sensitive information. The
second initiative is the development and implementation of an interface with the Office of
Personnel Management's E-Clearance initiative to allow timely and efficient background checks
and investigations.
EPM - 96
-------
EPA will develop and disseminate updated policies and procedures detailing roles and
responsibilities for safeguarding the Agency's National Security Information and Segmented
Compartment Information NSI/SCI documents and develop and implement a computer based
training course to increase employee and clearance-holder awareness of NSI/SCI policies and
procedures.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE
Statutory Authority
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; and Secure
Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629).
EPM - 97
-------
Human Resources Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (GEL), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $38,871.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Human Resources Management (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$41,725.0
$4.0
$5,034.7
$46,763.7
363.1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$44,139.5
$3.0
$4,410.6
$48,553.1
323.1
FY 2006
Request
$38,871.6
$3.0
$4,789.7
$43,664.3
297.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($5,267.9)
$0.0
$379.1
($4,888.8)
-25.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Resources in this program support activities related to the provision of human resources
management services to the entire Agency. EPA supports organizational development and
management activities by supporting Agency-wide and interagency councils and committees and
serving as EPA's liaison on interagency management improvement initiatives. The Agency
continually evaluates human resource and workforce functions, employee development,
leadership development, workforce planning, and succession management
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA is committed to fully implementing "Investing in Our People II, EPA's Strategy for Human
Capital" *, which was issued in December 2003. The Agency will continue to take advantage of
the Workforce Planning System throughout the entire organization to identify competency gaps.
A focused effort will target the delivery of training in the Workforce Development Strategy2 to
help organizations eliminate their competency gaps. In accordance with OMB Circular A-76
"Implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 19983 (Public Law 105-270)
1 US EPA Investing in OUR People II, EPA's Strategy for Human Capital. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oarm/strategy.pdf
2 Workforce Assessment Project: Executive Summary and Tasks 1-4 Final Reports. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/epahrist/workforce/wap.pdf
3 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/fair2002notice4.html
EPM - 98
-------
("FAIR Act"), the Agency will continue to utilize competitive sourcing as an approach to
determine who can provide the necessary service at the best value to the government.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
-25.4 FTE: The reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment
described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of
Agency authorized positions, but not to overall Agency FTE utilization.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE
Statutory Authority
Title V United States Code
EPM - 99
-------
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $5,918.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
Indoor Air: Radon Program (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,125.3
$382.3
$5,507.6
39.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$5,667.1
$398.5
$6,065.6
43.1
FY 2006
Request
$5,918.3
$441.6
$6,359.9
43.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$251.2
$43.1
$294.3
0.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This non-regulatory indoor radon program promotes voluntary public action to reduce health risk
from indoor radon (second only to smoking as a cause of lung cancer). EPA and the Surgeon
General recommend that people do a simple home test and, if levels above EPA's guidelines are
confirmed, reduce those levels by home mitigation using inexpensive and simple techniques.
EPA also recommends that new homes be built radon-resistant using techniques described in
national building codes. This program includes national, regional, state, and tribal programs and
activities that promote radon risk reduction activities across the spectrum of building type.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to promote public action to test homes for indoor radon, reduce
elevated levels, and to include radon-resistant features in new homes in high radon areas. In
light of new and substantially higher risk estimates from the National Academy of Sciences1,
EPA will renew its work with national partners to inform and motivate public action, linking the
advantage of radon mitigation to other indoor-air benefits, such as mold reduction and asthma
prevention. The radon program will accomplish its goals through national outreach and
education campaigns in collaboration with the states, private non-profit organizations, Tribes,
housing organizations, and other Federal agencies.
The program will continue to promote radon testing and mitigation in Federal housing and
through private real estate transactions, promote radon-resistant new construction, and track
'For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/radon/risk_assessment.html
EPM- 100
-------
results in these program areas. In addition, EPA will continue to maintain a web site with
comprehensive information for the public on radon testing and mitigation.2
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget
There are increases and adjustments for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA); Indoor Radon Abatement Act (IRAA), Section 306;
Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act; Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and
Re-authorization Act (SARA) of 1986; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), section 6, Titles
II, and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2641-2671), and Section 10
2 www. epa. gov/iaq/radoru updated 12/10/2004
EPM- 101
-------
Information Security
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (GEL), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $3,888.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
Information Security (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$7,067.5
$151.4
$7,218.9
15.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$4,188.3
$508.9
$4,697.2
15.0
FY 2006
Request
$3,888.3
$408.8
$4,297.1
14.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($300.0)
($100.1)
($400.1)
-0.7
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Information Security program protects the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of the
EPA's information assets. The program: establishes a risk-based cyber security program using a
defense-in-depth approach that includes partnering with other Federal agencies and the states;
implements aggressive efforts to respond to evolving threats and computer security alerts and
incidents, and integrates information security into its day-to-day business; manages the Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) data collection and reporting requirements; and,
supports the development, implementation and operations and maintenance of the ASSERT
security documentation system.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will continue its technical and
system analyses, evaluations and assessments to
maintain the security of EPA's information. The
constant system and network monitoring is
essential to detect and identify any potential
weaknesses or vulnerabilities that might
compromise EPA's information assets. These
proactive efforts allow EPA to develop cost
effective solutions that extend EPA's long-term
^ Implement technical controls to protect the network,
infrastructure, and systems;
*/ Conduct independent effectiveness testing of the security
program;
^ Conduct systems and infrastructure risk assessments to
maintain awareness of evolving threats and vulnerabilities;
*/ Establish an incident response capability;
*/ Maintain up-to-date security and contingency plans for
all Agency major IT applications and general support
systems
*/ Perform annual security awareness training for all
employees; and
^ Conduct technical training for employees with
significant security responsibility.
EPM- 102
-------
goal of building analytical capacity. EPA will also coordinate information security activities
with the Homeland Security IT, Exchange Network and IT/Data Management program
requirements and where possible identify and implement more efficient solutions.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$308.0,-0.5 FTE) The reduction in resources reflects efficiencies gained in
implementing a standard platform for the Agency's secure information technology
infrastructure.
Statutory Authority
Federal Information Security Management Act; Government Performance and Results Act;
Government Management Reform Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; Freedom
of Information Act; Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act.
EPM- 103
-------
International Capacity Building
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health; Protect Water Quality
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $6,449.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
International Capacity Building (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$11,370.6
$11,370.6
52.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$7,174.2
$7,174.2
42.4
FY 2006
Request
$6,449.5
$6,449.5
42.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($724.7)
($724.7)
-0.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program/Project Description
EPA has improved the quality of life for all Americans by safeguarding their air, water, and land
and helping protect their health. Addressing issues at home is only part of the environmental
equation. As globalization continues to affect the world and as we better understand the
interdependences of ecosystems and the transport of pollutants, it becomes clearer that the
actions of others can affect our environment. For example, the water quality of a lake here in the
U.S. is affected not only by pesticides from nearby farms, lawns, or gardens but also by
pollutants emitted thousands of miles away. The depletion of a natural resource, such as forest
cover, in one nation can have environmental and economic consequences in many other
countries. International engagement is a key component to protecting human health and the
environment in the U.S. The U.S. works with other U.S agencies that have primary responsibility
for international assistance efforts. The U.S. EPA also works directly with other nation's
governments to achieve international environmental goals. In assisting developing countries to
manage their own natural resources and protect the health of their citizens, we help ensure our
own well-being.
EPM- 104
-------
Through this program, EPA employs a range of strategies for achieving its international goals of
clean air, clean water, marine protection, and the sound management of toxic chemicals. These
strategies include participation in bilateral, multi-lateral, and regional programs, as well as
cooperation with multilateral organizations and contribution to a set of thematic initiatives that
focus on critical global concerns, such as mercury, lead phase-out, PBTs, children's health, air
pollution, and drinking water and sanitation. EPA integrates the principles of environmental
justice into its policies and projects that support these goals.
This program out promotes international and border environmental security through enforcement
and compliance activities. The program also fosters cooperation with foreign countries of
strategic interest to the United States, as prescribed in treaties and trade agreements, through
capacity building activities, including providing enforcement and compliance training,
promoting environmental "good governance," promoting effective enforcement of sound
environmental laws and regulations, and promoting positive approaches to trade and
environment.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Clean Air: Despite recent improvements, poor air quality is still a major concern throughout the
world. On a global basis, the WHO estimates that about 800,000 deaths a year are attributable to
air pollution, mostly due to particulate matter.1 EPA's goals in its international air quality
programs are to work with developing countries to reduce harmful air emissions, to reduce the
impact of transboundary air pollution on the U.S., and to improve health in developing countries
and in the United States. In FY 2006, EPA's programs to reduce global air pollution will
continue to focus on 3 areas:
1) Continue partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles, both through support of the
Partnership Clearinghouse at the United Nations and through support of on-the-ground
activities in key countries. Funding for the Partnership will go towards Lead phase-out
along with introduction of catalytic converters in those countries that have phased out
lead and the introduction of low-sulfur fuel and retrofits of in-use vehicles in key
countries, such as China, India, and Brazil. In FY 2006, our goal is to implement diesel
retrofit programs in 3 countries and get standards place in one additional country. In
China, EPA plans to initiate a demonstration diesel retrofit program in Beijing, a city of
over 13 million people;
2) Through the reduction in emissions of particulates and NOX: EPA will continue to
provide technical assistance to Africa, China, India, Mexico, Russia, and Central America
to leverage the ability of such countries to implement measures to better manage air
quality and reduce global air pollutants of concern. EPA's programs in are expected to
reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants by about 200,000 tons in 2005. In India,
OIA is working with the Indian government to develop a national standard for nitrogen
oxides from power plants with the goal of having standards in place in 2006;
! World Health Organization, The World Health Report 2002 - Reducing Risk, Promoting Healthy Life, 2002.
EPM- 105
-------
3) Improve urban air quality management in key countries/regions through the transfer
of appropriate tools and techniques to key developing countries and economies-in-
transition, including India, Mexico, China, Russia and regionally, Central America and
Africa. In India, EPA plans to implement the successful urban air quality management
program in 3 additional cities. EPA will work with China to reduce dioxin and furans
from cement kilns. Chinese cement kilns produce 40 percent of the world's cement and
contribute up to 80 percent of the dioxin and furan emissions from global cement
production2 and to assess and reduce emissions of mercury from coal combustion sources
Clean Water: In FY 2006, EPA will continue its Urban Drinking Water Quality Management
Program that builds the capacity among water professionals and community groups in key
nations to address water quality issues that affect human health. EPA is moving toward a more
sustainable, comprehensive approach of managing drinking water for urban areas. For example,
in collaboration with the government of India, EPA is launching a partnership with the World
Health Organization (WHO) and other donor countries that will focus on implementation of
WHO's Water Safety Plan (WSP) work initiated in 2004 with urban poor in five sub-Saharan
countries to improve the capacity of communities to provide safe drinking water to their
inhabitants. A source water protection project in China, which is aimed at demonstrating how to
protect the Yuqiao Reservoir from contamination from animal waste generated by surrounding
villages, the source of drinking water for more than four million Tianjin residents, will be
completed in 2006. Water financing projects with Russia in 2006 will reduce polluted
wastewater discharges by 75 million cubic meters and reduce water use by 75 million liters.
Marine Protection: OIA's goal is to prevent water pollution 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 by 2008. In FY 2006,
EPA will work with key stakeholders to advance legislation to ratify and implement Annex VI
to MARPOL, the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on
Ships, and the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention mechanisms.
Sound Management of Toxic Chemicals: Our international chemical program gives priority to
selected chemicals and certain heavy metals which can persist, bioaccumulate and are toxic
(PBTs). Long-range and transboundary atmospheric transport and deposition of 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. To reduce the recognized risks
these pollutants pose to the American public, especially children, we will need to address their
international sources.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue work to reduce potential risk from PBTs through reduction of
sources of PBTs in countries of origin, focusing on Mercury and Lead. EPA estimates that a
significant amount of mercury deposition to the continental United States is from global sources
of mercury depositions to the United States territories. 3 In order to meet our domestic public
health goals, we must take aggressive action to address the largest foreign emitters of mercury
2 Lynn Price and Jonathan Sinton, 2004, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, Energy Analysis Division (unpublished).
3 U.S. EPA 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress (Vol I-VIE). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of
Research and Development. EPA-452/R-97-003 through EPA=452/R-97-010. Available: http://www.epa.gov/mercurv.html.
EPM- 106
-------
emissions (China, Russia, and India). Lead: EPA will continue phase-out efforts in Africa,
which is severely affected by lead poisoning. At the end of calendar year 2004, 9 countries in
Africa had phased-out lead in gasoline, affecting about 250 million people. World Health data
indicates that most African countries exceed (10 ug/dl - 15 ug/dl) the World Health Organization
lead blood level of 5ug/dl.4
In FY 2006, EPA will continue cooperating with Federal agencies, states, Tribes and other
nations to ensure compliance with international agreements affecting the environment to promote
global environmental protection. These activities also serve to level the economic playing field
in an increasingly global trading system.
FY 2006 Change from 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(- $609.2) Resources reallocated to support Border 2012 implementation and POPs
implementation.
(-$100.0) reflects a redirection of funds for the biannual enforcement conference to the
civil enforcement program.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost -of -living for existing FTEs
Statutory Authority
Pollution Prevention Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Clean Air Act,
Toxic Substances Control Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act,
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, North American Free
Trade Agreement; Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act.
4 Inheriting the World. The Atlas of Children Health and the Environment. Bruce Gordon, Richard MacKay, and Eva Rehfuess.
World Health Organization. ISBN 92-4-159156-0.
EPM- 107
-------
IT'/Data Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $105,999.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
IT / Data Management (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$101,091.2
$4,611.0
$109.3
$36.7
$16,886.3
$122,734.5
577.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$108,359.4
$4,821.4
$177.6
$32.8
$16,628.4
$130,019.6
467.0
FY 2006
Request
$105,999.0
$4,250.9
$177.6
$32.8
$16,113.2
$126,573.5
457.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($2,360.4)
($570.5)
$0.0
$0.0
($515.2)
($3,446.1)
-9.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making.
The program: implements the Agency's e-Government responsibilities; designs, develops and
manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet resources including the Integrated Portal; supports
the development, collection, management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both
point source and ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in
strategic planning at the national, program, and regional levels; provides a secure, reliable, and
capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data
standardization, integration, and public access; manages the Agency's Quality System ensuring
EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines, and, supports Regional
information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs, and
telecommunications. These functions are integral to the implementation of Agency information
technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX)
and Permit Compliance System (PCS). Agency Offices rely on the IT/Data Management
program and its capabilities to develop and implement tools for ready access to accurate and
timely data. Recent partnerships include portals projects with the Offices of Research and
Development and Air and Radiation to access scientific and program data.
EPM- 108
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA's Information Technology community's FY 2006 activities focus on the Agency's
Technology Initiative and fulfilling the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) commitments. The
Agency's IT/Data Management program forms the core of this effort with its focus on building
and implementing the Agency's Integrated Portal and Enterprise Content Management System
(ECMS), developing of Environmental Indicators, and continuing to deploy enterprise-wide IT
infrastructure solutions.
The Agency's Technology Initiative builds on efforts
started in FY 2004 and FY 2005 to enhance
environmental analytical capacity for EPA, its partners
and stakeholders. The Initiative is designed with the
understanding that the majority of environmental data are
collected by states and Tribes, not directly by EPA and
that ready access to real time quality environmental data
and analytical tools are essential to making sound
environmental decisions. Understanding these factors
focused EPA's FY 2006 Technology Initiative on five
related and supporting activities:
S Building the Agency's analytical capacity to facilitate sound environmental decision-
making and address critical data gaps;
S Developing a central integrated portal to manage the flow of information to and from the
Agency;
S Providing more effective, secure, and integrated information exchange through the
environmental exchange network with our state partners;
S Streamlining, securing, and technically advancing the infrastructure through enterprise-
wide solutions across EPA; and,
S Implementing a central content management system that provides ready access to
documents and data.
EPA's Environmental Information Exchange Network Program (Exchange Network,
www.epa.gov/cdx), the Electronic Content Management System (ECMS) and EPA's 'Readiness
to Serve' enterprise-wide IT infrastructure solutions provide the foundation for states, Tribes, the
public, regulated community and EPA for improved information and data access and sharing
opportunities. The Integrated Portal manages a variety of environmental information allowing
increased data availability, better data quality and accuracy, security of sensitive data, and
prevents data redundancy. Finally, with proven infrastructures and increased data access, EPA,
its partners and stakeholders can conduct better data analyses to answer environmental
questions.
IT/Data Management resources support the preparation of the "Report on the Environment"
(http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm) and the analysis of critical data gaps. The
program also funds the Integrated Portal, ECMS development and implementation, and EPA's
'Readiness to Serve' infrastructure program. The majority of the resources focused on EPA's
Technology Initiative reside in the IT/Data Management program.
EPM- 109
-------
Key FY 2006 Program Activities
Analytical Capacity
^Address priority data gaps (e.g., locational data)
^ Build tool kit of essential analytical tools
^ Prepare electronic "Report on the Environment"
Integrated Portal
^ Implement identity and access management solutions
^ Integrate geospatial tools
S Link to CDX
ECMS
S Deploy ECMS within Agency
'Readiness to Serve'
S Standardize the Agency's Core Infrastructure (e.g.,
Desktops, telephone service, etc.)
Feedback and results received during stakeholder
meetings on EPA's FY 2003 "Draft Report on the
Environment" identified key areas for data
collection, review and analysis. EPA's
Technology Initiative and its focus areas work
together to advance data analyses and the
development of an analytical tool kit including
environmental indicators to address these
information needs. These efforts will be reflected
in the next "Report on the Environment" planned
for release in FY 2006.
The Integrated Portal is the user interface that provides the ready access and capability to
perform real time data searches and analyses. It provides a single business gateway for people to
access, exchange and integrate nationally standardized local, Regional and national
environmental and public health data. In FY 2006 EPA's Integrated Portal activities include
implementing identity and access management solutions, integrating geospatial tools and linking
the Central Data Exchange. The Portal is the Technology Initiative's link to diverse data sets and
systems giving users the ability to perform complex environmental data analyses.
In 2006, EPA will develop and implement the ECMS project, which is an enterprise-wide, multi-
media solution designed to manage and organize environmental data and documents for EPA,
Regions, field offices and laboratories. Formerly fragmented data storage approaches will be
converted into a single tool on a standard platform, accessible to everyone, reducing data and
document search time and assisting in security and information retention efforts. The ECMS is a
cornerstone in EPA's Technology Initiative providing streamlined means to access and receive
records from all sources and reduce costs for data storage and records duplication.
EPA's 'Readiness to Serve' infrastructure program delivers secure information services to
ensure that the Agency and its programs have a full range of information technology
infrastructure components (e.g., user equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application
hosting, remote access) that make information accessible across the spectrum of mission needs at
all locations. The Program uses performance-based, outsourced services to obtain the best
solutions (value for cost) for the range of program needs. This includes innovative multi-year
leasing that sustains and renews technical services in a least-cost, stable manner as technology
changes over time (e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance).
In addition to supporting key components of EPA's Technology Initiative, IT/Data Management
will continue to provide local program offices in the Regions' critical support for hardware
requirements, software programming and applications, records management systems, data base
services, local area network activities, intranet web design, and desktop support. EPA's
environmental information needs require the Agency to ensure that it is keeping pace with the
states in the areas of data collection, management and utilization. Additionally, this program will
continue to focus on information security and the need for each Region to have an internal IT
security capacity. The Regions will implement Agency information resource management
policies in areas such as data and technology standards, central data base services, and
telecommunications. The Regions will also continue to work on the implementation of cost
EPM- 110
-------
accounting procedures to capture in detail all IT expenditures for EPA offices. This will enable
the Agency to better address OMB's IT reporting requirements.
EPA's e-Government participation and contributions continues in FY 2006 with the
coordination, development and implementation of the Business Gateway, Geospatial One-Stop,
and e-Authentication. Key activities ensure that access to critical data (e.g., geospatial
information, federal regulations) is increased through the Geospatial One-Stop portal and the
Business Gateway and its Business Portal providing opportunities for collaboration and
intergovernmental partnerships, reducing duplication of data investments, and offering the public
easy access to important federal services for businesses.
IT/Data Management efforts are integral to the Exchange Network and Information Security
programs. Together these programs work to design, develop and deploy secure systems and
analytical tools to promote sound environmental decision-making.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$2,360.4, -7.5 FTE) The reduction in resources reflects a combination of efficiencies
gained in aligning activities and project resource shifts to support the Technology
Initiative.
(-$2,028.0) This resource reduction reflects efficiencies gained in aligning resources for
infrastructure and data management necessary to develop and deploy the Integrated
Portal.
(-$15,263.7) This reduction reflects a shift of resources from non-project specific
activities to support the development and implementation of the ECMS, analytical tools
including Environmental Indicators and geospatial/locational data and the Agency's
'Readiness to Serve' enterprise-wide information technology infrastructure solutions.
(+$4,191.3) This resource increase supports the development and deployment of the
ECMS.
(+$7,969.0) This resource increase supports the continued development of environmental
indicators and the Agency's 'Readiness to Serve' enterprise-wide infrastructure solutions.
(+$4,564.0, +9.0 FTE) This resource increase reflects a shift of the System of Registry
(SoR) and Facility Registry System (FRS) data management activities to more closely
align with the Integrated Portal and Enterprise Architecture functions.
Statutory Authority
Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
Clean Air Act and amendments; Clean Water Act and amendments; Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act; Toxic Substance Control Act; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Superfund Amendments and Re-
authorization Act; Government Performance and Results Act; Government Management Reform
Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; Freedom of Information Act; Computer
Security Act; Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act.
EPM - 111
-------
Legal Advice: Environmental flagrant
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $36,314.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
Legal Advice: Environmental Program (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$33,516.3
$800.6
$34,316.9
233.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$34,678.8
$844.0
$35,522.8
255.8
FY 2006
Request
$36,314.3
$836.1
$37,150.4
250.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,635.5
($7.9)
$1,627.6
-4.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's General Counsel and Regional Counsel provide legal representational services, legal
counseling and legal support for all Agency environmental activities.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, legal advice to environmental programs will include but is not limited to:
representing EPA and providing litigation support in cases where EPA is a defendant as well as
those cases where EPA is not a defendant but may have an interest in the case: providing legal
advice, counsel and support to Agency management and program offices on matters involving
environmental issues including, for example, providing interpretations of relevant and applicable
laws, regulations, directives, policy and guidance documents and other materials.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes
EPM- 112
-------
Legal Advice: Support Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $13,087.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Legal Advice: Support Program (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$12,554.2
$12,554.2
89.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$12,521.7
$12,521.7
89.9
FY 2006
Request
$13,087.7
$13,087.7
87.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$566.0
$566.0
-2.7
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's General Counsel (GC) and Regional Counsel (RC) will provide legal representational
services legal counseling and legal support for all activities necessary for the operation of the
Agency.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, General Counsel and the Regional Counsel will provide legal representational
services, legal counseling and legal support for all Agency activities necessary for the operation
of the Agency (i.e., contracts, personnel, information law, ethics and financial/monetary issues).
Legal services include, but are not limited to: representing EPA and providing litigation support
in cases where EPA is a defendant as well as those cases where EPA is not a defendant, but may
have an interest in the case; providing legal advice, counsel and support to the Agency
management and administrative offices on matters involving actions affecting the operation of
the Agency, including, for example, providing interpretations of relevant and applicable laws,
regulations, directives, policy and guidance documents and other materials.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes
EPM- 113
-------
LUST/VST
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $7,719.4 (Dollars in Thousands)
LUST / UST (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$6,833.7
$9,473.6
$16,307.3
111.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$7,094.5
$10,499.6
$17,594.1
117.1
FY 2006
Request
$7,719.4
$10,583.7
$18,303.1
114.1
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$624.9
$84.1
$709.0
-3.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description:
In managing petroleum products properly, EPA works with states, Tribes and Intertribal
Consortia to prevent, detect, and correct leaks into the environment from federally regulated
underground storage tanks containing petroleum and hazardous substances. Achieving
significant improvements in release prevention and detection requires a sustained emphasis by
both EPA and its partners. Concerns about the use of fuel oxygenates (e.g., methyl-tertiary-
butyl-ether, or MTBE) in gasoline further underscores EPA's and the states' emphasis on
promoting compliance with all UST requirements. EPA provides technical information, forums
for information exchanges and training opportunities to states, Tribes and Intertribal Consortia to
encourage program development and/or implementation of the Underground Storage Tanks
(UST) program. For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/OUST/20comply.htm and
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/20tnkprf.htm.
The states are the primary enforcers of the UST program requirements. EPA has adopted a
decentralized approach to UST program implementation by building and supporting strong state
and local programs. Although EPA is responsible for implementing the UST program in Indian
country, the Agency is working with Tribes to strengthen their own UST programs. EPA uses its
EPM funding in the UST program primarily to improve compliance and evaluating the
performance of UST systems.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights:
EPA will continue to work with States and industry to improve UST system performance based
on the results of the UST system evaluation work. The Agency will also continue to monitor
UST system performance and evaluate certain aspects of performance in more detail.
EPM- 114
-------
To protect groundwater and drinking water from petroleum releases, EPA will continue to
promote cross-media opportunities, e.g., targeted public health protection through the UST and
Source Water Protection Programs, support core development and implementation of state and
tribal UST programs; strengthen partnerships among stakeholders; and provide technical
assistance, compliance assistance, and training to promote and enforce UST facilities'
compliance. For example, as part of a national UST training effort, initiated in FY 2003 by an
EPA/state and industry workgroup, EPA will continue to provide web-based training modules
that address topics such as cathodic protection, leak detection, spill containment, and overfill
protection components of the UST system. The training modules will provide UST inspectors
with core and advanced knowledge on how to inspect an UST system.
EPA will continue its work to obtain states' commitments for their inspection and enforcement
presence. The Agency and states will continue to use innovative compliance approaches, along
with outreach and education tools, to bring more tanks into compliance. For example, programs
that allow tank owners to self-certify by conducting rigorous self-audits through EPA's
environmental results program, third-party inspections, and multi-site agreements can be
effective in bringing a single tank owner with multiple sites into compliance.
EPA will also provide guidance to encourage the use of new technology to enhance compliance.
For example, the presence of MTBE in gasoline increases the importance of preventing and
rapidly detecting releases, since MTBE contamination can increase cleanup costs by 25% to
more than 100%. The Agency will focus its efforts on reducing UST releases and increasing
early detection of petroleum products, including MTBE, by further evaluating the performance
of compliant UST systems.
EPA has the primary responsibility for implementation of the UST Program in Indian Country.
Grants under P.L. 105-276 will continue to help Tribes develop the capacity to administer UST
programs. For example, funding is used to support training for tribal staff, educate owners and
operators in Indian Country about UST requirements, and maintain information on USTs located
in Indian Country.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
States: Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976, as amended (Subtitle I); Section 8001(a);
Tribal Grants: PL 105-276
EPM- 115
-------
Marine Pollution
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $12,279.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Marine Pollution (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$10,049.1
$10,049.1
47.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$12,296.0
$12,296.0
45.7
FY 2006
Request
$12,279.2
$12,279.2
43.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($16.8)
($16.8)
-1.8
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The goals of the marine pollution programs are to ensure marine ecosystem protection through
adequate controls on point-source and vessel discharges, management of ocean dumping, and
other sources of pollution, such as marine debris and invasive species/harmful algal blooms.
Major areas of effort include:
Establishing water quality controls for point source dischargers;
Developing and implementing regulations and technical guidance to control pollutants from
vessels and issuing permits for materials to be dumped in ocean waters;
Designating, monitoring, and managing ocean dumping sights and implementing provisions
of the Administration's National Dredging Policy and Plan for Dredging NY/NJ Harbor;
Establishing and conducting beach monitoring for marine debris and promoting public
awareness of causes, effects, and controls for marine debris through public education
programs;
Working with a wide variety of stakeholders to develop, provide, and implement watershed
management tools, strategies and plans for coastal ecosystems, including dredged material
management plans for coastal ports, in order to restore and maintain the health of coastal
aquatic communities on a priority basis. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/index.html.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Coastal and ocean waters are environmentally and economically valuable to the Nation. To
protect and improve water quality on a watershed basis, EPA will focus its work with States,
Tribes, interstate agencies, and others on improving the quality of our valuable ocean resources.
The health of ocean and coastal waters and progress in meeting the strategic targets will be
EPM- 116
-------
tracked through issuance of a National Coastal Condition Report every two years, a cooperative
project with other Federal agencies.
The Ocean Survey Vessel Bold supports monitoring and assessment needs in EPA Regions and
coastal States, and will service the Atlantic Coastal Regions, Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific
Coast.
In 2006, the Bold will support monitoring and assessment needs in EPA coastal Regions and
coastal states, and will service the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico. It is also expected to work
on the Pacific Coast over the next several years but not in 2006. During 2006, the Bold is
expected to support the following types of activities: collection of environmental data from
several offshore areas for use in their designation of dredged material disposal sites (such as in
Long Island Sound); periodic environmental monitoring of 10-20 of the 79 existing ocean
disposal sites; the monitoring of 5 to 10 offshore waste disposal sites or wastewater outfalls; and
monitoring of significantly impacted or important coastal waters such as the Gulf of Mexico
hypoxic zone and Florida coral reefs.
Key marine pollution program efforts in 2006 that focus on ocean and coastal waters and are
critical to improving these waters are:
Reducing Vessel Discharges
EPA's efforts will focus on enhancing regulation of pollutant discharges from vessels. Develop
discharge standards for cruise ships operating in Alaskan waters;
Cooperate with the Department of Defense to develop discharge standards for certain armed
forces vessels;
Assess of the effectiveness of current marine sanitation device regulations and promotion of
technological advancement in those devices to reduce sewage discharges from vessels.
Management of the MPRSA Ocean Dumping Program (including Dredged Material).
Develop and implement new Guidance for Fish Waste Permits;
Develop and implement of a revised General Vessel Permit;
Lead the development of modifications to the MPRSA to implement the 1996 Protocol to the
London Convention of 1972, part of the ratification led by State Dept;
Conduct reviews of two Regional Ocean Dumping Programs;
Prepare revisions to the Ocean and Inland Dredged Material Testing Manual;
Issue a comprehensive document on beneficial use of dredged material; and
As Co-Chair of the National Dredging Team, implement the recently issued NDT Action
Agenda for the Next Decade, including the NDT sponsored conference on development of
watershed sediment management plans for ports/harbors.
EPM- 117
-------
Managing Invasive Species.
Continue efforts to target invasive species in coastal areas, including: prevention, education and
outreach, early detection and rapid response, monitoring, applied research, and leadership and
coordination;
Under an MOU with the U.S. Coast Guard, assist in its efforts to develop ballast water
discharge standards specifically developing the EIS;
Work with the U.S. Coast Guard to make a determination regarding the ratification of the
International Ballast Water Standards Convention under MARPOL; and
Vessels Used as Artificial Reefs
Complete the proposed Best Management Practices Guidance for Clean-up of Vessels
Proposed for Use as Artificial Reefs, such as the Oriskany. Navy/MARAD anticipate many
more vessels are to become artificial reefs and will need to follow the Guidance. EPA's role
will be to participate in the clean-up plans for each vessel and inspections.
Contributing to the Health of Coral Reefs
Participate on the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force;
Assist in the development of biological assessment methods and biological criteria for use in
evaluating coral reef health and associated water quality;
Continue to support water quality monitoring efforts in the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary using the OSV Bold; and
Managing Harmful Algal Blooms
Continue to coordinate with other agencies and support regional programs in detection and
rapid response efforts in cases of harmful algal bloom development;
EPA will work to address the issue of harmful algal blooms through monitoring, research,
and projects related to hypoxia and nutrients; and
In the case of emergency events (e.g., a PJiesteria outbreak), EPA will provide public
education/outreach, and coordinate with the national response to these outbreaks.
Supporting International Marine Pollution Control
EPA will continue to work to ensure that U.S. Policy and procedures are consistent with the
London Convention of 1972 (i.e., ocean dumping treaty) and its 1996 Protocol;
Chair the Scientific Group of the London Convention; one current issue being addressed is
sequestration of CO2 in the subseabed;
Actively participate in meetings of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of
MARPOL to develop US-friendly, international standards and guidance within the MARPOL
Convention; and
Participate in MEPC meetings to prepare guidance to implement the International Treaty on
Ballast Water Standards.
EPM- 118
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
Resources are largely unchanged.
Statutory Authority
Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations Act (PL 106-554); Clean Vessel Act; Clean Water Act
(CWA); Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Marine Plastic Pollution, Research and Control Act (MPPRCA)
of 1987; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA); National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Section 3516; National Environmental Policy Act,
Section 102; National Invasive Species Act of 1996; North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA); Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988; Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act
(OAPCA); Pollution Prevention Act (PPA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA); Shore Protection Act of 1988; Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA); Water Resources Development Act (WRDA); and Wet Weather Water Quality Act of
2000.
EPM- 119
-------
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $19,445.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$21,527.0
$21,527.0
48.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$19,229.3
$19,229.3
58.5
FY 2006
Request
$19,445.5
$19,445.5
57.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$216.2
$216.2
-1.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The goal of this program is to restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's estuaries and coastal watersheds by protecting and enhancing water quality and living
resources. Major areas of effort include: supporting coastal watersheds to enhance their efforts
to address threats to the health of estuaries and coastal waters; supporting continued
implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) for the 28
National Estuary Programs (NEPs); encouraging cooperative efforts between Nonpoint Source
Programs (e.g., under CWA Section 319) and other programs to develop and implement coastal
ecosystem protection/enhancement strategies; and supporting monitoring of estuarine, coastal
and marine waters. For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The resources in FY 2006 will support EPA's goal of improving aquatic ecosystem health of our
national estuaries as well as protect additional acres of habitat. EPA will undertake the following
activities in support of coastal watershed protection and restoration:
In 2006, EPA will issue the third National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) and the first
Coastal Condition Report for the National Estuary Program. EPA, working with State and
local partners, will also collect and analyze data from coastal waters which will be used to
prepare the fourth NCCR, which is due in 2008. In addition, EPA will support monitoring of
estuarine waters using such tools as the OSV BOLD. This ocean survey vessel supports
monitoring and assessment needs in EPA Regions, NEPs, and coastal States along the
Pacific, Gulf and Atlantic coasts;
EPA will develop and disseminate tools and resources for local land use decision makers that
will provide the information necessary to plan for growth, minimize the adverse impacts of
development, and anticipate the cumulative environmental impacts of growth. EPA will
continue partnership opportunities with NOAA to specifically address coastal communities;
EPM - 120
-------
EPA will continue to support the integration of coastal and marine fish tissue mercury data
into a national database, such as STORET or NLFA (National Listing of Fish Advisories).
EPA will continue to work with coastal environmental managers, Federal partners, and other
decision-makers to evaluate and address the impacts to water quality from atmospheric
deposition of contaminants and provide assistance to these stakeholders and the general
public;
EPA will produce on-line finance planning modules, traditional workshops, and on-site
assistance to help coastal watersheds find the best way to finance estuary and coastal
protection projects;
EPA has a lead role in the five-year reassessment of the Action Plan for Reducing,
Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, which will continue in
FY 2006
Within the NEP, EPA plans to implement key activities1 under its flagship coastal watershed
protection effort to help address the growing threats to the Nation's estuarine resources. These
activities include:
Supporting continuing efforts of all 28 NEP estuaries to implement their CCMPs to protect
and restore estuarine resources;
Providing more focused support for several priority needs, including problems of invasive
species, air deposition of pollutants such as mercury and nitrogen, and nutrient over-
enrichment;
Supporting estuary efforts to achieve its habitat restoration and protection goal of 250,000
additional acres by 2008. In FY 2006, EPA and its partners will protect or restore an
additional 25,000 acres of habitat;
Providing targeted support to special ecosystems, including those with statutorily-authorized
protection programs such as the Long Island Sound.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; Clean
Water Act; Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990;
North American Wetlands Conservation Act; Water Resources Development Act (WRDA); 1909
The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA); 1987
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; 1987 Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances;
1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy; Coastal
Wetlands Planning; and US-Canada Agreements.
1 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 measures for EPA's vessel discharge, dredged material management, ocean disposal, and other ocean and
coastal programs, which are integral to the Agency's efforts to facilitating the ecosystem scale protection and restoration of
natural areas.
EPM- 121
-------
NEPA Implementation
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $12,440.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
NEPA Implementation (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$12,452.4
$12,452.4
111.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$12,654.2
$12,654.2
102.8
FY 2006
Request
$12,440.3
$12,440.3
101.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($213.9)
($213.9)
-1.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
As required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the NEPA Implementation program
reviews Environmental Impact Statements detailing the anticipated environmental impacts of
proposed major Federal actions, and options for avoiding or mitigating them. The program
manages the Agency's official filing activity for all Federal environmental impact statements, in
accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council on Environmental Quality.
The program also manages the review of environmental impact assessments of non-
governmental activities in Antarctica, in accordance with the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and
Conservation Act.
In addition, the program fosters cooperation with other Federal agencies to ensure compliance
with applicable environmental statutes, and to promote better integration of pollution prevention
and ecological risk assessment elements into their programs. The Agency targets high impact
Federal program areas, such as water resources and transportation/energy related projects. The
program also develops policy and technical guidance on issues related to NEPA, the Endangered
Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and relevant Executive Orders. This
program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an
overall rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Appendix Section. For more
information, visit: www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will work with other Federal agencies to streamline and improve their NEPA
process in such key areas as approval of highway and airport expansion; hydro-power/nuclear
power plant re-licensing; coal bed methane development and other energy-related projects;
EPM - 122
-------
military base closure; flood control and port development; and management of national forests
and public lands.
The NEPA Implementation program also guides EPA's own compliance with NEPA, other
applicable statutes and executive orders, and related Environmental Justice requirements.
Corresponding efforts include EPA-issued new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits, in cases where a State or Tribe has not assumed responsibility for the
NPDES program; off-shore oil and gas projects; Clean Water Act wastewater treatment plant
grants; and special appropriation grants for wastewater, water supply and solid waste collection
facilities. In FY 2006, 90 percent of EPA projects subject to NEPA environmental assessment or
environmental impact Statement requirements (e.g., water treatment facility project and other
grants, new source NPDES permits and EPA facilities) are expected to result in no significant
environmental impact.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$213.9) This reduction redirects mainly working capital fund resources to support
Compliance monitoring efforts.
Statutory Authority
CAA; NEPA; ASTCA; CWA; ESA; NHPA; AHPA; FCMA; FWCA; Executive Order 12898.
EPM - 123
-------
Pesticides: Field Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $24,682.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Pesticides: Field Programs (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$23,679.0
$23,679.0
134.1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$27,185.9
$27,185.9
137.5
FY 2006
Request
$24,682.6
$24,682.6
124.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($2,503.3)
($2,503.3)
-13.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The pesticides field programs include Certification and Training (C&T), Worker Protection
(WP), Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP), Groundwater (GW), Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) and the Tribal Program. These programs will
continue using a geographically-targeted approach where risk management decisions are made
close to the source and involve the regions, States, growers, consumers, and public interest
groups. This program underwent a PART review in 2006 and received a rating of "Results Not
Demonstrated"; more information is available in the Appendix Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue to promote safe pesticide use. The Agency will provide national leadership
and coordination to support regional, state and tribal capacity for the field programs. EPA will
make regulatory and policy decisions, develop guidance packages and training/educational
materials, organize national meetings/workshops, provide national technical assistance and
coordinate with other Federal agencies. In FY 2006, EPA will provide locally based technical
assistance and guidance to States and Tribes on pesticide issues, including conducting
workshops, briefings, and informational meetings. A well-targeted, high quality program in
communications, development and distribution of materials, training and follow-up will continue
for all field programs.
EPM - 124
-------
Certification and Training (C&T)/Worker Protection (WP)
EPA will work with stakeholders to identify and prioritize key concerns and issues that must be
addressed. Additionally, the Agency will support an infrastructure to address future WP issues.
Assessment of scope, quality and delivery of worker and handler training will identify
improvements, particularly with respect to children's special concerns. EPA guidance and
direction for State and tribal implementation will be provided. Training, education and outreach,
cornerstones of all field programs, will be pursued aggressively. Development and distribution
of support materials, training and follow-up, critical to program success, will also continue.
States will develop, reproduce and distribute training materials. Increased awareness and
workers' ability to understand and avoid pesticide hazards will allow individuals to play a key
role in their own health and safety. EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) in implementing these programs.
Tribal
EPA guidance and policy direction to Tribes on pesticide issues affecting Native Americans will
continue through a sound, effective and integrated approach. EPA will review software and
other risk assessment tools to capture the unique tribal exposure risks. Assistance in organizing
national and regional workshops/meetings to provide tribal awareness and understanding of
regulatory requirements and pesticide hazards will continue. EPA will provide training on
managing pesticides and pesticide risks matched to tribal needs. Agency support of the Tribal
Pesticide Program Council, a tribal voice in determining national pesticide policies, and an
instrument which brings tribal pesticide issues to Federal attention, will remain a priority. The
Agency will also continue open, consistent communications with Tribes, directly and through the
Regional Trial Operations Committees, to communicate tribal pesticide concerns.
Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP)
EPA will continue to protect threatened or endangered species from pesticide use, while
minimizing regulatory burdens on pesticide users. EPA will use sound science to assess the risk
of pesticide exposure to listed species and will continue efforts with partners and stakeholders to
improve information databases. As pesticides are reviewed, updated and improved, databases
will help ensure consistent consideration of endangered species. EPA will implement use
limitations through appropriate label statements; develop county bulletins containing maps of
species' locations and pesticide use limitations; and provide a toll-free telephone number to
assist users in determining whether they need a bulletin and where to obtain one. The Agency
will continue to encourage individual States and Tribes to develop endangered species
protections plans which meet the program's goals. EPA will continue providing outreach
materials keeping localities informed on the latest pesticide information for protection of listed
species. EPA will also provide guidance, assistance and resources to States and Tribes for
implementation of pesticide regulatory decisions. Implementation of an enforceable program
will demand intensified Regional assistance in developing and reviewing customized state-
initiated plans, providing educational/informational and other outreach materials, coordinating
with Federal and state lead agencies, and coordinating the review of habitat maps.
EPM - 125
-------
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP)
EPA will coordinate with USDA to provide information about pest control options. The Agency
will also organize and deliver pest management educational programs for producers, consumers,
and other stakeholders. The Agency will continue promoting the use of safer alternatives to
traditional chemical methods of pest control, including reduced risk pesticides, to further reduce
risk. Partnerships incorporating pollution prevention strategies will also contribute to risk
reduction.
EPA will encourage integration and adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in schools to
reduce children's exposure to pesticides yet maintain effective and efficient pest control.
Distribution of publications, awarding of IPM grants, offering of workshops and courses, and
providing guidance and assistance through universities and national associations will remain
critical. EPA will continue coordination with other Federal Agencies which support IPM
practices. Additionally, the Agency will continue fostering the managed use of an array of
biological, cultural, mechanical, and chemical pest control methods to achieve the best results
with the least adverse impact to the environment.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$434.7) This reduction reflects a redirection toward higher priority activities.
(-$565.3) This reduction is from the Water Quality Program in the Goal 2 Pesticides:
Field Programs Project. These efforts will now be carried out by the Office of Water
Surface Water Protection Program.
(-$682.0) This reduction reflects a redirection from PBTI Dioxin efforts to higher priority
activities.
(-13.0 FTE) The reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustments
described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of
Agency authorized positions, but not to overall Agency FTE utilization.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Pesticides Registration Improvement Act (PRIA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA).
EPM - 126
-------
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $41,471.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$40,936.3
$2,173.1
$43,109.4
353.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$42,907.0
$2,403.2
$45,310.2
330.7
FY 2006
Request
$41,471.7
$2,490.0
$43,961.7
327.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,435.3)
$86.8
($1,348.5)
-2.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The scope of the EPA Pesticide Registration Program is to license pesticides for use, ensuring
they present a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health and the environment. The
Agency makes licensing decisions about new pesticides only after extensive review and
evaluation of studies and data on human health and ecological effects.1 As part of the process,
the Agency analyzes data and establishes a tolerance level for each crop or crop grouping (use)
the registrant requests for the pesticide. The Pesticide Registration program gives priority to
accelerated processing of reduced risk pesticides which may substitute for products already on
the market, thus giving farmers and other pesticide users new tools that are safer for human
health and the environment. The resulting benefits to the Nation include worker protection,
public health assurance, safer food, and increased protection of the environment from pesticide
risk.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue to review and register new pesticides, new uses for existing pesticides, and
other registration requests in accordance with Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) standards and
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) timeframes. The Agency will continue to
process these registration requests, with special consideration given to susceptible populations,
especially children. Specifically, the Agency will focus special attention on uses on the foods
'FIFRA Sec 3; FIFRA Sec 4 (i) (5)
EPM - 127
-------
commonly eaten by children, to reduce pesticide exposure to children where the science
identifies potential concerns.
EPA will engage the public, scientific community and other stakeholders in our decision and
policy development and implementation to encourage a reasonable transition for farmers and
others from the older, more potentially hazardous pesticides to the newer pesticides which have
been registered using the latest scientific information available. As we learn from experience in
implementing our science policies, the Agency will continue to update them to ensure
compliance with the latest scientific methods. EPA will also continue its emphasis on
accelerating the registration of reduced risk pesticides, including biopesticides, in order to
provide farmers and other pesticide users with new alternatives to the older, more potentially
harmful pesticides.
The Agency will meet the special needs of States and industry such as processing requests for
temporary use of a pesticide not registered for that specific use in order to meet emergency
conditions (controlling a new pest or the spread of a pest to new areas, or controlling an outbreak
of a pest that poses a public health risk, such as the West Nile virus spread by the migration of
mosquitoes). EPA will process petitions for research purposes, such as the use of a pesticide on
a crop for the purposes of determining pest resistance to that pesticide.
In FY 2006, the Agency, in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), will continue to work to ensure that minor use registrations receive appropriate support
and that reduced risk pesticides needs for minor use crops are met.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$1,500.0) This reduction reflects a shift in registration activity into the expedited
review pipeline established under PRIA, which is partially funded through fees. This
reduction will not affect PRIA registration activities; however, the Agency will scale
back the processing of some registrations which are not covered by PRIA.
There are additional increases for payroll and cost-of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Pesticides Registration Improvement Act (PRIA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA).
EPM - 128
-------
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $57,991.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$54,163.5
$2,303.5
$56,467.0
466.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$58,053.9
$2,417.1
$60,471.0
466.6
FY 2006
Request
$57,991.2
$2,506.1
$60,497.3
462.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($62.7)
$89.0
$26.3
-3.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Agency will continue to ensure that pesticides, when used according to the label, result in a
reasonable certainty of no harm to human health and that they not present an unreasonable
adverse effect on the environment. EPA will continue to accomplish this through various means,
including risk mitigation measures such as label changes and modification in the ways pesticides
are applied (use of protective equipment, farm worker reentry level changes, application rates
and frequency, etc.). EPA will continue to use regulatory decisions, along with voluntary actions
encouraged through education and outreach to provide benefits such as public health safety, safe
and abundant food, worker safety, and protection of land and groundwater from pesticide
contamination. FQPA also requires that EPA establish a process for periodic review of pesticide
registrations with a goal of completing the process every 15 years. The registrations will be
reviewed to ensure that decisions are based on current scientific data, risk assessment
methodologies, program policies, and include appropriate risk reduction measures.
In 2004, EPA worked with stakeholders to develop the program parameters for the Registration
Review program and piloted the program. The pilot determined the latest risk assessments
available for the chemical, identifying if and what additional data or assessment updates are
required, and laying the groundwork for developing the economic analysis. EPA will begin
implementing this program in FY 2006.
This program underwent a PART review in 2006 and received a rating of "Adequate"; more
information is included in the Appendix Section.
EPM - 129
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will focus its reregi strati on resources to support meeting the 2006 and 2008
FQPA/Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) statutory deadlines. EPA will continue
to review pesticides subject to review to assure the public of their continued safety. Pesticides
not in compliance will be eliminated or restricted to reduce harmful exposure. EPA plans to
complete issuing Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions (REDs) for food use active ingredients by
August 3, 2006 and for non-food use active ingredients by 2008. The Agency will complete
cumulative risk assessments for active ingredients which share a common mode of toxicity (e.g.,
organophosphates, N-methyl carbamates, etc.). EPA plans to complete a cumulative 93.5
percent of both food and non-food use REDs, including 3 Interim REDs (IREDs) which on
completion of cumulative risk assessments will become finalized REDs. Moreover, completion
of the food use REDs by August 3, 2006 will result in the reassessment of tolerances. The
Agency will complete 16 Tolerance Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions (TREDs) by August 3,
2006 which will also result in the reassessment of tolerances. In addition, the review of existing
food use inert ingredients will be completed by August 3, 2006. EPA will complete the review
of all 9,721 tolerances requiring reassessment by FQPA by August 3, 2006.
As EPA obtains information and new research results, the cumulative risk policy will be updated
to ensure risk assessments maintain pace with advancing science and that improvements are
incorporated into the Registration Review Program. This new program, which will be fully
implemented in FY 2008, will continue to review registered pesticides periodically, as the
reregi strati on program draws to an end. To address the issues around replacement and review of
widely used pesticides, EPA and USDA collaborated, developed and implemented a review
process greatly expanding public participation and easing the transition to alternative means of
pest control. This process will continue to be reviewed, improved and expanded as needed as we
continue the review of other groups of high risk, older pesticides, and during implementation of
the Registration Review Program.
Protecting children's health is a primary concern for EPA. As such, EPA has identified and
given priority to the tolerance reassessments that affect the top 20 foods eaten by children. The
Agency will complete 100 percent of this set of tolerance reassessments by August 3, 2006.
In FY 2006, the Agency will continue to review antimicrobials for reregi strati on in order to meet
the deadlines set by FQPA and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003 for
the reregi strati on program. EPA will continue to address concerns regarding the efficacy of
public health products used to kill microorganisms in hospitals, schools, restaurants, and homes.
EPA will continue to ensure that efficacy tests for antimicrobial products are reliable and
reproducible and that internal controls ensure the integrity of data submitted by registrants.
Another area of concern is the review of inert ingredients because they could potentially be more
toxic than some active ingredients. There are approximately 870 pesticide inert tolerances and
tolerance exemptions requiring reassessment to meet the statutory deadlines. EPA will continue
working on reviewing these ingredients in FY 2006.
EPM- 130
-------
EPA will continue to use sound science in pesticide reviews and to include stakeholder and
scientific community feedback in our policies and decisions. Efforts with stakeholders through
the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) and the Committee to Advise on
Reassessment and Transition (CARAT) will continue to provide transparency in decision-
making and fuller understanding of the implications for growers, producers and the public.
The Agency will finalize the procedural regulation and begin implementing the Registration
Review program. The final rule will be issued in 2006, beginning the first phases of the
program. Program implementation will include publishing a proposed schedule of registration
review cases, assessing the adequacy of databases, issuing data call-in notices, consulting with
stakeholders and other Federal agencies, conducting preliminary risk assessments, and
assembling materials for public dockets. As the reregi strati on program ramps down and the
registration review program begins, the Agency will continue to ensure that pesticide regulation
is protective of human health and the environment, and is based on the most current scientific
standards.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Pesticides Registration Improvement Act (PRIA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA).
EPM- 131
-------
Pollution Prevention Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $19,989.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Pollution Prevention Program (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$16,039.4
$16,039.4
82.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$22,496.2
$22,496.2
88.3
FY 2006
Request
$19,989.8
$19,989.8
87.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($2,506.4)
($2,506.4)
-0.8
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Description
All the pollution prevention programs funded through the Environmental Program and
Management (EPM) appropriation comprise this program, including Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing (EPP), Green Supplier Network (GSN), Green Chemistry (GC), Green Engineering
(GE), and Design for the Environment (DfE).
EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan established a number of long-term strategic targets for EPA's
pollution prevention program:
Promoting "green" Federal government operations in purchases of more environmentally
friendly products and services from a baseline year of 2002;
Ensuring that all Federal agencies have defined EPP programs, have policies in place,
and expand their purchases of available "green" products and services;
Reducing TRI chemical releases at Federal facilities by 40 percent, from a baseline year
of 2001;
Reducing pollution by 76 billion pounds, conserving 360 billion BTUs of energy and 2.7
billion gallons of water, and achieving environmentally-related business cost savings of
$400 million from 2003 levels;
Reducing 165 thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from 1996 levels;
Reducing TRI chemical releases into the environment from the business sector per unit of
production by 40 percent and TRI chemicals in production-related wastes generated by
the business sector per unit of production by 20 percent from 2001 levels.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPM- 132
-------
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Program:
EPA will continue to implement EPP efforts in partnership with other Federal agencies, notably:
implement the Federal Electronics Challenge and the Electronic Products Environmental
Assessment Tool; work with the National Park Service to "green" operations at National Parks;
and provide assistance on green construction specifications to the Federal buildings sector.
For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/about/about.htm.
Green Suppliers Network:
The Green Suppliers Network will continue to partner with the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, expanding the service
offerings for the participating suppliers to include health and safety and energy efficiency
assistance. Green Suppliers Network will also continue to respond to increasing interest from
other industry sectors including appliances, transportation, and farm and construction. Green
Suppliers Network will assist U.S. sectors in extending the program to foreign suppliers,
particularly those in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) region and Asia and
will expand the Green Suppliers Network internationally by working with international partners
through the World Environment Center (WEC), the Commission for Environmental Cooperation
(CEC) and the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).
For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/p2/programs/gsn.htm.
Green Chemistry:
The Green Chemistry Program will focus on the development of environmentally preferable
substitutes for emerging chemicals of concern such as brominated flame retardants used in
flexible foam, perfluorinated acids and chemicals which are persistent in the environment and
capable of accumulating in animal, fish, and human tissue. The environmental benefits resulting
from the development of safer and greener substitutes are documented in the nominations for the
prestigious Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards.
For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/.
Design for the Environment/Green Engineering:
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Program will continue collaborating with industry and
non-governmental organizations to reduce risk from chemicals. In particular the Program will
encourage the use of best practices to reduce risks to workers and communities now exposed to
significant levels of diisocyanates (the leading cause of occupational asthma).
DfE will leverage partnerships with the polyurethane foam production facilities and furniture
manufacturers to address unintended environmental consequences from flame retardant use and
to ensure the transition to safer alternatives. EPA expects these new partnership targets to
EPM- 133
-------
produce measurable results, such as the replacement of approximately 15.7 million pounds of
flame retardants per year with safer alternatives. The related Green Engineering Program will
expand partnerships with the result in energy savings of hundred billions of Btu per year. For
more information, visit http ://www. epa. gov/dfe/ and
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/greenengineering/index.html.
The Pollution Prevention Program has a companion STAG program, "Pollution Prevention
Categorical Grant." Both of these programs contribute to achievement of common strategic
targets and annual performance goals.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$3,000.0) This reduction aligns the program with recent Congressional Action.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authorities
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
EPM- 134
-------
POPs Implementation
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $2,806.4 (Dollars in Thousands)
POPs Implementation (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$2,174.0
$2,174.0
7.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$2,235.4
$2,235.4
9.9
FY 2006
Request
$2,806.4
$2,806.4
12.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$571.0
$571.0
2.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This Program Project covers EPA's international Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) efforts.
Domestic POPs-related activities and associated funding are included in the Toxic Substances:
Chemical Risk Management Program/Project. EPA's international activities under this program
give priority to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention. Long-
range and transboundary atmospheric transport and deposition of POPs, 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, and bioaccumulate through the food chain.
To reduce the recognized risks these pollutants pose to the American public, we need to address
their international as well as domestic sources.
The U.S. is a signatory to the Stockholm Convention on POPs. To demonstrate U.S.
commitment to international action on these chemicals, EPA is working to reduce potential risk
from POPs on several international fronts including the following: 1) reduction in the releases of
POPs reaching the U.S. by long range transport; 2) reduction/elimination of sources of POPs in
countries of origin, focusing on PCB-containing equipment, obsolete pesticides stockpiles, and
dioxins and furans emissions from combustion sources; and 3) better inter- and intra-country
coordination on POPs implementation activities by improving access to POPs technical,
regulatory and program information from all sources including the Internet.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will continue FY 2005 efforts to reduce POPs sources world-wide focusing on
regions and countries from which POPs releases are impacting U.S. human health and the
environment, specifically Russia, China, India and the wider Caribbean. In these countries and
EPM- 135
-------
regions we will transfer innovative U.S. technology, help develop Russian regulatory and
financial infrastructure for sustainable projects, and help demonstrate destruction of over 200
tons of PCB liquids and safe storage of over 100 tons of obsolete POPs pesticides.
Results will include the following: EPA estimates that by assisting Russia, the strategic targets
for reducing Russian inventories of POPs pesticides and PCBs by 20 percent by 2008 will be
met. By helping China address dioxins and furans from the cement sector, EPA predicts that by
FY 2006, 20 percent of the global emissions of these pollutants will be reduced. Chinese cement
kilns produce 40 percent of the world's cement and contribute up to 80 percent of the dioxin and
furan emissions from global cement production, because the majority are technologically
obsolete and have no environmental controls.1 By 2006, EPA will help India reduce atmospheric
releases of obsolete POPs pesticides by 10 percent. In the wider Caribbean, EPA will help
reduce the PCB inventory by 15 percent, thus reducing the deposition of PCBs to the U.S by FY
2006.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+ $571.0, + 2.4 FTE) Workyears were redirected to this program to provide additional
support to address Stockholm Convention signatory countries elimination of priority POP
chemicals.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Pollution Prevention Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Clean Air Act,
Toxic Substances Control Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.
1 Global Cement Production [source: Lynn Price and Jonathan Sinton, 2004, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, Energy
Analysis Division (unpublished)].
EPM- 136
-------
Radiation: Protection
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Radiation; Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity; Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $11,765.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Radiation: Protection (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$11,608.6
$4,185.6
$2,223.9
$18,018.1
119.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$11,811.7
$2,847.0
$2,323.2
$16,981.9
114.4
FY 2006
Request
$11,765.1
$2,120.5
$2,387.1
$16,272.7
103.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($46.6)
($726.5)
$63.9
($709.2)
-10.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA conducts radiation risk assessments and provides the technical tools and the scientific basis
for generating radionuclide-specific risk coefficients. Risk managers use this information to
assess health risks from radiation exposure and to determine appropriate levels for contaminated
site clean-up. This information is also utilized by EPA to develop radiation protection and risk
management policy, guidance, and rulemakings.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue to conduct risk assessments on radiation, including radon, and provide
technical tools. EPA expects to become involved in a scientific reassessment of average US
exposure to radiation and to examine the findings of the National Academy of Sciences' newest
study, Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII), regarding implications for the
Agency's risk and dose coefficients. EPA will provide national guidance on the risks posed by
radiation in the environment, including technical guidance for conducting and documenting risk
assessments.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
EPM- 137
-------
Statutory Authority
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan
#3 of 1970; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA); Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-
486; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980;
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.;
Safe Drinking Water Act; Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978; Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act.
EPM- 138
-------
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Radiation; Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $2,636.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Radiation: Response Preparedness (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$3,308.1
$2,109.1
$5,417.2
25.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$2,610.9
$2,239.0
$4,849.9
36.5
FY 2006
Request
$2,636.0
$3,576.3
$6,212.3
42.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$25.1
$1,337.3
$1,362.4
5.8
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA generates policy guidance and procedures for EPA radiological response under the
government-wide National Response Plan (NRP). EPA is also a member of the Federal
Radiological Protection Coordinating Committee (FRPCC), supports the Federal Advisory Team
on Environment, Food, and Health "A-Team," and maintains its own EPA Radiological
Emergency Response Team (RERT). EPA's Emergency Response Team (RERT) conducts
national and regional radiological response planning and training and develops response plans
for radiological incidents or accidents.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA's RERT, a component of the Agency's emergency response structure, will maintain its
preparedness for those radiological incidents for which EPA is the Coordinating Agency under
the National Response Plan and will fulfill its requirement under the Nuclear/Radiological
Incident Annex to the NRP by developing and maintaining Protective Action Guides (PAGs) for
use by Federal, state, and local responders. EPA will provide training on the use of the PAGs to
users through workshops and radiological emergency response exercises. EPA will design
training and exercises to enhance the RERT's ability to fulfill EPA responsibilities;1 as well as
analyze them for improvements needed for overall radiation response preparedness.
EPA will continue in FY 2006 to coordinate with its interagency partners under the FRPCC to
revise Federal radiation emergency response plans, develop radiological emergency response
! Additional information can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/rert.htm last accessed 1/3/2005
EPM- 139
-------
standard operating procedures, and develop guidance for coordination of EPA support with other
Federal and state response agencies.
EPA will participate in planning and implementing international and Federal table-top and field
exercises including radiological anti-terrorism activities, with the NRC, DOE, DOD and DHS.
Throughout FY 2006 EPA will train state, local and Federal officials and provide technical
support to federal and state radiation, emergency management, solid waste, and health programs
that are responsible for radiological emergency response and for development of their own
preparedness programs.
EPA will provide policy development, on-site scientific and environmental risk support, and
radiation monitoring and assessment assets as part of EPA's counter-terrorism program. EPA
will inform the public on its radiological emergency response activities and capabilities.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan
#3 of 1970; Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA); Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National
Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; Executive Order 12656 of November 1988, Assignment of
Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988; Public Health Service Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C 5121 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act; Title X IV of the National Defense
Authorization Act of 1996 (Nunn-Lugar II).
EPM - 140
-------
RCRA: Corrective Action
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $42,710.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
RCRA: Corrective Action (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$38,419.8
$38,419.8
268.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$40,975.6
$40,975.6
280.1
FY 2006
Request
$42,710.2
$42,710.2
271.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,734.6
$1,734.6
-8.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The purpose of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action
Program is to control and clean up past and continuing releases from hazardous waste
management facilities, and has been one of the main focuses of EPA and state RCRA programs
for over fifteen years. This program provides funding for the direct implementation of the RCRA
program by EPA Regions 7 and 10 for the States of Iowa and Alaska, respectively. Although the
states (both those authorized for corrective action and those not authorized for corrective action
through work sharing agreements with their regions) are the primary implementers of the
Corrective Action Program, EPA regional staff are also the lead on a significant number of
facilities undergoing corrective actions. Key program implementation activities include:
development of technical and program implementation regulations, policies, and guidance and
conducting corrective action activities including assessments, investigations, stabilization
measures, remedy selection, and remedy construction/implementation. For more information,
visit http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/wastes.html.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In the Agency's FY2004-FY2008 Strategic Plan, EPA introduced new program goals for
corrective action that focus EPA and state efforts on moving facilities from stabilization to final
remedies. By the end of FY 2008, EPA intends to:
Assess 100% of GPRA baseline facilities
27
27Of the 1,714 RCRA Corrective Action high priority facilities, 84% (1,440) have human exposures controlled and 70% (1,199)
have groundwater migration controlled, reflecting the strong EPA/state partnership in this program. The new performance
measures for the RCRA program reflect establishment of a new facility baseline (1,968 facilities) established in October 2004.
EPM- 141
-------
Control current human exposure at 95% of GPRA baseline facilities
Control current migration of contaminated groundwater at 80% of GPRA baseline
facilities
Selecte of final remedies at 30% of GPRA baseline facilities
Complete of construction of final remedies at 20% of GPRA baseline facilities
Consistent with EPA's emphasis on land revitalization, ensuring sustainable future uses for
RCRA corrective action facilities is considered in remedy selections and in the construction of
those remedies. In addition, under the Agency's One Cleanup Program initiative, the Agency
will work in partnership with the states to coordinate cleanup program goals and direction. This
is a key aspect of improving program efficiency.
EPA plans that by 2020 most of the large number of legacy RCRA facilities subject to corrective
action will have been addressed. During FY 2006, the Agency will be working with its state
partners, industry, and public interest groups to develop and initiate a strategy to meet this
ambitious challenge.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-8.5 FTE) The reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment described in
the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of Agency authorized
positions, but not to overall Agency FTE utilization.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), Sections 8001 as amended, Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 as amended; Public Law-94-580, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.,
Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
EPM - 142
-------
RCRA: Waste Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Object!ve(s): Preserve Land
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $68,727.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
RCRA: Waste Management (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$60,460.2
$60,460.2
423.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$67,422.3
$67,422.3
464.6
FY 2006
Request
$68,727.9
$68,727.9
453.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,305.6
$1,305.6
-11.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The primary focus of the Waste Management Program is to:
Provide national policy directed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) to reduce the amount of waste generated and to improve the recovery and
conservation of materials by focusing on a hierarchy of waste management options that
advocate source reduction, reuse, and recycling over treatment and disposal.
Prevent dangerous releases to the environment from both non-hazardous and hazardous
wastes.
Reduce emissions from hazardous waste combustion, and manage waste in more
environmentally beneficial and cost-effective ways.
The Waste Management Program has many major components that are essential to safe waste
management and the protection of human health and the environment. Moreover, the program
continues to evolve to address the challenges of the 21st century and increase its focus on
recycling and reuse. New waste streams from new industrial processes are being evaluated, and
technological advances and innovative methods of conducting business in the waste management
arena are being assessed. EPA is engaged in regulatory and other reform efforts to improve the
efficiency of the program (for example, e-manifest and e-permitting projects) and to provide
incentives for increased recycling. EPA actively participates in waste management and resource
conservation efforts internationally.
Through the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), the program works with industry, states
and environmental groups to explore new ways to reduce materials and energy use by promoting
product process redesign and increased materials and energy recovery from waste otherwise
requiring disposal. However, not all wastes can be reduced or recycled and, therefore, some
EPM - 143
-------
wastes must be otherwise safely treated and disposed. Thus, EPA and the states maintain the
critical health and environmental protections provided by the base "cradle to grave" waste
management system envisioned by RCRA. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/wastes.html. This program was included in the RCRA Base,
Permitting, Grants PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of adequate; more
information is included in the Appendix Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the program will continue to work in partnership with the states to incorporate e-
permitting tools to encourage and help States to expedite and simplify the permitting process;
and to provide better public access to permitting information. During FY 2006, the Agency
plans to make substantial progress on the development of an electronic manifest system. The
Agency will continue its regulatory reform efforts with work on the definition of solid waste and
encouraging safe recycling of targeted waste streams. EPA will also continue its active
participation in international waste efforts.
In FY 2006, EPA will develop a comprehensive strategy to promote the gasification of waste
materials, including the development of regulations designed to allow gasification of oil-bearing
hazardous secondary materials from petroleum refining. Gasification is a technology that is
capable of converting wastes containing organics into clean fuels and basic chemicals, thereby
vastly expanding the reuse of materials currently managed as waste. Gasification of waste
materials will allow the capture of a significant amount of energy from waste materials that
previously were treated and disposed of, thus turning a waste problem into an energy solution.
EPA is conducting a state-of-the-practice bioreactor landfill study to lay the groundwork for
technical guidance and/or best practices for design, operation, and permitting bioreactor landfills.
Bioreactor landfills are supported by industry because of the expected rapid stabilization which
leads to rapid settlement and possible recovery of air space and the expectation that bioreactors
will increase the practicality of gas to energy conversion. Industry anticipates a greater potential
for reducing long-term costs with bioreactors. In FY 2006, EPA will take the results of the study
and develop technical guidance and/or best practices to support industry in designing and
operating bioreactors.
The Agency will also work to reduce risks from industrial non-hazardous waste, also known as
Industrial Subtitle D waste. Manufacturing facilities generate and dispose of 7.6 billion tons of
industrial non-hazardous waste each year.28 EPA will continue to work with interested parties to
apply the voluntary "Guide for Industrial Waste Management". The program will expand its
successful voluntary Coal Combustion Partnership Program (C2P2) and use it as a model for
'Data for 1982 from "Screening Survey of Subtitle D Establishments. Draft final report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste, December 1987. "Nonhazardous Waste: Environmental Safeguards for Industrial Facilities Need to Be
Developed." Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, House of Representatives. April 1990
EPM - 144
-------
other industrial non-hazardous waste streams, like foundry sands and construction and
demolition debris.
Providing grant funds, training, and technical assistance to Tribes and tribal organizations to
solve solid waste problems and reduce risk from exposure of improperly disposed hazardous and
solid waste is also a priority for the Agency in FY 2006. Of the 560 Federally-recognized Tribes
in this country, up to 44% have no waste management program and 24% use open dumps and
open burning as their primary disposal methods for solid wastes. In addition, there are over
1,400 open dumps on tribal lands, of which 110 are considered high-threat open dumps.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-11.0 FTE) The reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment described in
the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of Agency authorized
positions, but not to overall Agency FTE utilization.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), Sections 8001, as amended, Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 as amended; Public Law-94-580, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.,
Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
EPM - 145
-------
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Object!ve(s): Preserve Land
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $14,376.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$11,043.4
$11,043.4
70.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$14,301. 7
$14,301.7
78.0
FY 2006
Request
$14,376.1
$14,376.1
74.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$74.4
$74.4
-3.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directs EPA to minimize the amount of
waste generated and to improve recovery and conservation of materials through recycling. The
Waste Minimization and Recycling program emphasizes national policy and leadership to reduce
the cost and environmental impacts of wastes from businesses, industries, and communities by
fostering adoption of more efficient, sustainable, and protective policies, practices, materials and
technologies. These policies are based on a hierarchy of waste management options which
advocate source reduction, reuse, and recycling over treatment and disposal. The program
focuses its efforts on source reduction and recycling by building on partnerships with other
Federal agencies; state, tribal, and local governments; business and industry; and non-
governmental organizations. These voluntary partnerships provide information sharing,
recognition, and assistance to improve practices in both public and private sectors.
The program also implements waste minimization activities that diminish chemicals of most
concern to human health and the environment. This approach involves relating chemicals to
waste streams and looks to reduce not only the volume, but also the toxicity of hazardous wastes.
In addition, through the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), the Agency continues to
implement programs which: foster source reduction and recycling in business, industry, and
government; encourage local adoption of economic incentives that further source reduction and
recycling; reduce hazardous wastes containing priority chemicals; promote waste-based
industries that concurrently create jobs; foster cost-effective recycling programs in communities
and Tribes; enhance markets for recycled materials by increasing procurement of recycled-
EPM - 146
-------
content products; encourage innovative practices that result in more cost-effective source
reduction and recycling; implement the President's Climate Change Action Plan; and provide
information to assess and track progress in reaching national goals. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/wastes.html. This program was included in the RCRA Base,
Permitting, Grants PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of adequate; more
information is included in the Appendix Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will concentrate efforts on recycling 33.4% of municipal solid waste (MSW)
on its way to attaining the national goal of recycling 35% of MSW by 2008. To focus Agency
resources more efficiently, EPA reviewed the various categories of materials comprising MSW
to identify the largest-volume waste categories with the greatest opportunity for increased
recycling. Based on the volumes of materials generated, EPA will concentrate efforts on three
essential areas: (1) paper (over 35% of MSW); (2) organics (food and yard waste combine to
over 23% of MSW); and (3) packaging and containers (depending on the categories selected for
focus, over 10% of MSW). To achieve the national 35% recycling goal by 2008, EPA will
establish partnerships with various stakeholders representing paper, organics, and packaging and
container recycling interests. Furthermore, in FY 2006, EPA will continue to address the
nation's growing electronics waste stream through partnerships with private and public entities
such as EPA's "Plug-In To eCycling."
The United States has made significant progress in reducing priority chemical releases and their
presence in waste. Reported releases have dropped by 53% from 147 million pounds in 1991, to
69 million pounds in 2001. EPA has set goals of reducing 31 priority list chemicals from
hazardous waste by 10 percent by 2008 (from a 2001 baseline).
In FY 2006, through the National Waste Minimization Partnership for Environmental Priorities
(NPEP, formerly called the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program) the Agency will
continue to reduce hazardous wastes containing priority chemicals. EPA will continue the
growth of the NPEP, building on the successes achieved by the thirty-eight existing partners. In
addition to enrolling new partners, EPA will issue specific chemical challenges to participants.
The first challenge to get underway is the "Mercury Roundup." EPA will issue a formal
challenge and request to major industrial facilities urging mercury elimination. Partners will
commit to do the following:
Inventory mercury sources in their facilities and evaluate non-mercury
alternatives
Establish purchasing policies and educate staff
Collect existing mercury for recycling.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
EPM - 147
-------
Statutory Authority
Solid Waste Disposal Act; Section 8001 as amended; Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976, as amended; Public Law 94-580, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Department of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act;
Public Law 105-276; 112 Stat, 2461, 2499 (1988).
EPM - 148
-------
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $23,496.4 (Dollars in Thousands)
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations**
$22,200.8
$755.4
$22,956.2
75.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$25,244.5
$906.1
$26,150.6
80.6
FY 2006
Request
$23,496.4
$831.8
$24,328.2
69.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,748.1)
($74.3)
($1,822.4)
-11.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
"Resources under the program/project were formerly captured under Indoor Air: Asthma, Indoor Air:
Environmental Tobacco Smoke Program, and Indoor Air: Schools and Workplace Programs.
Program Project Description
In this non-regulatory program, EPA creates voluntary partnerships with non-governmental,
government partners and professional organizations to educate and encourage individuals,
schools, industry, the health care community, and others to take action to reduce health risks,
especially asthma, in indoor environments. EPA also uses technology-transfer to improve the
design, operation, and maintenance of buildings - including schools, homes, and workplaces - to
promote healthier indoor air. EPA's technical assistance directly supports state and local
governments and public health organizations in designing local programs to promote smoke-free
environments for children. EPA's indoor-air website a resource providing instruction and
assistance on a wide range of issues regarding indoor air quality.1
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will build on its national, multi-faceted asthma education and outreach program, in
partnership with other Federal and non-profit agencies, to improve and expand the delivery of
comprehensive asthma-care programs that emphasize management of environmental asthma
triggers such as dust mites, mold, pet dander, cockroaches and pests, secondhand smoke, and
nitrogen dioxide. To reach more people more effectively, EPA will foster the adoption of
demonstrated best practices to achieve positive health outcomes. EPA will expand efforts to
reach populations disproportionately impacted by asthma.
! www.epa.gov/iaq, last updated 11/18/2004.
EPM - 149
-------
Through public awareness and media campaigns such as the Childhood Asthma "Goldfish"
Campaign conducted in partnership with the Ad Council, EPA will continue to build public
awareness and knowledge of comprehensive asthma care and the importance of environmental
management to reduce exposure to indoor triggers. EPA will also join with the health-insurance
industry to encourage reimbursement for asthma prevention through cost-beneficial management
of its environmental triggers. In such public-health settings, EPA's role as environmental
steward reinforces families' trust and acceptance of key risk-avoidance messages.
EPA will continue to build the success of its national Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools (IAQ
TfS) program and extend the program to more schools. EPA will continue to market the Design
Tools for Schools (DTfS)2 web-based guidance, assisting school districts to integrate indoor air
quality and performance goals into the design, construction, and renovation of school buildings.
EPA will also continue partnerships and activities that inform and motivate school officials,
nurses, teachers, facility managers and planners, and parents to improve IAQ in schools. EPA
will also expand its efforts to address children's asthma in schools in league with cooperative
partners.
EPA will promote the adoption of its current guidance, IAQ Building Education and Assessment
Model (I-BEAM), by building owners and operators as well as specific audiences such as the
energy efficiency, building insurance, and building financing communities. In addition, EPA
will offer training that integrates indoor environmental quality into energy efficiency programs
and integrate IAQ with green building practices.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005
(-$2,100 and -10.6 FTE) This reduces the voluntary Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
program.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA); Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Re-
authorization Act (SARA) of 1986.
2 www. epa. go v/iaq/schooldesign last updated 10/25/2004
EPM- 150
-------
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities; Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $8,862.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Regional Geographic Initiatives (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$9,902.0
$9,902.0
28.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$8,799.5
$8,799.5
16.2
FY 2006
Request
$8,862.0
$8,862.0
15.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$62.5
$62.5
-0.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Multi-media Regional Geographic Initiative funds are available to EPA's Regions to support
innovative, geographically-based projects. These funds support priority local and regional
environmental projects that protect children's health, restore watersheds, provide for clean air,
prevent pollution and foster environmental stewardship. RGI is one of EPA's premiere
innovation resources spurring local projects that have often become national models (such as
school bus diesel retrofits, watershed planning and development of agricultural pollution
prevention performance standards for pest management). This initiative has been very cost-
effective: every RGI dollar is matched by more than 10 non-EPA dollars from states, localities,
non-profit organizations, and the private sector.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
RGI provides modest funding to support 8-10 environmental and public health projects per
Region. These initiatives encourage communities to invest in projects which will yield improved
environmental results important to their communities. Among other projects, funding supports:
Emission reduction demonstration projects for the West Coast Diesel Emission Reduction
Collaborative: The Collaborative is a public-private partnership designed to reduce diesel
emissions from the most polluting sources in the most affected communities along the West
Coast. The Collaborative will apply market-based incentives, innovative technologies and
collaborative approaches to reduce air pollution from diesel sources such as ships, railroads,
trucks buses, and construction and agricultural equipment. The Collaborative builds upon the
Clean Air Suite and will enhance the Regions' ability to meet 1-hour and 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
EPM- 151
-------
Healthy Communities Grant Program: EPA's Region 1 office in Boston, Massachusetts
plans to support community based multi-media projects that build institutional and
community capacity to reduce environmental risks, protect human health and improve the
quality of life in urban areas. RGI funds will support targeted investment areas identified as
high priority, including but not limited to sensitive populations, urban development &
redevelopment, and community toxics.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act (CWA); Clean Air Act (CAA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA);
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act (CERLA); Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Pollution Prevention Act (PPA); Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
EPM- 152
-------
Regional Science and Technology
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $3,642.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Regional Science and Technology (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$2,612.2
$2,612.2
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $3,626.2
$3,626.2
3.0
FY 2006
Request
$3,642.8
$3,642.8
3.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$16.6
$16.6
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Regional Science and Technology (RS&T) program supports the purchase of equipment for
use by regional laboratories, quality assurance, field investigation teams, and mobile laboratory
units. Regional labs have expertise in areas of ambient air monitoring, analytical pollution
prevention, environmental biology, environmental microbiology, and environmental chemistry.
Centers of Applied Science for specialty work have been established in these areas as well. In
recent years, EPA has made significant strides toward improving data collection and analytical
capacity to strengthen science based decision making. Funding for necessary equipment is
essential for continued progress.
RS&T activities support all of the Agency's national programs and goals, especially
enforcement, laboratory analysis, field sampling support, and building tribal capacity for
environmental monitoring and assessment. The RS&T program provides in-house expertise and
technical capabilities in the generation of data for Agency decisions, not only in the normal
course of activities. RS&T organizations support the development of critical and timely
environmental data and data review activities in emerging situations.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The laboratory equipment will support Regional implementation of the Agency's statutory
mandates through: field operations for environmental sampling and monitoring; regional
EPM- 153
-------
laboratories for environmental analytical testing; quality assurance oversight and data
management support; and, laboratory accreditation.
The Agency will stay abreast of rapidly changing technologies (i.e., new software and
instrumentation) that allow EPA to analyze samples more cost effectively and/or detect lower
levels of contaminants, or new and emerging contaminants of concern, like endocrine disrupters,
perchlorate, arsenic, MTBE, and mercury. In accordance with new policy directives, including
those related to Homeland Security, the Agency will enhance laboratory capacity and capability
to ensure that the Agency's laboratories implement critical environmental monitoring and
surveillance systems, develop nationwide laboratory networks, and develop enhanced response,
recovery and clean-up procedures.
The Agency recognizes the value of accredited labs and EPA continues to work towards all EPA
labs being accredited. The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation
Conference/Program ensures continued confidence that our states, local, federal, private and
academic environmental testing laboratories are qualified to produce data supporting
environmental compliance at all levels within the environmental regulatory community.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Pollution Prevention
Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act
EPM- 154
-------
Regulatory Innovation
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $25,021.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Regulatory Innovation (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations**
$19,738.3
$19,738.3
120.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$24,392.2
$24,392.2
120.5
FY 2006
Request
$25,021.2
$25,021.2
120.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$629.0
$629.0
0.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
**In FY 2004, the Regulatory/Economic Management Analysis program was restructured to more accurately reflect
the Agency's activities that are funded by these resources and to include resources in Regulatory Innovation.
Program Project Description
A more performance-based system of environmental protection is needed to encourage beyond
compliance business operations and stewardship. With resources in this program, EPA will
continue to promote new ways to achieve better environmental results. Working with EPA
programs and with states, businesses, and communities, EPA seeks to bring about the next
generation of environmental protection, one that focuses more on results than process. EPA
seeks to create: a performance-oriented regulatory system that allows flexible strategies to
achieve measurable results; environmental stewardship in all parts of society that support
sustainable development and pollution prevention; and a culture of creative environmental
problem solving that has a high capacity for collaborative, results-driven work and the
organizational systems to support it. EPA activities can be categorized across six areas:
Promote innovative leadership through new ideas, creative partnerships, and sound
analysis;
Encourage environmental stewardship in businesses;
Promote stronger facility-level environmental management, including Environmental
Management Systems (EMSs);
Improve environmental performance of selected business sectors;
Improve program efficiency through increased evaluation and measurement; and
Build stronger communities.
EPM- 155
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Promote innovative leadership: In FY 2006, EPA anticipates up to 20 State Innovation Grant
(SIG) awards for proposals that apply innovation to State environmental permitting programs.
These projects are vital to the implementation of the National Environmental Performance Track
("Performance Track") program. Other projects include development of industry and community
EMSs and expansion of the Environmental Results Program (ERP) model for use by more small
business sectors. EPA will also provide training, information and evaluation tools to public
involvement practitioners agency-wide.
Encourage environmental stewardship in businesses: Performance Track recognizes and rewards
private and public facilities that demonstrate strong environmental performance beyond current
requirements. To accomplish this EPA will implement and develop new regulatory incentives at
the state level. It will support and leverage state environmental leadership programs by aligning
Performance Track with at least 20 state programs and double the measurable environmental
improvements achieved to date. Performance Track will also reduce costs to members by 10%
while improving their ability to achieve results. In FY 2006 Performance Track will announce
the second round of Corporate Leaders in Performance Track. Performance Track will
collectively achieve an annual reduction of: 900 million gallons in water use; 7 Million
MMBTUs in energy use; 20,000 tons in materials use; 300,000 tons of solid waste; 35,000 tons
of air releases; and 10,000 tons in water discharges.
In addition to EPA's work with industry under the Performance Track program, the Agency will
provide tools to EPA managers of voluntary programs to improve their ability to deliver effective
results. EPA will also work with industry leaders in "lean manufacturing" to ascertain how
environmental improvements can enhance business efficiency and competitiveness. Finally,
EPA will encourage the development of industry ecology and sustainable development through
the creation of U.S. material flow accounts and life cycle inventory techniques.
Promote stronger facility-level environmental management, including Environmental
Management Systems (EMS): An EMS is a continual cycle of planning, implementing,
reviewing and improving the processes and actions that an organization undertakes to meet its
business and environmental goals. Most EMSs are built on the "Plan, Do, Check, Act" model.
This model leads to continual improvement. EPA will continue to provide leadership and
coordination with states and industry on the use of EMSs to protect the environment. In FY
2006 EPA will support states in experimenting and evaluating innovative permitting models that
use EMSs.
Improve the environmental performance of selected business sectors: The Environmental Results
Program which is based on a system created by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, uses an innovative system that integrates compliance assistance, self-certification and
performance measurement to give small business owners/operators better knowledge and
understanding of their regulatory requirements. EPA is working with the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection to transfer this approach to other states and to other
environmental applications.
The Sector Strategies Program promotes widespread improvement in environmental
performance, with reduced administrative burden, in 12 business sectors: agribusiness, cement
EPM- 156
-------
manufacturing, construction, forest products, iron and steel manufacturing, paint and coatings,
ports, shipbuilding, metal finishing, die casting and meat processing. Participating sectors are
represented by their national associations. In FY 2006 EPA will design major regulatory policy
initiatives to establish more flexible, performance-based environmental protection standards for
multiple sectors in all media. EPA will also create national EMS implementation programs in all
participating sectors, while providing program tools and models to help other sectors expand
EMS use. EPA will demonstrate measurable improvements in sector-wide environmental
performance and use sector partnerships to help address the Administrator's priority
environmental problems. For more information, visit www.epa.gov/sectors.
Improve program efficiency through increased evaluation and measurement: EPA will promote
rigorous measurement of environmental performance in collaborative projects with States and
industry. In FY 2006 EPA will continue to evaluate selected innovative projects to document
environmental benefits and provide guidance to other States seeking to build on these
innovations. EPA will provide training for EPA staff, States, and Tribes and conduct program
evaluation studies focused on meeting GPRA goals, OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART), and related to specific innovations in permitting, state grants projects, and other
approaches.
Building Stronger Communities: The Smart Growth program achieves measurably improved
environmental and economic outcomes by working with states, communities, industry leaders,
and nonprofit organizations to minimize the environmental impacts of development. EPA
provides tools, technical assistance, education, research, and environmental data to help states
and communities grow in ways that minimize environmental and health impacts and evaluate
environmental consequences of various development patterns. Its programs show community
and government leaders how they can meet environmental standards through innovative
community design and identify and research new policy initiatives to improve environmental
quality by supporting environmentally friendly development patterns. EPA engages the
architecture, transportation, construction, residential and commercial real estate, and mortgage
lending industries to identify and remove barriers to growth that serves the economy, public
health, and the environment.
In FY 2006, EPA plans to build upon its work in outreach and direct implementation assistance.
EPA will continue to bring to communities the work it has done at the national level, and it will
use its local, on the ground work to inform EPA's national research and policy agenda. EPA has
identified four areas as offering the greatest potential for strategic environmental returns: 1)
State and Local Governments; 2) Standard-Setting Organizations; 3) Federal Government; and
4) Private Sector
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
As provided in Appropriations Act funding; Clean Water Act, Section 104(b)(3); Clean Air Act,
Section 104(b)(3)
EPM- 157
-------
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $16,713.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$15,534.1
$15,534.1
106.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$16,151.8
$16,151.8
106.9
FY 2006
Request
$16,713.3
$16,713.3
103.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$561.5
$561.5
-3.7
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program is designed to strengthen EPA's policy analysis of key regulatory and non-
regulatory actions, improve the economic analysis underlying Agency actions, improve the
regulatory and policy action information management system, and ensure that the Administrator
and other senior decision makers have sound analysis to make decisions. Resources are used to
assist in developing and analyzing innovative and non-regulatory approaches, developing and
evaluating policy options, identifying priority problem areas, and targeting specific areas of
concern such as small businesses. EPA will expand efforts to improve its economic analysis
capacity. This will include reviewing the Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIA) for all
economically significant rules, including ensuring that RIAs comply with OMB guidelines. The
Regulatory and Economic program works to fill gaps in EPA's ability to quantify the benefits of
environmental regulations and policies, including benefits such as valuing health effects (e.g.,
children, elderly) and ecosystem benefits. Another emphasis is to improve the Agency's internal
regulation development tracking system so the Agency will have better managerial
accountability. Educational efforts within the programs and in the Regional offices help to
ensure Agency personnel understand the impacts of Executive Orders and Congressional
mandates on the regulatory and policy development process.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Support the linking of the natural sciences and social sciences so as to improve risk
assessments and benefit-cost analyses. Support efforts to develop Agency-wide
EPM- 158
-------
consensus on difficult and controversial policy and risk assessment issues and help
ensure that this consensus is incorporated into appropriate Agency guidance.
EPA will develop priority regulations, policies, and guidance The emphasis will be on
advising programs on policy, economic and risk analysis; supporting peer review
policies; facilitating data and information quality goals and principles issued by OMB
and the Agency; fostering consistency in analysis and decision-making across the
agency, serving as a liaison to OMB on regulatory and policy issues; and facilitating
consideration of the economic impact of regulations on small businesses by helping
implement the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
In FY 2006, the Regulatory Management Program will:
Provide leadership in environmental decision making as a champion of high quality
and timely policy, economic, scientific and legal analysis in decision making.
Participate in the development of priority actions and review economic and risk
analyses conducted across EPA offices. Revised Economic Analysis Guidelines will
complete the anticipated external peer review process conducted by the Science
Advisory Board, and dissemination and training on the Guidelines will commence
upon its release. The Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures Survey (PACE)
will be administered and completed so that data collected can be published in early
2007;
Conduct and support research on methods to integrate ecological and economic
models, This project demonstrates approaches to adopt benefits analysis techniques
for non-cancer endpoints and nonlinear carcinogens, and extends these concepts
further into the assessment of ecological risks used in economic benefits analyses;
Organize workshops on priority economic issues like benefits valuation, market
mechanisms and incentives, and information-based programs;
Provide training on the Agency's action development process and the Agency's
Economic Analysis Guidelines and related requirements (e.g., OMB Circular A-4) to
improve the skills of staff working on the Agency's regulatory programs to address
uncertainties in economic analysis;
Prepare and disseminate the Agency's newest risk assessment guidelines, providing
critical reviews of forthcoming materials on cancer and non-cancer risks;
For more information: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html;
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/economics/;
http://vosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/WorkshopSeries.html.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6 (15 U.S.C. 2603, 2604, and 2605); CWA sections 304 and 308 (33
U.S.C. 1312, 1314, 1318, 1329-1330, 1443); SDWA section 1412 (42 U.S.C. 210, 300g-l)
RCRA/HSWA: (33 USC 40(IV)(2761), 42 USC 82(VIII)(6981-6983)); CAA: 42 USC
85(I)(A)(7403, 7412, 7429, 7545, 7612);CERCLA: 42 USC 103(III)(9651); PPA (42 U.S.C.
13101-13109);Federal Technology Transfer Act
EPM- 159
-------
Science Advisory Board
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $4,881.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Science Advisory Board (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,820.3
$4,820.3
25.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $4,757.1
$4,757.1
22.4
FY 2006
Request
$4,881.0
$4,881.0
22.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$123.9
$123.9
-0.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) uses non-EPA technical experts to ensure a balanced range
of technical views from academia, communities, states, independent research institutions, and
industry in peer reviewing EPA's products and technical issues. Others duties include
administering three statutorily mandated chartered Federal Advisory Committees: 1) Science
Advisory Board (SAB), 2) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and 3) Council
on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL). These committees are charged with providing
independent advice and peer review to EPA's Administrator on scientific and technical aspects
of environmental problems, regulations and research planning.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the SAB will provide scientific and technical advice on about 20 key topical areas
related to: 1) the technical bases of EPA national standards for air pollutants and water
contaminants; 2) risk assessments of major environmental contaminants; 3) economic benefits
analyses of EPA's environmental programs; 4) EPA's research strategies and science plans. The
SAB Staff Office will also initiate a program evaluation study, i.e. Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART).
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$123.9) Increase in budget request reflects the increased cost of advisory activities.
EPM- 160
-------
Statutory Authority
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act, 42 U.S.C. ง
4365; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. C; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,
see 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2); Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, see 42 U.S.C. 7612
EPM- 161
-------
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks; Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $1,751.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Science Policy and Biotechnology (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$1,668.5
$1,668.5
9.1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,707.2
$1,707.2
6.3
FY 2006
Request
$1,751.1
$1,751.1
6.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$43.9
$43.9
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Agency will continue providing scientific and policy expertise and coordinating EPA
interagency and international efforts as well as facilitating the sharing of information related to
core science policy issues concerning pesticides and toxic chemicals. Biotechnology is
illustrative of the work encompassed by this program. Many different offices within EPA
regularly deal with biotechnology issues, and the coordination among affected offices allows for
coherent and consistent scientific policy from a broad Agency perspective. The Biotechnology
team will respond to requests for scientific input or advice on policy developments within the
government, facilitate interagency coordination on biotechnology issues, and serve as a liaison
from EPA to other executive branch agencies. Internationally, EPA will continue participating in
a variety of activities related to biotechnology and is fully committed to and engaged in
international dialogues. The Biotechnology team will continue helping to formulate EPA and
United States positions on biotechnology issues including representation on United States
delegations to international meetings when needed. Such international activity is coordinated
with the Department of State.
The Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), operating under the rules and regulations of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, will continue to serve as the primary external independent scientific
peer review mechanism for EPA's pesticide programs.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA estimates that the SAP will be asked to complete at least 14 reviews in FY 2006. The
specific topics to be placed on the FIFRA SAP agenda are typically confirmed a few months in
advance of each session and typically include difficult, new or controversial scientific issues
EPM- 162
-------
identified in the course of EPA's pesticide program activities. In FY 2006 it is reasonable to
anticipate that topics will likely include issues related to biotechnology, chemical-specific risk
assessments, novel exposure and hazard models, and cumulative risk assessment models.
EPA will continue to play a lead role in evaluating the scientific and technical issues associated
with plant-incorporated protectants based on plant viral coat proteins. In 2004, EPA convened a
SAP meeting to evaluate potential risks and possible mitigation measures associated with these
products. In FY 2006, after further analysis and consideration of the report, rule-making may be
required to be required to resolve the regulatory status of such products at the Agency.
EPA will also, in conjunction with an interagency workgroup, continue to maintain and further
develop the U.S. Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website. The site focuses on the
laws and regulations governing agricultural products of modern biotechnology and includes a
searchable database of genetically engineered crop plants that have completed review for use in
the United States.31
In addition, a number of international activities will continue to be supported by EPA, including
representation on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Working
Group on the Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology and Task Force on the
Safety of Food and Feed.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Federal Fungicide, Insecticide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
31 http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/
EPM- 163
-------
Small Business Ombudsman
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $3,910.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Small Business Ombudsman (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$1,657.1
$1,657.1
7.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$3,838.7
$3,838.7
13.0
FY 2006
Request
$3,910.6
$3,910.6
13.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$71.9
$71.9
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Small Business Ombudsman (SBO) serves as EPA's gateway and leading advocate for small
business issues, partnering with Small Business Assistance Programs (SBAPs) in each state and
hundreds of small business trade associations to reach out to the small business community.
These partnerships provide the information and perspective EPA needs to help small businesses
achieve their environmental goals. The SBO outreach and communication services help small
businesses learn about new EPA actions and developments and helps EPA to hear and learn
about the concerns of small businesses. This is a comprehensive program that provides
networks, resources, tools, and forums for education and advocacy on behalf of small businesses.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
SBO participates in the regulatory development process and program and regional office small
business related meetings, operates the Small Business Ombudsman Hotline, and supports
internal and external small business activities. SBO provides a service to Agency program and
regional offices, and other agencies by disseminating their information, and providing tools and
information that SBAPs need to assist small businesses. SBO supports partnerships with and
provides training to state SBAPs in order to reach an ever-increasing number of small businesses
to assist them with updated and new approaches for improving their environmental performance.
SBO provides technical assistance (e.g., tools, workshops, conferences and training forums)
designed to help small businesses become better environmental performers and help our partners
provide the assistance they need. In FY 2006, SBO will:
EPM- 164
-------
Promote EPA's Small Business Strategy and coordinate the Agency's Strategy
Implementation Plan activities to bring unity and improved effectiveness to Agency-wide
efforts to assist small businesses in improving their environmental performance;
Strengthen and support partnerships with state SBAPs and trade associations because
they have the ability to directly impact improved environmental performance for small
businesses;
Develop practical tools, resources, and training that assist state SBAPs to provide broader
assistance to small businesses through environmental management and multi-media
approaches;
Lead Agency efforts to promote a "model multi-media program" for states that can be
presented to the National Governors' Association;
Work with the Office of Air and Radiation and representatives from the state SBAPs to
involve small businesses in the development of the proposed 55 Area Source MACT
rules;
Plan and convene the second National Summit on Small Business;
Serve as the Agency's Point of Contact for the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
(SBPRA), working with an established Agency-wide workgroup to address the
requirement to "make efforts to further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees;"
Implement EPA's Small Business Awards Program to recognize state SBAPs, small
businesses, and trade associations that have directly impacted the improved
environmental performance of small businesses.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, section 507
EPM- 165
-------
Small Minority Business Assistance
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $2,347.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Small Minority Business Assistance (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$2,977.8
$2,977.8
14.7
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $2,282.0
$2,282.0
11.9
FY 2006
Request
$2,347.8
$2,347.8
11.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$65. 8
$65.8
-0.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program provides technical assistance to Headquarters and Regional employees to ensure
that small, minority, and women-owned businesses receive a fair share of EPA's procurement
dollars. This enhances the ability of small, minority, and women-owned businesses to participate
in the protection of public health and the environment. The functions assigned to this area
involve ultimate accountability for evaluating and monitoring contracts, grants and cooperative
agreements entered into on behalf of offices at EPA's headquarters and regional offices to ensure
they further the Federal laws and regulations regarding utilization of small and disadvantaged
business in direct procurement acquisitions and indirect procurement assistance.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Small and minority business procurement experts will provide assistance to Headquarters and
Regional program office personnel, as well as small business owners, to ensure that small,
minority, women-owned, Historically Underutilized Business Zone, and Service Disabled
Veteran-Owned small businesses receive a fair share of EPA's procurement dollars. This fair
share may be received either directly or indirectly through contracts, grants, cooperative
agreements, or interagency agreements. EPA has a number of national goals that it negotiates
with the Small Business Administration (SBA) every two years. EPA's goals for FY 2004/2005
were based on estimated contract obligations of $1.2 billion for prime contracts and $200 million
for subcontracts. (See chart.) EPA's goals for FY 2006/2007 will be negotiated with the SB A
during the summer of 2005.
EPM- 166
-------
EPA's Current Direct Procurement Goals
Estimated Obligations
DIRECT
Small Businesses
8(a) Businesses
Non 8(a) Small Disadvantaged Businesses
Women-Owned Small Businesses
HUBZone Businesses
Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses
SUBCONTRACT
Small Businesses
Small Disadvantaged Businesses
Women-Owned Small Businesses
HUBZone Businesses
Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses
FY2004/2005 Goals
$ Value
$324 M
$75M
$36M
$60M
$36M
$36M
$ Value
$100M
$40M
$15M
$6M
$6M
Goal
27.0%
6.3%
3.0%
5.0%
3.0%
3.0%
Goal
50.0%
20.0%
7.5%
3.0%
3.0%
Contract bundling reviews of an increased number of Agency contracts will emphasize ways to
1) eliminate unnecessary contract bundling, and 2) mitigate the effects of bundling on America's
small business community. In FY 2006, special emphasis will be placed on working with
service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, as mandated by the White House's October 21,
2004 Executive Order, which requires increased federal contracting opportunities for this group
of entrepreneurs. Outreach and in-reach efforts will help EPA meet its 3 percent procurement
goal for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses that was established by the new
Executive Order and SBA Regulation ( F.R. Vol. 69, No. 87, May 5, 2004), its 5 percent goal for
women-owned small businesses, and 3 percent goal for HUBZones.
Under its Indirect Procurement Program, EPA has a statutory goal of 10 percent utilization of
Minority Business Enterprises/Worn en-Owned Business Enterprises for research conducted
under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, as well as a statutory 8 percent goal for all other
programs. The Small Minority Business Assistance program encourages the Agency to meet
these direct and indirect procurement goals. These efforts will enhance the ability of America's
small and disadvantaged businesses to help the Agency protect human health and the
environment and, at the same time, create more jobs. As a result of the Supreme Court's
decision in Adarand v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995), EPA will finalize a rule for the
participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in procurements funded through EPA's
assistance agreements in the latter part of 2005. In 2006, the Agency will begin implementing
the certification requirements of the final rule.
EPM- 167
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Small Business Act, sections 8 and 15, as amended; Executive Orders 12073, 12432, and 12138;
P.L. 106-50
EPM- 168
-------
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $12,327.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$11,690.0
$11,690.0
54.7
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$12,134.8
$12,134.8
60.2
FY 2006
Request
$12,327.9
$12,327.9
57.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$193.1
$193.1
-2.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA has a responsibility for protecting the public and the environment from the harm associated
with catastrophic releases of hazardous substances that occur at chemical handling facilities. Per
section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA regulations require that facilities handling more
than a threshold quantity of certain extremely hazardous substances must implement a risk
management program and submit to EPA a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP must also
be sent to the state, local planning entity, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board,
and be made available to the public. The RMP describes key elements of the hazards of the
chemicals used by the facility, the potential consequences of worst case and other accidental
release scenarios, a five-year accident history, the chemical accident prevention program in place
at the site, and the emergency response program used by the site to minimize the impacts on the
public or environment should a chemical release occur. Facilities are required to update their first
RMP at least every five years, sooner if certain changes are made at the facility.
The Agency works with state and local partners to help them implement their own risk
management program through technical assistance grants, technical support, outreach and
training. EPA also works with communities to provide chemical risk information on local
facilities, as well as assist them in understanding how the chemical risks may affect their
citizens. With this information, communities are in a better position to reduce and mitigate
releases that may occur.
RMP data has become a valuable source to homeland security analysts for the identification of
potential hazards in the chemical sector. EPA assists other Federal agencies by providing
updated copies of the RMP database for their vulnerability analyses and responds to interagency
inquiries. In addition, EPA provides states and local government entities information and
EPM- 169
-------
analysis from the RMP database that may be helpful for homeland security planning related to
chemical accidents.
FY 2006 Activities and Highlights
The Agency will continue its efforts to help state and local partners implement the Risk
Management program. EPA will continue to refine RMP database analyses, make the data more
easily available to appropriate government agencies and improve data utility for security and
emergency prevention, preparedness, and response efforts. EPA will also use information
generated by the RMP with other Right-to-Know data to develop voluntary initiatives and
activities aimed at risk reduction in high-risk facilities, priority industry sectors, and/or specific
geographic areas.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish a system to audit RMPs. In an effort to help
agencies, states, and prospective third party auditors acquire or improve skills required to
conduct audits, EPA has developed and implemented an RMP audit curriculum. This training
will be offered extensively throughout the country in FY 2006. The audit system is used to
continuously improve the quality of risk management programs as well as check compliance
with the requirements. In FY 2006, the EPA and other implementing agencies will perform their
audit obligations through a combination of desk audits of RMP plans and on-site facility
inspections. A total of 400 audits will be conducted during this period. Additionally in FY 2006,
EPA will conduct extensive quality assurance oversight of data collection and reporting
procedures in order to ensure that RMP data continues to be accurate and reliable.
In FY 2005 and FY 2006, EPA will transition the RMP submission system to allow complete
Internet-based plan submission. Transitioning the system to full internet-based submission
capability will reduce facility burden, reduce data processing errors, and result in more timely
updates of EPAs RMP*Info database.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986; Section 112r, Accidental Release
Provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Chemical Safety Information, Site
Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act.
EPM- 170
-------
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Protect the Ozone Layer
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $3,969.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,884.2
$5,884.2
28.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$5,839.6
$5,839.6
28.2
FY 2006
Request
$3,969.0
$3,969.0
27.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,870.6)
($1,870.6)
-1.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program will protect the earth's stratospheric ozone layer through the domestic phase-out of
ozone depleting substances (ODSs).
The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on earth by preventing harmful UV radiation from
reaching the earth's surface. Scientific evidence amassed over the past 25 years has shown that
ODSs used around the world are destroying the stratospheric ozone layer.1 Increased levels of
UV radiation due to ozone depletion may increase incidence of skin cancer, cataracts, and other
illnesses.2
EPA estimates that, in the United States alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODSs will avoid 299
million cases of fatal and non-fatal skin cancers and 27.5 million cases of cataracts between 1990
and 2165.3 This estimate is based on the assumption that international ODS phaseout targets will
be achieved, allowing the ozone layer to begin recovery by the middle of this century.
EPA's Domestic Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program will implement the provisions of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the Act) which will lead to the reduction and control of
ODSs in the U.S. and lower health risks to the American public due to exposure to UV radiation.
The Act provides for a phaseout of production and consumption of ODSs and requires controls
on various products containing ODSs.
1 World Meteorological Organization (WMO). "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002." WMO: Geneva,
Switzerland. February 2003.
2 World Health Organization. "Solar Radiation and Human Health: Fact Sheet No. 227." August 1999. Accessed Decenber 30,
2003. Available on the Internet at: www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact227.html.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010: EPAReportto
Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999.
EPM- 171
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will implement the domestic rulemaking agenda for reduction and control of ODSs and will
provide compliance assistance and enforce rules controlling their production, import, and
emission. EPA's ozone protection program will combine market-based regulatory approaches
with sector-specific technology guidelines, and will facilitate the development and
commercialization of alternatives to ODSs.
Pollution prevention is an important element in achieving the ozone protection objective. The
National Emission Reduction Program will require recovery and recycling or reclamation of
ODSs, primarily in the air-conditioning and refrigeration sectors. Also, under the Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP), EPA will review newly developed alternatives to ODSs and, if
necessary, will restrict use of alternatives for a given application that are more harmful to human
health and the environment on an overall basis.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$2,000) This reduction to the non-payroll resources in the Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic
Program reflects efficiency gains, better coordination with regulated community, and
completion of methyl bromide rule.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA), Title I, Parts A and D (42U.S.C. 7401-7434, 7501-
7515), Title V (42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f), and Title VI (42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q); The Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
EPM- 172
-------
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Protect the Ozone Layer
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $13,500.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$10,863.6
$10,863.6
-1.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$13,500.0
$13,500.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$13,500.0
$13,500.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program will protect the earth's stratospheric ozone layer through the international phaseout
of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs).
The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on earth by preventing harmful UV radiation from
reaching the earth's surface. Scientific evidence amassed over the past 25 years has shown that
ODSs used around the world are destroying the stratospheric ozone layer.1 Increased levels of
UV radiation due to ozone depletion may increase incidence of health effects such as skin
cancer, cataracts, and other illnesses.2 Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer and
accounts for more than 50 percent of all cancers in adults.3 Increased UV levels have also been
associated with other human and non-human risks, including immune suppression and effects on
aquatic ecosystems and agricultural crops.
EPA estimates that, in the United States alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODSs will avoid 299
million cases of fatal and non-fatal skin cancers and 27.5 million cases of cataracts between 1990
and 2165.4 This estimate is based on the assumption that international ODS phaseout targets will
be achieved, allowing the ozone layer to begin recovery by the middle of this century.
1 World Meteorological Organization (WMO). "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002." WMO: Geneva,
Switzerland. February 2003.
2 World Health Organization. "Solar Radiation and Human Health: Fact Sheet No. 227." August 1999. Accessed Decenber 30,
2003. Available on the Internet at: www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact227.html.
3 American Cancer Society. "What are the Key Statistics for Melanoma?" Accessed December 30,2003. Available on the
Internet at: www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/CRI_0.asp.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010: EPAReportto
Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999.
EPM- 173
-------
Under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the U.S. and other
developed countries contribute to the Multilateral Fund to support projects and activities that
eliminate the production and use of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) in developing
countries. Currently, the United States and 187 other countries are parties to the Montreal
Protocol. The United States has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to this international treaty
and to demonstrating world leadership by phasing out domestic production of ODSs, as well as
helping other countries find suitable alternatives. The Protocol makes developing country
compliance contingent on support from the Multilateral Fund, and continued support for the
Fund is critical if we are to ensure restoration and protection of the ozone layer.
In addition, the fund has reached long-term agreements to dismantle all developing country CFC
and halon production capacity. Final closure of facilities depends on continued annual funding
for these agreements.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA's contributions to the Multilateral Fund in FY 2006 will help the Fund support cost-
effective projects designed to build capacity and eliminate ODS production and consumption in
over 60 developing countries.
The fund has supported over 4,480 activities in 134 countries that, when fully implemented, will
prevent annual emissions of more than 174,000 metric tons of ODSs. Over 60% of project
activities have been implemented to date, and the remaining work is expected to be fully
implemented by 2009.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No changes from FY 2005 to FY 2006
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA), Title I, Parts A and D (42U.S.C. 7401-7434, 7501-
7515), Title V (42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f), and Title VI (42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q); The Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
EPM- 174
-------
Surface Water Protection
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality; Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $194,801.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Surface Water Protection (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$177,600.2
$177,600.2
1,112.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$191,796.6
$191,796.6
1,146.1
FY 2006
Request
$194,801.5
$194,801.5
1,115.4
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$3,004.9
$3,004.9
-30.7
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The EPA Surface Water Protection Program, under the Clean Water Act, directly supports
efforts to restore and improve the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams. EPA works with States to
make continued progress toward the clean water goals identified in the Strategic Plan by:
implementing core clean water programs, including innovations that apply programs on a
watershed basis, and accelerating efforts to improve water quality on a watershed basis.
EPA focuses its work with States, interstate agencies, Tribes and others in key areas, including:
water quality criteria and standards, effluent guidelines, cooling water intake regulations,
analytical methods, water quality assessment and monitoring, national water quality data
systems, watershed management planning, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), nonpoint pollutant sources, and effectively
managing infrastructure assistance programs. EPA IS also responsible for producing the Clean
Water needs survey, management and oversight of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF).
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Water Quality Standards provide the regulatory and scientific foundation for water quality
protection programs under the Clean Water Act (CWA). They are used to define what waters are
clean and what waters are impaired, and thereby, serve as benchmarks for decisions about
allowable pollutant loadings into waterways. (For more information see
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/)
EPM- 175
-------
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to implement the Strategy for Water Quality Standards and
Criteria, developed in cooperation with States. Water quality standards and criteria program will
focus on directly supporting regional offices, States and Tribes to: continue to develop ambient
water quality criteria for chemical pollutants and pathogens; reduce the backlog of water quality
standards actions; establish the highest attainable uses in water quality standards; and strengthen
the scientific foundation on which to manage the water quality standards program. In FY 2006,
EPA requests additional funding in Section 106 grants to States to continue the monitoring
initiative, which began in FY 2005. These funds will be used to continue the monitoring
network established to obtain statistically valid characterization of water quality conditions at the
national level for all water types. It builds on the 2004 Condition Report and the ongoing
wadeable streams study, with a report on baseline conditions due at the end of 2005. In 2006,
the focus will be on lakes. The intent is that surveys will be repeated periodically so that trends
can be tracked, giving decision makers and the public the information they need to determine
effectiveness of our investments in water quality protection.
In 2006 EPA will continue working with States, interstate agencies, and Tribes to foster a
"watershed approach" as the guiding principle of clean water programs. In watersheds where
quality standards are not attained, States will be developing TMDLs, a critical tool for meeting
water restoration goals. Watershed plans and TMDLs will focus pollution control efforts for
impaired waters on a range of pollution sources, including runoff from nonpoint sources. States
and EPA have made significant progress in the development and approval of TMDLs (10,800
completed in FY 2001-2004) and expect to maintain the current pace of more than 3,000 TMDLs
per year. During 2006 EPA incorporate technical improvements and new science into Better
Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Source (BASINS), a multipurpose
environmental analysis system for performing watershed and water quality based studies.
Protection of water quality on a watershed basis requires a careful assessment of the sources of
pollution, their location and setting within the watershed, their relative influence on water
quality, and their amenability to preventive or control methods. In its implementation of the
national nonpoint source program, which is the key program for addressing most of the
remaining water quality problems, in FY 2006 EPA will support efforts of States, Tribes, other
Federal agencies, and local communities to develop and implement watershed-based plans that
successfully address all of these factors to enable impaired waters to be restored. In 2006 EPA
will provide program leadership and technical support in the following key areas:
Creating, supporting, and promoting technical tools that are needed by States to accurately
assess water quality problems, sources, and causes; analyze potential solutions; and
implement those solutions;
Creating web-based solutions that integrate existing and newly-developed tools within a
decision-support framework to solve watershed problems;
Enhancing accountability for results in improving water quality by completing a new Oracle-
based GRTS tracking system for the 319 grants program which will track successful
remediation of impaired waters; and
Preventing new nonpoint sources of pollution by developing and broadly disseminating
technical and programmatic tools that support Low Impact Development (LID).
EPM- 176
-------
Working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure that Federal resources, including
grants under Section 319 and Farm Bill funds, are managed in a coordinated way to
maximize water quality improvement in impaired waters and protection in all others.
The NPDES program requires point source dischargers to be permitted and pretreatment
programs to control discharges from industrial and other facilities to the Nation's wastewater
treatment plants. This program provides a management framework for the protection of the
Nation's waters through the control of billions of pounds of pollutants. In 2006 EPA focus on
six key strategic objectives for the program:
Assure effective management of the permit program and focus on permits that have the
greatest benefit for water quality;
Implement wet weather point source controls, including the storm water program;
Implement the newly developed program for permits at Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFO);
Advance program innovations, such as watershed permitting and trading;
Develop national industrial regulations for industries where the risk to waterbodies supports a
national regulation; and
Provide rural and small communities and special populations with the information and tools
they need to sustain themselves as healthy and successful communities.
Also in 2006, EPA will implement the "Permitting for Environmental Results Strategy" to
address concern for the workload in permit issuance and the health of State NPDES
programs, focusing limited resources on the most critical environmental problems.
New rules have been finalized for discharges from CAFOs and EPA will work with States to
assure that permits cover most CAFOs by 2008. In addition, EPA expects that 100% of NPDES
programs will have issued general permits requiring storm water management programs for
Phase II municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and requiring storm water pollution
prevention plans for construction sites covered by Phase II of the storm water program by 2008.
The Agency will continue to work with its partners to facilitate the voluntary adoption of best
management practices in wastewater asset management, innovations, and efficiency with the
long-term goal of sustainable wastewater utilities that are able to maximize the value of clean
water by improving system performance at the lowest possible cost. We will continue efforts
towards developing a water efficiency market enhancement program, which will give consumers
a reference tool to identify and select water-efficient products. The intent of the program is to
reduce national water and wastewater infrastructure needs by reducing projected water demand
and wastewater flows allowing deferral or downsizing of capital projects.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$1,700.0) This reduction is a result of reduced needs in the surface water protection
programs, like: effluent guidelines development due to fewer rulemaking starts than in
prior years and the Construction Grants program due to progress in the completion and
closeout of construction grants.
EPM- 177
-------
(-30.7 FTE) The reduction in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment
described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of
Agency authorized positions, but not to over all Agency FTE utilization.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act
EPM- 178
-------
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $9,057.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$10,897.9
$10,897.9
57.7
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$9,514.2
$9,514.2
54.5
FY 2006
Request
$9,057.7
$9,057.7
53.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($456.5)
($456.5)
-0.7
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program/Project Description
EPA has established national programs to promote reductions in use, safe removal,
disposal and containment of certain prevalent, high-risk chemicals that were introduced into the
environment before their risks were known. These chemicals include polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), dioxin, mercury, asbestos/fibers, and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT)
chemicals generally.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E)
EPA will continue to assist the healthcare sector in reducing the use and disposal of
mercury by up to 10 tons, while continuing to recruit new H2E Partner hospitals with a goal of
enlisting 3,500 facilities. EPA will begin a collaborative partnership with the Joint Commission
for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) to promote environmental
compliance and pollution prevention, promote "blanket purchase agreements" among Group
Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) to encourage the healthcare sector to purchase
environmentally preferable products, and provide the elderly and their caregivers with a "Guide
to Choosing an Environmentally Friendly Care Facility."
Polvchlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
EPA will continue to implement a national voluntary phase-out of PCB Large Capacitors
and PCB Transformers by 2025 as required by the Stockholm Convention, focusing on major
Federal and private owners and operators of electrical equipment. Priorities include the
EPM- 179
-------
identification of opportunities for replacement of older, less efficient equipment with newer more
efficient equipment and the accelerated phase-out of PCB-containing electrical equipment as
supplemental environmental projects.
EPA will continue to work with the Maritime Administration (MARAD) in order to
dispose of its fleet of obsolete ships which contain equipment using PCBs. In addition, the
Agency will continue to work with the Department of Defense to approve the disposal via
incineration of PCBs in nerve agent rockets. The focus of activity in 2006 will shift to
monitoring compliance with the conditions of the PCB disposal approvals.
EPA will continue to ensure that PCB waste is properly stored and disposed of, that PCB
remediation sites are cleaned up correctly, and that reductions are achieved in the number of
PCB transformers and capacitors still in use. Specific activities include advising the regulated
community on PCB remediation, reviewing and acting on PCB disposal applications, and
overseeing PCB permitted storage and disposal facilities.
Dioxin
EPA will continue to be part of an interagency effort to assess potential dioxin risks to the
public, focusing on identifying and better quantifying the link between sources of dioxin-like
compounds and potential human exposures. Results from the Agency's Dioxin Exposure
Initiative (DEI) have already resulted in the identification of additional sources, and the
establishment of baseline measurements of dioxins in food and air.
On the international level, EPA will continue to provide the lead for U.S. participation
and development of a draft Phase I North American Regional Action Plan for Dioxins and
Furans, and Hexachlorobenzene.
Mercury
EPA will use both voluntary and regulatory tools, as appropriate, to reduce the quantity
of mercury in products and the associated municipal waste streams. For enhancing mercury risk
communication, the Agency will develop tools for educating different audiences about the risks
of eating mercury-contaminated fish and wildlife.
Asbestos/Fibers
EPA will continue its scientific research on asbestos including examining results from its
studies into the potential for exposure to asbestos fibers from vermiculite in building insulation
materials. The Agency will continue its public awareness efforts aimed at asbestos-contaminated
vermiculite attic insulation and its outreach and technical assistance for the asbestos program for
schools, in coordination with other Federal agencies, States, the National Parent-Teachers
Association, and the National Education Association.
EPA will continue to provide oversight and regulatory interpretation to delegated state
and local asbestos demolition and renovation programs, respond to tips and complaints regarding
EPM- 180
-------
the Asbestos-in-Schools Rule, respond to public requests for assistance, and help asbestos
training providers to comply with the Model Accreditation Plan requirements.
For more information, visit www.epa.gov/oppt.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$718.0) This decrease in resources reflects: 1) completion of certain activities,
including the dioxin exposure reassessment, associated with review of Dioxin-related
health and environmental risks; and 2) savings in administration of the Hospitals for a
Healthy Environment (H2E) Program due to increased support from private sector
partners.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA);
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA); Asbestos Information Act.
EPM- 181
-------
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $44,523.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$46,031.2
$46,031.2
256.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$45,878.8
$45,878.8
247.0
FY 2006
Request
$44,523.1
$44,523.1
245.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,355.7)
($1,355.7)
-2.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program spans the full range of EPA activities dealing with review of new and existing
chemicals, including the High Production Volume Challenge (HPV) and Voluntary Children's
Chemical Evaluation (VCCEP) Programs. These activities focus on reviewing and, as necessary,
reducing the health and environmental risks of new chemicals introduced into the United States
(U.S.) marketplace as well as chemicals already in commerce.
EPA has developed long-term (2008) strategic targets for a variety of critical activities under this
program, including: preventing unreasonable risks from new chemicals; reducing chronic human
health risks from industrial releases; managing risks of HPV chemicals; completing risk
assessments for VCCEP chemicals; and, increasing the efficiency of risk reduction efforts.
2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
New Chemicals Program
In FY 2006, EPA plans to continue its successful record of preventing the entry of chemicals that
pose unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment into U.S. commerce. Each
year EPA's New Chemicals Program reviews and manages the potential risks from
approximately 1,800 new chemicals and 40 products of biotechnology that enter the marketplace.
EPA has made encouraging progress in regard to its strategic target of increasing program
efficiency by training chemical designers to use EPA's risk screening tools early in research and
development, so that the Agency receives at least 40 pre-screened PreManufacture Notices
(PMNs) per year. FY 2004 results exceeded this target, with 159 new chemical submissions
EPM- 182
-------
containing some amount of self-audit data. Of these, 71 were detailed analyses meeting the full
pre-screening requirement of the strategic target.
Existing Chemicals Program
The TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) has recently been amended to include inorganic
chemicals beginning in 2006, and will include manufacturing exposure-related information in all
reports. Processing and use information will be collected on about 4,000 organic chemicals in
2006. Inventory Update Rule data are often the first sources searched when EPA investigates a
chemical and the data are used in a variety of ways. The Agency will continue its outreach and
training efforts to ensure that submitters provide the best possible information and will continue
to develop the database to house the collected information.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue its efforts to assess and, if indicated, manage risks associated
with brominated flame retardants (BFRs), which are used in some furniture, fabrics, plastics,
consumer electronics and wire insulation. The Agency will also continue its ongoing efforts to
assess the potential risks of newly-developed BFR substitutes. EPA has developed an effort to
engage interested stakeholders in a cooperative process to evaluate the efficacy and potential
risks of developing flame retardants, in order to assure that lower risk products are available to
meet the important public safety need for flame retardant products. EPA will also evaluate and
implement perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) risk management actions, as indicated by the results
of ongoing risk assessment and testing under enforceable consent agreements.
High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program
In FY 2006, EPA will focus its HPV resources on making test data more accessible to the public
through more efficient data systems that meet specific identified stakeholder needs and through
technical guidance. EPA will also begin to screen submitted data and identify chemicals of
potential concern that may require additional work, currently anticipated to involve 5 to 10
percent of screened chemicals.
EPA will continue its participation in the International Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) program along with other
OECD member countries. EPA plans to complete the review of 50 chemicals and initiate review
on at least 15 more.
Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP)
In FY 2006, EPA will continue its review of chemicals that may pose risks to children and finish
its initial assessment of the VCCEP pilot program.
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs)
In FY 2006, EPA's Acute Exposure Guideline Level (AEGLs) program plans to develop
Proposed AEGL values at the rate of 24 additional chemicals per year. This program is
discussed in more detail in EPM Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response and Recovery.
EPM- 183
-------
For more information, please visit www.epa.gov/oppt.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$2,150.0) This decrease reflects savings due to: 1) completion of major elements of the
High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) through which chemical risk
screening data obtained through the High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program
will be made more readily available to, and usable by, the public; and 2) efficiencies
achieved in providing information services support to the New and Existing Chemicals
Programs.
(-$850.0) The reduction in resources for the HPV Challenge Program reflects a
redirection from data screening and prioritization to higher priority activities. This will
not affect EPA's progress in making such data available to the public.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
EPM- 184
-------
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $10,548.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$11,831.1
$11,831.1
77.7
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$11,082.6
$11,082.6
91.4
FY 2006
Request
$10,548.9
$10,548.9
83.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($533.7)
($533.7)
-7.8
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program/Project Description
EPA's Lead Risk Reduction Program consists of several efforts aimed at alleviating the threat to
human health - particularly to young children - posed by exposure to lead-based paint and other
sources of lead in the environment. The Agency is working to maintain a national infrastructure
of trained and certified lead remediation professionals; establish hazard control methods and
standards to ensure that homeowners and others have access to safe, reliable and effective
methods to reduce lead exposure; and provide information to housing occupants so they can
make informed decisions about lead hazards in their homes.
EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan includes a strategic target for reducing the number of childhood
lead poisoning cases to 90,000 by 2008, from approximately 400,000 cases in 1999/2000.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue to provide support for the National Lead Information Center to disseminate
information primarily in electronic form. Limited mailing of hardcopy documents will continue
to be supported.
The Agency will continue to conduct limited education and outreach to the public on the hazards
of lead-contaminated paint, dust and soil; implement existing lead hazard reduction regulations;
and provide technical and policy assistance to states, Tribes, and other Federal agencies.
The Lead Risk Reduction Program has a companion STAG program, "Lead Categorical Grant."
The grant program focuses specifically on EPA assistance to states, territories and the District of
Columbia, for purposes including training of lead remediation professionals and contractor
EPM- 185
-------
certification. See the relevant program fact sheet for more information. Taken together, these
programs contribute to common strategic targets and annual performance goals.
For more information, visit www.epa.gov/oppt.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-533,700 and -7.8 FTE) This reduction is the result of the Agency wide plan to reduce
FTE and a shift in resources to priority activity.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authorities
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of
1992 (which is designated as Title IV of TSCA).
EPM- 186
-------
TRI/ Right to Know
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $14,753.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
TRI / Right to Know (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$14,144.7
$89.5
$14,234.2
51.7
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$15,940.9
$0.0
$15,940.9
44.2
FY 2006
Request
$14,753.7
$0.0
$14,753.7
44.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,187.2)
$0.0
($1,187.2)
-0.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The TRI program provides the public with information on the releases and other waste
management of toxic chemicals. The program: collects information on listed toxic chemicals
from certain industries and makes the information available to the public through a variety of
means, including a publicly accessible national database; operates and maintains the TRI (TRIS),
TRI-Explorer and TRI-Made Easy (TRI-ME) systems to facilitate the program's data collection
and reporting requirements; and, provides TRI program compliance assistance through extensive
outreach efforts including workshops and telephone hotlines.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue its effort to reduce the TRI
reporting burden on industry and improve TRI
data quality by developing and implementing
regulations to reduce reporting requirements
without compromising the utility of the data;
improving and distributing its software data
collection tool, TRI-Made Easy, including the
development of a web-based application; and re-engineering the TRI data processing flow (i.e.,
from collection through dissemination) in an effort to align with EPA's Enterprise Architecture.
In addition, EPA will continue to provide TRI facilities with compliance assistance through
workshops and a telephone hotline. EPA also will increase the percentage of TRI chemical forms
FY 2006 Program Activitie
Develop and implement regulations to reduce reporting
requirements
v^ Improve and distribute its software data collection tool;
and
v^ Re-engineer the TRI data processing flow
EPM- 187
-------
that are submitted in electronic format via EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (i.e., Internet
reporting).
The TRI program works closely with the Exchange Network program to coordinate more
efficient and effective data collection and system access using EPA's CDX node on the
Exchange Network. Data collection and reporting efforts use data standards and reporting
requirements outlined in the IT/Data Management program closely linking the programs and to
ensure appropriate information security, the TRI program implements information security
measures outlined by the Information Security program.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$1,187.2, -0.2 FTE) The reduction in resources represents a combination of efficiencies
gained in moving the TRI systems into a maintenance mode and building a web-based interface
(TRI-Explorer) to simplify reporting and resource shifts within the program to support better
information access and additional compliance assistance activities.
Statutory Authority
Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
SARA; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know; Clean Air Act and amendments;
Clean Water Act and amendments; Safe Drinking Water Act and amendments; Toxic Substance
Control Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Food Quality Protection Act;
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act; Government Performance and Results Act; Government Management
Reform Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; Freedom of Information Act;
Computer Security Act; Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act; Pollution
Prevention Act.
EPM- 188
-------
Tribal - Capacity Building
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Build Tribal Capacity
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $11,049.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Tribal - Capacity Building (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$10,188.0
$10,188.0
74.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$10,641.7
$10,641.7
72.1
FY 2006
Request
$11,049.0
$11,049.0
73.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$407.3
$407.3
1.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Under Federal environmental statutes, the Agency has responsibility for assuring human health
and environmental protection in Indian Country. EPA has worked to establish the internal
infrastructure and organize its activities in order to meet this responsibility. Since adoption of
the EPA Indian Policy in 1984, EPA has worked with Tribes on a government-to-government
basis that affirms the Federal trust responsibility that EPA has with each federally recognized
tribal government. The creation of EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) in
1994 took responsibility for such efforts and was a further step in ensuring environmental
protection in Indian Country.
EPA's strategy for building tribal capacity has three major components. First, work with Tribes
to create an environmental presence for each federally recognized Tribe (discussed under STAG
appropriation). Second, provide the information needed by the Tribe to meet EPA and tribal
environmental priorities. At the same time, ensure EPA has the ability to view and analyze the
conditions on Indian lands and the effects of EPA and tribal actions and programs on the
environmental conditions. Third, provide the opportunity for implementation of tribal
environmental programs by Tribes, or directly by EPA, as necessary.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA continues to construct an information technology infrastructure that organizes
environmental data on a tribal basis, enabling a clear, up-to-date picture of environmental
activities in Indian Country. The Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture includes access to a
wide variety of data and information from several agencies and numerous sources within those
agencies. The components of the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture create a broad,
EPM- 189
-------
multiple-variant view of the environmental conditions and programs in Indian Country. It also
includes several applications that perform analysis of information on environmental performance
in Indian Country for a wide variety of specific purposes.
EPA continues, in FY 2006, to take advantage of new technology to establish direct links with
other Federal agency data systems (including the U.S. Geological Service, Bureau of
Reclamation, and Indian Health Service) to further develop an integrated, comprehensive, multi-
agency Tribal Enterprise Architecture. The Agency continues to formalize interagency data
standards and protocols to ensure quality information is collected and reported consistently
among the Federal agencies. To this end, EPA has adopted Tribal Identifier codes that will
enable data systems to identify tribal sources of information. In FY 2006, EPA will integrate 10
agency data systems and assist other agencies to adopt these common codes.
The ability to comprehensively and accurately examine conditions and make assessments will
provide a blueprint for planning future activities through the development of tribal/EPA
Environmental Agreements (TEAs) or similar tribal environmental plans to address and support
priority environmental multi-media concerns in Indian Country. Vital to the EPA Indian Policy
are the principles that the Agency has a government-to-government relationship with Tribes and
that "EPA recognizes Tribes as the primary parties for setting standards, making environmental
policy decisions and managing programs for reservations, consistent with agency standards and
regulations." To that end, EPA "encourage[s] and assist[s] Tribes in assuming regulatory and
program management responsibilities," primarily through the Treatment in the Same Manner as
a State (TAS) processes available under several environmental statutes.
EPA's policy has been, and continues to be, that Tribes develop the capability to implement
federal programs themselves. However, in working with Tribes, EPA has realized that TAS may
not suit the needs of all Tribes. Some Tribes with acute pollution sources and other
environmental problems may be too small to support fully delegated or approved environmental
programs. Other Tribes are wary of seeking TAS status because it may lead to costly litigation
that may in turn lead to a diminishment of tribal sovereignty. In the absence of EPA-approved
tribal programs, EPA generally faces practical challenges in implementing the Federal programs
in Indian Country. EPA will continue to encourage and work with Tribes to develop their
capability to implement Federal environmental programs.
EPA is again proposing language that would allow EPA to award cooperative agreements to
federally recognized Indian Tribes or qualified Intertribal Consortia to assist the Administrator in
implementing Federal environmental programs for Indian Country.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of 1992 as amended
EPM- 190
-------
US Mexico Border
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $5,975.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
US Mexico Border (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,680.1
$4,680.1
19.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
| $5,784.8
$5,784.8
29.9
FY 2006
Request
55,975.3
$5,975.3
24.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$190.5
$190.5
-5.7
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The U.S.-Mexico 2,000 mile border is one of the most complex and dynamic regions in the
world. This region accounts for 3 of the 10 poorest counties in the U.S., having an
unemployment rate 250 - 300 percent higher than the rest of the U.S., and 432,000 of the 14
million people live in 1,200 colonias, which are unincorporated communities characterized by
substandard housing and unsafe drinking water.
The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Program is a joint effort between the U.S. and Mexican
governments. The two governments work with the 10 Border States and with local communities
under a framework to protect the environment and public health along the U.S.-Mexico border
region, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. The results achieved to date
are extraordinary and include: (1) implementation of the first air quality improvement plan in
Mexico; (2) implementation of an economically sustainable plan to virtually eliminate used scrap
tire piles along the U.S.-Mexico border by 2010 (there are 15-20 million scrap tires in existence
in the border); (3) the removal of 300 tons of hazardous waste to protect a local, economically
disadvantaged residential community; (4) improvements to drinking water and waste water
infrastructure systems that will benefit approximately 1.5 million residents; and (5)
implementation of emergency response plans to better protect residents throughout the border
region in the event of accidental chemical releases or acts of terrorism.
EPM- 191
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The key areas of focus for the Border 2012 Program in FY 2006 will include: (1) the
improvement of water quality in the region; (2) the clean up of abandoned hazardous waste sites;
and (3) measures to protect and improve air quality along the 2000 mile border region.
Border residents suffer disproportionately from hepatitis A and other water-borne diseases
because of inadequate drinking water and sewage treatment facilities. By increasing the number
of connections to potable water systems by 25% by 2012, EPA and its partners will reduce
health risks to residents who may currently lack access to safe drinking water. Similarly, by
increasing the number of homes with access to basic sanitation, EPA and its partners will reduce
the discharge of untreated domestic wastewater into surface and ground water. In FY 2006, the
Border 2012 Program will establish a new baseline for the continued improvement of water
quality in the border region.
As a result of regional environmental degradation, some border residents suffer from pollutant-
related health problems. These problems can be related to improper management of hazardous
wastes and solid wastes. In FY 2006 the Border 2012 Program will develop a bi-national policy
to clean up and restore to productive use four abandoned sites contaminated with hazardous
waste or materials along the length of the border, in accordance with the laws of each country.
This policy will identify four priority sites to be cleaned in the border area by 2012, the first to
be done in 2007.
More than a third of Mexico's disease burden is the result of environmental factors, the most
serious of which is air pollution. A recent CEC study found that respiratory ailments related to
air pollution were the cause of death for at least half of the more than 2,800 minors who died in
the northern border city of Ciudad Juarez.1 In FY 2006, based on results obtained from defining
air emission baselines and scenarios in 2005, EPA and its partners will identify specific emission
reductions strategies and air quality and exposure objectives for the border region. The Border
2012 Program will also continue efforts to define along the border the impact of emissions on air
quality and human exposure.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act; Pollution Prevention Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act;
Annual Appropriation Acts
1 Romieu, Isabella, et al., Health Impacts of Air Pollution on Morbidity and Mortality Among Children of Ciudad
Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico. Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Montreal. November 2003.
EPM- 192
-------
Wetlands
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation EPM: $20,374.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Wetlands (EPM)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$18,282.0
$18,282.0
143.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$19,752.8
$19,752.8
150.1
FY 2006
Request
$20,374.5
$20,374.5
147.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$621.7
$621.7
-2.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's Wetlands Protection Program relies on partnerships with other programs within EPA,
other Federal agencies, State, tribal, and local governments, private landowners, and the general
public to improve protection of our nation's valuable wetlands resources. Working with other
Federal agencies and directly with States, Tribes, and local programs, EPA ensures a sound and
consistent approach to wetlands protection. Major activities of the Wetlands Protection Program
include administration of EPA's role in the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 program;
development and dissemination of rules, guidance, informational materials, and scientific tools to
improve management and public understanding of wetlands programs and legal requirements;
and managing financial assistance to States and Tribes to support development of strong
wetlands protection programs. EPA works with other Federal agencies to implement the
provisions of Section 404 of the CWA to protect wetlands, free-flowing streams and shallow
waters. EPA also works in partnership with State, tribal, and local agencies and non-
governmental organizations to conserve and restore wetlands and associated river corridors
through watershed planning approaches, voluntary and incentive-based programs, improved
scientific methods, information and education, and building the capacity of State and local
programs. For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Administration has set the stage for a growing commitment to a regulatory program aimed at
no net loss of wetlands. Approaches include public and private, regulatory and non-regulatory
initiatives and partnerships to restore, improve and protect of the Nation's wetlands. In
December 2003, the Administrator of EPA and the Assistant Secretary of the Army reaffirmed
the Administration's commitment to the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands under the Clean Water
EPM- 193
-------
Act section 404 regulatory program that the two agencies administer. In his 2004 Earth Day
address, the President announced a renewed effort to move beyond a policy of no-net loss to
achieve an overall increase in the Nation's wetland resources over the next five years. To
achieve this goal, the Administration will work through six Federal agencies to restore, improve
and protect at least three million acres of wetlands by 2009.
In FY 2006, EPA will work with its State and tribal partners to develop and implement broad-
based and integrated monitoring and assessment programs that improve data for decision-making
within the watersheds, address significant stressors, and report on condition as well as geo-
locating wetlands on the landscape. EPA will work to achieve national gains in wetlands acreage
by implementing an innovative partner-based wetlands and stream corridor restoration program.
The Agency, working with the Army Corps of Engineers, and other partners, will continue to
implement the Administration's Mitigation Action Plan and to build our capacity to measure
wetland function and condition, in addition to measuring wetland acreage. EPA's support will
help avoid or minimize wetland losses, and provide for full compensation for unavoidable losses
of wetland functions. Wetlands and stream corridor restoration will remain a focus for regaining
lost aquatic resources as is strengthening State and tribal wetland program to protect vulnerable
wetland resources. EPA will continue working to strengthen the EPA/ Army Corps of Engineers
Partnership and to work with its Federal partners to implement the elements of the National
Mitigation Action Plan. In addition, EPA will continue to administer Wetlands Program
Development Grants, with a focus starting in 2005 on State/tribal Wetlands Environmental
Outcomes.
FY 2006 Changes from FY 2005 President's Request (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; Clean Water
Act; 2002 Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990; Estuaries and
Clean Waters Act of 2000; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA); 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA); 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; 1996 Habitat
Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy; and US-Canada
Agreements.
EPM- 194
-------
Index - Environmental Program and Management
Acquisition Management 1,2, 5
Administrative Law 1, 2, 7
Alternative Dispute Resolution 1, 2, 9
Beach / Fish Programs 1, 2, 10
Brownfields 1,2, 13, 14
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 1,
2,15
Civil Enforcement.... 1, 2, 19, 20, 35, 37, 39,
42, 46, 53, 57, 122
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance... 1, 2, 22
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs 1, 2,
25
Clean School Bus Initiative 1, 2, 28
Climate Protection Program 1, 2, 29
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
1,2,33, 133, 192
Compliance Assistance and Centers. 1, 2, 35
Compliance Incentives... 1, 2, 19, 35, 37, 38,
39
Compliance Monitoring. 1, 2, 19, 35, 36, 37,
39,40
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations 1, 2, 41
Congress!onally Mandated Projects 2
Criminal Enforcement 1, 2, 20, 45, 46, 53
Drinking Water Programs 1, 2, 47
Endocrine Disrupters 1, 2, 51
Enforcement Training 1, 2, 45, 46, 53
Environment and Trade 1, 2, 55
Environmental Education 2
Environmental Justice 1, 2, 57, 58, 123
Exchange Network 1, 2, 59, 60, 103, 108,
109, 111, 188
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations. 1, 2,
61
Federal Stationary Source Regulations.. 1, 2,
63
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management 1, 2, 66
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program 1, 2,
69
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification 2
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management 1, 2, 71
Forensics Support 20
Geographic Program
Chesapeake Bay 1, 2, 73
Great Lakes 1, 3, 75
Gulf of Mexico 1, 3, 79
Lake Champlain 1, 3, 81
Long Island Sound 1, 3, 83
Other 1,3,85
Great Lakes Legacy Act 1, 3, 78, 88, 89
Homeland Security
Communication and Information.. 1, 3, 90
Critical Infrastructure Protection .. 1, 3, 92
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. 1,
3,94
Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure 2, 3, 96
Human Resources Management 2, 3, 98
Indoor Air
Radon Program 2,3, 100
Schools and Workplace Program 149
Information Security.. 2, 3, 60, 91, 102, 103,
111, 188
International Capacity Building 2, 3, 104
IT / Data Management 2,3, 108
Legal Advice
Environmental Program 2, 3, 112
Support Program 2, 3, 113
LUST/UST 2, 3, 114
Marine Pollution 2, 3, 116, 118
National Estuary Program / Coastal
Waterways 2, 3, 120
NEPA Implementation 2, 3, 122, 123
Pesticides
Field Programs 2, 3, 124
Registration of New Pesticides... 2, 3, 127
Review / Reregi strati on of Existing
Pesticides 2, 3, 129
Pollution Prevent!on Program. 2, 3, 132, 134
POPs Implementation 2, 3, 135
Radiation
Protection 2, 3, 137
Response Preparedness 2, 3, 139
-------
RCRA
Corrective Action 2, 3, 141
Waste Management 2, 3, 143
Waste Minimization & Recycling 2, 3,
146
Regional Geographic Initiatives 2, 3, 151
Regional Science and Technology.. 2, 3, 153
Regulatory Innovation 2, 3, 155
Regulatory /Economic-Management and
Analysis 2, 4, 158
Science Advisory Board 2, 4, 159, 160
Science Policy and Biotechnology.. 2, 4, 162
Small Business Ombudsman 2, 4, 164
Small Minority Business Assistance 2, 4,
166, 167
State and Local Prevention and
Preparedness 2, 4, 169
Stratospheric Ozone
Domestic Programs 2, 4, 171
Multilateral Fund 2, 4, 173
Surface Water Protection 2,4, 126, 175
Toxic Substances
Chemical Risk Management 2, 4, 179
Chemical Risk Review and Reduction .. 2,
4, 182
Lead Risk Reduction Program.... 2, 4, 185
TRI / Right to Know 2,4, 187
Tribal - Capacity Building 2, 4, 189
US Mexico Border 2, 4, 191
Wetlands .... 2, 4, 78, 82, 84, 85, 86, 89, 121,
193, 194
-------
Table of Contents - Superfund
Resource Summary Table 1
Program Projects in Superfund 1
Acquisition Management (Superfund) 3
Alternative Dispute Resolution (Superfund) 5
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations (Superfund) 6
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance (Superfund) 8
Civil Enforcement (Superfund) 10
Compliance Assistance and Centers (Superfund) 12
Compliance Incentives (Superfund) 14
Compliance Monitoring (Superfund) 16
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations (Superfund) 18
Criminal Enforcement (Superfund) 20
Enforcement Training (Superfund) 22
Environmental Justice (Superfund) 23
Exchange Network (Superfund) 24
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (Superfund) 27
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management (Superfund) 29
Forensics Support (Superfund) 31
Homeland Security: Communication and Information (Superfund) 33
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (Superfund) 35
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (Superfund) 36
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure (Superfund) 39
Human Health Risk Assessment (Superfund) 41
Human Resources Management (Superfund) 43
Information Security (Superfund) 45
IT / Data Management (Superfund) 47
Legal Advice: Environmental Program (Superfund) 51
Radiation: Protection (Superfund) 52
Research: Land Protection and Restoration (Superfund) 54
Research: SITE Program (Superfund) 56
Research: Sustainability (Superfund) 58
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal (Superfund) 59
Superfund: Enforcement (Superfund) 61
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness (Superfund) 64
Superfund: Federal Facilities (Superfund) 66
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement (Superfund) 69
Superfund: Remedial (Superfund) 70
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies (Superfund) 73
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Hazardous Substance Superfund
Resource Summary Table
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2004
Obligations
$1,364,948.4
3,321.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,381,416.0
3,352.7
FY 2006
Request
$1,279,333.0
3,331.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($102,083.0)
-21.1
BILL LANGUAGE: SUPERFUND
For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections
lll(c)(3),(c)(5),(c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for construction, alteration, repair,
rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project;[$l,257,537,000]
$1,279,333,000, to remain available until expended, consisting of such sums as are available in
the Trust Fund upon the date of enactment of this Act as authorized by section 517(a) of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and up to [$1,257,537,000]
$1,279,333,000 as a payment from general revenues to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for
purposes as authorized by section 517(b) of (SARA), as amended: Provided, That funds
appropriated under this heading may be allocated to other Federal agencies in accordance with
section 11 l(a) of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading,
[$13,000,000] $13,536,000 shall be transferred to the "Office of Inspector General"
appropriation to remain available until September 30, [2006, and $36,097,000] 2007, and
$30,604,900 shall be transferred to the "Science and technology" appropriation to remain
available until September 30, [2006] 2007. (Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.)
and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.)
Program Projects in Superfund
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Acquisition Management
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Brownfields *
Brownfields Projects *
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Enforcement
Compliance Assistance and Centers
FY 2004
Obligations
$17,465.1
$0.0
$14,426.1
$20.9
$3,995.9
$19,945.2
$131.4
$0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$19,028.5
$874.7
$13,138.6
$0.0
$0.0
$20,945.5
$659.3
$26.6
FY 2006
Request
$20,367.4
$984.8
$13,536.0
$0.0
$0.0
$22,445.0
$883.2
$22.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,338.9
$110.1
$397.4
$0.0
$0.0
$1,499.5
$223.9
($4.1)
Superfund-1
-------
Program Project
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Environmental Justice
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Forensics Support
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel
and Infrastructure
Human Health Risk Assessment
Human Resources Management
IT / Data Management
Information Security
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Radiation: Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: Pollution Prevention
Research: SITE Program
Research: Sustainability
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies
FY 2004
Obligations
$564.2
$0.0
$162.7
$7,764.8
$1,034.6
$1,092.5
$2,631.4
$62,299.2
$3,054.2
$3,497.6
$0.0
$1,447.7
$63,979.9
$677.8
$3,952.6
$5,034.7
$16,886.3
$151.4
$800.6
$2,223.9
$32,264.8
$890.5
$5,815.2
$593.0
$205,310.2
$161,412.6
$7,705.0
$31,481.6
$7,987.2
$673,394.0
$5,446.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$188.8
$881.8
$184.0
$8,635.7
$755.7
$800.0
$2,342.5
$70,981.9
$2,933.2
$4,189.3
$0.0
$852.6
$29,163.2
$600.0
$3,951.8
$4,410.6
$16,628.4
$508.9
$844.0
$2,323.2
$22,671.1
$593.0
$6,927.7
$593.0
$201,088.0
$155,809.8
$10,091.4
$32,182.0
$10,044.4
$725,483.8
$10,676.0
FY 2006
Request
$168.1
$1,156.7
$161.0
$9,504.2
$613.9
$845.2
$1,676.2
$72,725.9
$2,578.9
$3,840.3
$300.0
$1,052.6
$48,964.9
$600.0
$4,021.5
$4,789.7
$16,113.2
$408.8
$836.1
$2,387.1
$23,098.7
$0.0
$1,484.7
$0.0
$197,999.9
$164,257.7
$10,506.8
$31,610.9
$10,240.9
$599,396.0
$9,754.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($20.7)
$274.9
($23.0)
$868.5
($141.8)
$45.2
($666.3)
$1,744.0
($354.3)
($349.0)
$300.0
$200.0
$19,801.7
$0.0
$69.7
$379.1
($515.2)
($100.1)
($7.9)
$63.9
$427.6
($593.0)
($5,443.0)
($593.0)
($3,088.1)
$8,447.9
$415.4
($571.1)
$196.5
($126,087.8)
($921.8)
* There is no factsheet for this program because there are no resources being requested.
Superfund-2
-------
Acquisition Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $20,367.4 (Dollars in Thousands)
Acquisition Management (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$23,081.3
$347.9
$17,465.1
$40,894.3
359.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$24,264.3
$366.7
$19,028.5
$43,659.5
365.3
FY 2006
Request
$23,054.6
$346.5
$20,367.4
$43,768.5
364.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,209.7)
($20.2)
$1,338.9
$109.0
-0.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Resources in this program support Superfund contract and acquisition management at
Headquarters, Regions, Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati. EPA focuses on maintaining a
high level of integrity in the management of its procurement activities and fostering relationships
with state and local governments to support the implementation of environmental programs.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will improve electronic government capabilities and enhance the education of its
contract workforce. EPA will utilize the central contractor registry, which is the single
government-wide database for vendor data and part of the Integrated Acquisition Environment
(IAE)1. Contract actions will be sent to the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation
(FPDS-NG)2 as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The Agency will work to
1 Integrated Acquisition Environment available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/intemal/acquisition.htm
2 More information on the FPDS-NG is available at http://www.fpds-ng.com/questions.html
Superfund-3
-------
eliminate paper-processing in the acquisition process and manage acquisition records
electronically.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
EPA's environmental statutes; annual Appropriations Act; Federal Acquisitions Regulation
(FAR); contract law
Superfund-4
-------
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $984.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Alternative Dispute Resolution (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$793.2
$0.0
$793.2
6.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,014.9
$874.7
$1,889.6
8.0
FY 2006
Request
$1,051.0
$984.8
$2,035.8
7.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$36.1
$110.1
$146.2
-0.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's General Counsel and the Offices of Regional Counsel will provide environmental
Alternative Dispute Resolution services.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the Agency will provide conflict prevention and alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) services to EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices and external stakeholders on
environmental matters. The national ADR program assists in developing effective ways to
anticipate, prevent and resolve disputes and makes neutral third parties - such as facilitators and
mediators - more readily available for those purposes. Under EPA's ADR Policy, the Agency
encourages the use of ADR techniques to prevent and resolve disputes with external parties in
many contexts, including adjudications, rulemaking, policy development, administrative and
civil judicial enforcement actions, permit issuance, protests of contract awards, administration of
contracts and grants, stakeholder involvement, negotiations and litigation.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) of 1996; Regulatory Negotiation Act of 1996
Superfund-5
-------
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $13,536.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$36,702.4
$14,426.1
$51,128.5
360.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$37,997.0
$13,138.6
$51,135.6
365.7
FY 2006
Request
$36,955.0
$13,536.0
$50,491.0
361.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,042.0)
$397.4
($644.6)
-3.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's Inspector General provides audit, evaluation, investigative, public liaison, and advisory
services that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General Act, as amended, by promoting the
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Agency operations in the Superfund program. These
activities provide the Agency and Congress with best practices, analyses, and recommendations
to address management challenges, accomplish environmental objectives, achieve Government
Performance and Results Act goals, and safeguard resources. They also result in the prevention,
detection, and prosecution of financial fraud, laboratory fraud, and cyber crime.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Audits and Evaluations
Land
The audits and evaluations will determine if EPA is making progress toward effective risk
reduction and hazardous waste cleanup, restoring previously polluted sites to appropriate uses,
and how effective the Brownfields program has been in reducing human health or environmental
risk, and generating opportunities for sustained economic growth. Ongoing and recently
completed audits and evaluations of the Superfund program have identified numerous
Superfund-6
-------
impediments to effective resource and program management in the areas of contracting, special
account management, and implementing program improvements, among many others. We will
determine EPA's progress in addressing these issues as they relate directly to EPA's ability to
effectively and efficiently reduce risk and protect human health and the environment at
Superfund sites. We will also evaluate how EPA can: (1) achieve efficiencies and time
reductions in the backlog of Superfund cleanups; and (2) effectively engage communities and
affected stakeholders in land reuse decisions, and (3) better control Superfund resources.
Anticipated audits for FY 2006 include the award and administration of emergency response
contracts, the effectiveness of quality controls for Superfund laboratory service contracts, and the
review of costs claimed by selected states under Superfund cooperative agreements and by
parties submitting CERCLA claims. In addition, EPA's Inspector General will render the annual
opinion on the presentation of the Agency's financial statements, including those relating to the
Superfund Trust Fund.
Investigations
Inspector General investigations include efforts to uncover criminal activity pertaining to the
Superfund program. The Inspector General will conduct investigations of allegations or
indicators of: (1) fraud or acts which undermine the integrity of or confidence in the Superfund
program and create imminent environmental risk, and (2) falsification of laboratory results which
undermine the bases for Superfund decision making, regulatory compliance, or enforcement
actions. Further, we will identify fraudulent practices in awarding, performance, charging, and
payment on EPA Superfund contracts, grants, or other assistance agreements, and test
environmental infrastructure and information networks against threats of intrusion and
destruction.
Public Liaison
Public liaison work includes Ombudsman efforts related to the Superfund program. This activity
involves responding to requests for assistance from the public, EPA employees, or other
government entities to provide information and conduct reviews in response to complaints or
allegations of fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement in EPA's Superfund program. To
accomplish this work, the Inspector General contracts with subject matter experts to consult on
reviews, and coordinates efforts with ongoing audits, evaluations, or investigations within the
Inspector General Office.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Chief Financial Officers Act; Federal Financial Management Improvement Act; Federal
Information Security Management Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Government Management
Reform Act; Inspector General Act, as amended; Reports Consolidation Act; Single Audit Act
Superfund-7
-------
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (GEL), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $22,445.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$62,360.2
$723.6
$19,945.2
$83,029.0
525.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$64,486.8
$950.4
$20,945.5
$86,382.7
562.4
FY 2006
Request
$72,790.2
$935.9
$22,445.0
$96,171.1
548.1
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$8,303.4
($14.5)
$1,499.5
$9,788.4
-14.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's financial management community maintains a strong partnership with the Superfund
program. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) recognizes and supports this
continuing partnership by providing a full array of financial management support services
necessary to pay Superfund bills and recover cleanup and oversight costs for the trust fund.
OCFO manages Superfund budget formulation, justification, and execution as well as financial
cost recovery. OCFO manages oversight billing for Superfund site cleanups (cost of overseeing
the responsible party's cleanup activities), Superfund cost documentation (the federal cost of
cleaning up a Superfund site), and refers delinquent accounts receivable and oversight debts to
the Department of Justice for collection (see http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm for more
information).
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue efforts to modernize the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
The modernization effort will reduce cost, comply with Congressional direction and new Federal
financial systems requirements. This work is framed by the Agency's Enterprise Architecture
Superfund-8
-------
and will make maximum use of enabling technologies for e-Gov initiatives including e-
Procurement, e-Payroll, and e-Travel. In FY 2006, the Agency will become a customer of the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for e-payroll and convert its electronic Travel
System to e-Travel.
EPA plans further improvements to its budgeting and planning system, financial data warehouse,
business intelligence tools, and reporting capabilities. These improvements will support EPA's
"green" score in financial performance on the President's Management Agenda scorecard by
providing more accessible data to support accountability, budget and performance integration,
and management decision-making. During FY 2006, EPA will also continue reorganizing its
financial services to achieve greater efficiency.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$1,300) For modernization of major Agency financial systems. The total increase for
this investment is $6,500, of which $5,200 is requested in the EPM appropriation.
(+$400) For migration of the Agency's Payroll functions to the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS) in support of the administration's e-Payroll initiative. The
total increase for this investment is $2,000, of which $1,600 is requested in the EPM
appropriation.
(-2.5 FTE) General and directed FTE reduction.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Annual Appropriations Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act; Computer Security Act; E-Government Act of 2002; Electronic
Freedom of Information Act; EPA's Environmental Statutes, and the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act; Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act; Federal Acquisition
Regulations, contract law and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46,
47); Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act (1982); Freedom of Information Act; Government
Management Reform Act (1994); Improper Payments Information Act; Inspector General Act of
1978 and Amendments of 1988; Paperwork Reduction Act; Privacy Act; The Chief Financial
Officers Act (1990); The Government Performance and Results Act (1993); The Prompt
Payment Act (1982); Title 5 United States Code.
Superfund-9
-------
Civil Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $883.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Civil Enforcement (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$106,875.9
$1,583.2
$131.4
$108,590.5
924.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$113,406.6
$1,628.7
$659.3
$115,694.6
952.7
FY 2006
Request
$117,462.2
$1,789.5
$883.2
$120,134.9
960.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$4,055.6
$160.8
$223.9
$4,440.3
8.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
* The increase represents a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and
Compliance Incentives program projects.
Program Project Description
EPA's Civil Enforcement program's overarching goal is to protect human health and the
environment, targeting Superfund-related enforcement actions according to degree of health and
environmental risk. The program works with the Department of Justice to ensure consistent and
fair enforcement of Superfund-related environmental laws and regulations. The program aims to
level the economic playing field by ensuring that violators do not realize an economic benefit
from noncompliance, and seeks to deter future violations. The civil enforcement program
develops, litigates and settles administrative and civil judicial cases against serious violators of
environmental laws. This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for
2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Special
Analysis Section. For more information, visit: www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/index.html and
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/backgnd.htm.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Financial assurance requirements ensure that adequate funds are available to address closure and
clean up of facilities that handle hazardous wastes, hazardous substances, toxic materials, or
other pollutants. EPA is currently evaluating financial responsibility to determine whether it
Superfund-10
-------
should be pursued as a priority under both RCRA and CERCLA beginning in FY 2006. Placing
more emphasis on financial responsibility will facilitate timely clean-up at contaminated sites,
and closure of waste management units that are no longer being actively used, and will also keep
closure and remediation costs from being shifted to the public.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
RCRA; CERCLA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA; SBLRBRERA; PPA; CERFA; AEA; UMTRLWA
Superfund-11
-------
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $22.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance Assistance and Centers (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$27,177.2
$463.5
$251.6
$0.0
$27,892.3
204.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$28,574.5
$585.3
$276.6
$26.6
$29,463.0
213.8
FY 2006
Request
$29,097.1
$773.6
$286.5
$22.5
$30,179.7
212.4
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$522.6
$188.3
$9.9
($4.1)
$716.7
-1.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
** The increase represents a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and
Compliance Incentives program projects.
Program Project Description
To improve compliance with Superfund-related environmental laws regulated entities, Federal
agencies and the public benefit from easy access to tools that help them understand these laws
and find effective, cost-effective means for putting them into practice. To achieve these goals,
the Compliance Assistance and Centers program provides information, training and technical
assistance to the regulated community, to increase its understanding of statutory and regulatory
environmental requirements, thereby gaining measurable improvements in compliance and
reducing risks to human health and the environment. It also provides tools and information to
other compliance assistance providers enabling them to more effectively help the regulated
community comply with environmental requirements. This program was included in the Civil
Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more
information is included in the Special Analysis Section. For more information, visit:
www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html: www.epa.gov/clearinghouse: and www.assis
tancecenters.net.
Superfund-12
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Superfund-related compliance assistance activities are mainly reported and tracked through the
Agency's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). In FY 2006, the Compliance
Assistance program will provide Superfund support for ICIS and the ongoing modernization of
its wastewater Permit Compliance System (PCS) component. EPA will continue to ensure the
security and integrity of these systems, and will use ICIS data to support Superfund-related
regulatory enforcement program activities.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
RCRA; CERCLA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA
Superfund-13
-------
Compliance Incentives
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $168.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance Incentives (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$10,131.3
$564.2
$10,695.5
79.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$9,420.7
$188.8
$9,609.5
78.5
FY 2006
Request
$9,622.2
$168.1
$9,790.3
76.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$201.5
($20.7)
$180.8
-1.7
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
**The increase represents a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and
Compliance Incentives program projects.
Program Project Description
To improve compliance with Superfund-related environmental laws, EPA actively encourages
business owners and operators that run similar operations at multiple facilities to disclose their
violations to the Agency. These disclosures allow entities to review their operations holistically,
and often nationally, which more effectively benefits the environment. The companies who
disclose and correct violations under the Audit Policy may receive lower penalties. Activities
are tracked and reported using the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). This
program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an
overall rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section. For
more information, visit: www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/programs/index.html.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Superfund-related Compliance Incentives activities are reported and tracked through the
Agency's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). In FY 2006, the Compliance
Assistance program will provide Superfund support for ICIS and the ongoing modernization of
its wastewater Permit Compliance System (PCS) component. EPA will continue to ensure the
security and integrity of these systems, and will use ICIS data to support Superfund-related
regulatory enforcement program activities.
Superfund-14
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR
Superfund-15
-------
Compliance Monitoring
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $1,156.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance Monitoring (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$64,141.7
$0.0
$64,141.7
569.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$84,297.3
$881.8
$85,179.1
624.1
FY 2006
Request
$93,412.1
$1,156.7
$94,568.8
627.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$9,114.8
$274.9
$9,389.7
3.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
** The increase represents a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and
Compliance Incentives program projects.
Program Project Description
The Compliance Monitoring program focuses on providing information system support for
monitoring compliance with Superfund-related environmental regulations and contaminated site
clean-up agreements. The program will also ensure the security and integrity of its compliance
information systems. This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for
2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Special
Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In December 2005 the Agency plans to release the first version of its modernized Permit
Compliance System (PCS), to improve the ability of EPA and the states to manage the Clean
Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The December
2005 release of the modernized PCS will cover approximately fourteen states, with additional
states being added in another release in June 2006. Development of a modernized PCS, through
integration into ICIS, will continue throughout FY 2006, with a goal of completing the
modernization of PCS and moving all states to modernized PCS by the end of FY 2007.
Superfund-16
-------
EPA will continue to make Superfund-related compliance monitoring information available to
the public through the Enforcement and Compliance History On-line (ECHO) Internet website
during FY 2006. ECHO is heavily used (approximately 75,000 queries per month in FY 2004),
with visits to the site increasing each year.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$274.9) This increase supports working capital fund investments.
Statutory Authorities
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR; NEPA
Superfund-17
-------
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $161.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$53,015.2
$162.7
$53,177.9
395.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$48,166.0
$184.0
$48,350.0
394.7
FY 2006
Request
$49,753.3
$161.0
$49,914.3
384.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,587.3
($23.0)
$1,564.3
-9.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations program disseminates information
about Superfund enforcement actions, compliance monitoring and the availability of compliance
assistance. Monthly Enforcement Alerts, Compliance Assistance newsletters, regular news briefs
about Superfund enforcement and compliance assistance activities and a vibrant website with
easily accessible tools for retrieving information are all elements of the public awareness work.
Comprehensive reports and Agency documents are also posted in a timely manner. This
program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an
overall rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
During FY 2006 the Agency will continue to foster public awareness of Superfund
environmental issues and the Federal government's role in monitoring compliance and enforcing
Superfund laws. This awareness and support are critical to public support and to the Agency's
success in meeting its goals. The Agency will issue the following informational materials:
monthly enforcement alerts; quarterly compliance assistance newsletters; annual
accomplishments reports, daily updating of the website; weekly news alerts; six specialized list-
servers with periodic postings; and news releases as Superfund major cases are concluded.
Superfund-18
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$23.0) This decrease reflects a redistribution of working capital fund dollars.
Statutory Authority
CERCLA
Superfund-19
-------
Criminal Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $9,504.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Criminal Enforcement (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$31,107.0
$7,764.8
$38,871.8
261.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$33,260.2
$8,635.7
$41,895.9
267.1
FY 2006
Request
$37,326.3
$9,504.2
$46,830.5
273.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$4,066.1
$868.5
$4,934.6
6.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Criminal Enforcement program, as mandated by the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990,
forcefully deters violations of Superfund and Superfund-related laws and regulations, by
demonstrating that the regulated community will be held accountable, through jail sentences and
criminal fines, for serious, willful statutory violations. The program thus serves as a deterrent for
potential violators, thereby enhancing aggregate compliance with laws and regulations.
The criminal enforcement program conducts investigations and refers for prosecution cases
which reduce pollution and help secure plea agreements or sentencing conditions that will
require defendants to improve their environmental management practices (e.g., by securing
permits or developing environmental management systems to enhance performance). The
Agency also develops information to support grand jury inquiries and decisions, and works with
other law enforcement agencies to present a highly visible and effective force in the Agency's
overall enforcement strategy. Cases are referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution,
with special agents serving as key witnesses in the proceedings. This program underwent a
PART review in 2006 and received a rating of Adequate; more information is included in the
Special Analysis Section. For more information, visit: www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/
index.html.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the Criminal Enforcement program will continue implementation of revised case
screening procedures that enhance integration with the Civil Enforcement program. This
integration will be achieved through an increased emphasis upon national and regional
Superfund-20
-------
Superfund-related enforcement priorities, and repeat, chronic or long-term civil violations. This
strategy is also improving the Agency's ability to target enforcement resources towards the most
serious and culpable violators.
FY 2006 efforts to upgrade to the criminal enforcement data system, the Criminal Case
Reporting System, will also enable the program to more systematically develop an aggregate
"profile" of its criminal enforcement cases. This will improve analysis of case attributes,
including the extent to which cases support Agency-wide, OECA-wide, or Regional Superfund-
related enforcement and compliance priorities, and the identification of the components of
"complex" cases, such as those involving specific sector initiatives or global plea agreements
affecting multiple facilities that have significant pollutant impacts.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$433.2) This increase is for the Administrator's Protection Detail.
(+$150.0) This increase is for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. This
program which provides training the Agency's criminal investigators is being moved to
the Criminal Enforcement program.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CERCLA; EPCRA; Powers of Environmental Protection Agency; Fraud and False Statements
Act; Pollution Prosecution Act
Superfund-21
-------
Enforcement Training
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $613.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Enforcement Training (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,094.0
$1,034.6
$5,128.6
29.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$3,302.4
5755.7
$4,058.1
16.7
FY 2006
Request
$2,498.7
$613.9
$3,112.6
17.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($803.7)
($141.8)
($945.5)
0.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
As mandated by the Pollution Prosecution Act, the Agency's Enforcement Training program
provides environmental enforcement training nationwide, through the National Enforcement
Training Institute (NETI). The program oversees the design of core and specialized Superfund
enforcement courses, and their delivery to lawyers, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators,
and technical experts. This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for
2006 which received an overall rating of adequate; more information is included in the Special
Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the program will develop and deliver training to support the Superfund Enforcement
program and other Superfund-related activities. The program maintains a training center on the
Internet, "NETI Online," which offers targeted technical training courses to national and
international audiences. The site also provides for tracking individual training plans, as well as
developing, managing and improving the program's training delivery processes.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$150.0) The reduction represents the movement of the program which provides training
to the Agency's criminal investigators to the Criminal Enforcement program.
Statutory Authority
PPA: CERCLA
Superfund-22
-------
Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $845.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Justice (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$6,274.1
$1,092.5
$7,366.6
21.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$4,230.5
$800.0
$5,030.5
18.0
FY 2006
Request
$3,979.7
$845.2
$4,824.9
18.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($250.8)
$45.2
($205.6)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Environmental Justice program provides a central point for the Agency to Superfund-related
address environmental and human health concerns in all communities, especially minority and/or
low-income communities segments of the population that have been disproportionately
exposed to environmental harms and risks, including those posed by contaminated sites. The
Agency provides education, outreach, and data to communities, and manages two national
competitive grant programs which focus on building capacity and addressing environmental
and/or public health issues at the local level. This program was included in the Civil
Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more
information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Since 1994, the Agency has managed the Environmental Justice Small Grants program, and will
continue in FY 2006 to assist community-based organizations in developing solutions to
Superfund-related and other local environmental issues. The Small Grants Program has awarded
more than 1,000 grants of up to $20,000 each to community-based organizations and others such
as universities, Tribes, and schools.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$45.2) This increase reflects a redistribution of working capital fund dollars.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Executive Order 12898; CERCLA, as amended
Superfund-23
-------
Exchange Network
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (GEL), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $1,676.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Exchange Network (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$18,816.9
$2,631.4
$21,448.3
45.7
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$25,419.7
$2,342.5
$27,762.2
48.1
FY 2006
Request
$22,739.4
$1,676.2
$24,415.6
47.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($2,680.3)
($666.3)
($3,346.6)
-0.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program supports the development and maintenance of the Environmental Exchange
Network (the Exchange Network). The Network is an integrated information system that
facilitates information sharing among EPA and its partners using standardized data formats and
definitions providing a centralized approach to receiving and distributing information, and
improving access to timely and reliable environmental information. This program provides
resources for the development, implementation, and operation and maintenance for the Agency's
Central Data Exchange (CDX, www. epa. gov/cdx), the point of entry on the Exchange Network
for data submissions to the Agency. The program develops the regulatory framework to ensure
that electronic submissions are legally acceptable, Establishes partnerships with states, Tribes,
Territories and Tribal consortia; and, supports the e-Rulemaking e-Government initiative. E-
rulemaking is designed to improve the public's ability to find, view, understand and comment on
Federal regulatory actions.
The Exchange work is the mechanism by which information for the Institutional Controls
Tracking System (ICTS) is gathered. The ICTS helps to ensure that institutional controls (ICs)
are successfully implemented at Superfund sites.
Superfund-24
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Major focuses for EPA's Information Technology community in FY 2006 center on the
Agency's Technology Initiative and fulfilling the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov)
commitments. The Agency's Technology Initiative builds on efforts started in FY 2004 and FY
2005 to enhance environmental analytical capacity for EPA, its partners and stakeholders. The
Initiative is designed with the knowledge that the majority of environmental data are collected by
states and Tribes, not directly by EPA and that ready access to real time quality environmental
data and analytical tools is essential to making sound environmental decisions.
The Exchange Network program provides a cornerstone of the Agency's FY 2006 Technology
Initiative, providing the secure, integrated exchange of environmental information. In FY 2006
EPA, states, and tribes will continue to migrate from the old, inaccessible, "stove pipe" data
systems of the past in favor of new, secure, high quality, integrated air, water, and waste
information systems. These new systems are being designed to include "network portals"
through which data can be exchanged over the internet between EPA, states, tribes, the regulated
community and the public. In FY 2006 the Agency will add ten more states and/or Tribes to the
Network and six more databases for the States to access through the Central Data Exchange
(CDX) for a total of 35 and 6 respectively. These efforts are closely coordinated with the
Agency's IT/Data Management Program where the Integrated Portal effort as well as system data
registries and standards are being developed and maintained.
EPA's Technology Initiative capitalizes on the Exchange Network and CDX efforts to continue
to improve access to and availability of relevant program databases for state, Tribe and Direct
Report participants. Additional CDX capabilities to accept Direct Report information and
program databases increase user cost and time efficiencies and focuses the long-term goal of
improving analytical capacity.
EPA's FY 2006 e-Rulemaking activities build on the three part strategy outlined by the program
at its inception. The program will continue to develop the third phase the virtual workspace
capability. The virtual workspace will provide regulation-writers with tools, templates, and
databases to assist in the development of rules. Further, the capability will use best practices
from across Federal agencies to assist regulation-writers in all phases of the rule writing process.
Effective implementation of the Exchange Network activities relies on close coordination with
the Information Security and Agency Infrastructure and data management activities.
Coordination helps ensure necessary system security measures are adhered to, system platforms
follow the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and data management follows documented data
standards.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$666.3) The reduction in resources reflects a shift of activities from the Exchange
Network program to the IT/Data Management program. The System of Registry (SOR)
and Facility Registry System (FRS) are being moved to the IT/Data Management
program to more closely align with the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and Integrated
Portal functions.
Superfund-25
-------
Statutory Authority
Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
Clean Air Act and amendments; Clean Water Act and amendments; Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act; Toxic Substance Control Act; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know; Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act; Government Performance
and Results Act; Government Management Reform Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork
Reduction Act; Freedom of Information Act; Computer Security Act; Privacy Act; Electronic
Freedom of Information Act
Superfund-26
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $72,725.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$299,417.3
$9,331.4
$31,382.3
$862.1
$499.1
$62,299.2
$403,791.4
355.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$326,793.8
$8,715.8
$31,418.0
$883.9
$504.4
$70,981.9
$439,297.8
441.8
FY 2006
Request
$358,045.6
$8,715.8
$28,718.0
$883.9
$504.4
572,725.9
$469,593.6
438.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$31,251.8
$0.0
($2,700.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$1,744.0
$30,295.8
-3.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Superfund resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program are used to fund
rent, utilities, and security, and also manage activities and support services in many centralized
administrative areas such as health and safety, environmental compliance, occupational health,
medical monitoring, fitness/wellness and safety, and environmental management functions at
EPA. Resources for this program also support a full range of ongoing facilities management
services including: facilities maintenance and operations; Headquarters security; space planning;
shipping and receiving; property management; printing and reproduction; mail management; and
transportation services.
Superfund-27
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
These resources help to improve operating efficiency and encourage the use of new, advanced
technologies and energy.
The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with GSA and other private landlords
by conducting rent reviews and verifying monthly statements to ensure the charges are correct.
EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order (EO)
13ISO1 "Federal Workforce Transportation."
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$594.8) Redirects resources for rent costs to the EPM appropriation;
(+$276.3) Provides additional resources for increases in utilities costs;
(+$318.5) Provides additional resources for increases in security costs;
(+$1,300.0) Provides additional resource for the Crystal City, VA consolidation project at
Potomac Yards and the new Region 8 facility in Denver, CO; and
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; annual Appropriations
Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup and Liability Act; Clean Water Act;
Clean Air Act; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive Orders 10577 and 12598; Department of
Justice United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities Report;
Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection)
Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
Superfund-28
-------
Financial Assistance Grants /IAG Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (GEL), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $2,578.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$18,854.2
$24.5
$3,054.2
$21,932.9
188.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$20,328.9
$0.0
$2,933.2
$23,262.1
163.1
FY 2006
Request
$19,915.9
$0.0
$2,578.9
$22,494.8
163.4
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($413.0)
$0.0
($354,3)
($767.3)
0.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Resources in this program support Superfund activities related to the management of Financial
Assistance Grants/IAG and suspension and debarment at Headquarters and Regions. This
program focuses on maintaining a high level of integrity in the management of EPA's assistance
agreements, and fostering relationships with state and local governments to support the
implementation of environmental programs. A key component of this program is ensure that
EPA's management of grants, which comprise over half of the Agency's budget, meets the
highest fiduciary standards and produces measurable environmental results.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will achieve key objectives under its long-term Grants Management Plan.
These objectives include strengthening accountability and implementing new and revised
policies on at-risk grantees, environmental outcomes, and competition. * In furtherance of the
Plan, in 2006 EPA will enhance efforts to reform grants management by providing funding for
1 US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-R-03-001, April 2003. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finalreport.pdf
Superfund-29
-------
additional Regional on-site and pre-award reviews of grant recipients and applicants, indirect
cost rate reviews, tribal technical assistance and the development of an Agency-wide training
program for project officers.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE
Statutory Authority
EPA's environmental statutes; annual Appropriations Act; Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act; Section 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts: 30, 31, 35, 40, 45, 46, and 47
Superfund-30
-------
Forensics Support
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $3,840.3 (Dollars in Thousands)
Forensics Support (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$11,958.5
$3,497.6
$15,456.1
104.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$12,721.5
$4,189.3
$16,910.8
113.6
FY 2006
Request
$13,737.0
$3,840.3
$17,577.3
108.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,015.5
($349.0)
$666.5
-5.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Forensics Support program provides specialized scientific and technical support for the
nation's most complex Superfund civil enforcement cases, and provides technical expertise for
non-routine Agency compliance efforts. EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) is the only accredited environmental forensics center in the nation. NEIC's Accreditation
Standard has been customized to cover the civil, criminal, and special program work conducted
by the program.
NEIC collaborates with state, local and Tribal agencies, providing technical assistance, and on-
site investigation and inspection activities in support of the Agency's civil program. In addition,
the program coordinates with the Department of Justice and other Federal, state and local law
enforcement organizations in support of criminal investigations. This program was included in
the Civil Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more
information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Efforts to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement in FY 2006 will include the
refinement of successful multi-media inspection approaches; use of customized laboratory
methods to solve unusual enforcement case problems; applied research and development for both
laboratory and field applications, and further development of electronic data analysis methods
used in investigations related to computers and data fraud. In response to Superfund case needs,
the NEIC will conduct applied research and development, to identify and deploy new
capabilities, and to test and/or enhance existing methods and techniques involving environmental
Superfund-31
-------
measurement and forensic situations. As part of this activity, NEIC will also evaluate the
scientific basis and/or technical enforceability of select EPA regulations that may impact
Superfund program activities.
In FY 2006, the Forensics program will continue to function under more stringent International
Standards of Operation for environmental data measurements to maintain its accreditation.
NEIC will maintain a Counterterrorism Response Team for science and technical support in the
area of industrial chemicals for our nations Homeland security. The program also will continue
development of emerging technologies in field measurement techniques and laboratory analytical
techniques, as well as identifying sources of pollution at abandoned Superfund and other waste
sites.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$132.5) This reduction reflects a transfer to the Civil Enforcement program in objective
1. This shift implements a recommendation from EPA's November 2003, Management
Review of the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training (OCEFT) by
moving the civil investigators from OCEFT to the Office of Regulatory Enforcement
(ORE).
(-$236.2) Superfund resources were transferred to the S&T account to reflect the current
workload at the National Enforcement Investigations Center.
(-$207,500) This is a general reduction to support working capital fund investments.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CERCLA; EPCRA
Superfund-32
-------
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $300.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Homeland Security: Communication and Information (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,226.2
$0.0
$4,226.2
5.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$4,320.3
$0.0
$4,320.3
3.0
FY 2006
Request
$6,680.3
$300.0
$6,980.3
13.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$2,360.0
$300.0
$2,660.0
10.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program coordinates development and implementation of homeland security policy and
Homeland Security related information security for the Superfund program. The Agency's
environmental information program provides rapid access to communication tools, accelerated
transfers of data, models and maps to support response activities, and supports Agency wide
communication in emergency situations.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will ensure emergency access to the
Agency's resources by establishing an integrated
Internet/WAN/LAN solution - Mobile Laboratory
LAN-in-a-Box that can be immediately deployed
anywhere to equip mobile laboratories with high
speed, secure access to the Internet and the EPA
WAN, and the ability to share information on scene.
On-scene equipment would include a satellite dish, laptop computers, router, UPS, secure
wireless access points, satellite phones, and printer/fax/scanner equipment.
Key FY 2006 Program Activities
Ensure secure and reliable systems
Implement secure system backup operations
Establish and deploy Agency mobile LANs
Superfund-33
-------
Homeland Security information technology efforts are closely coordinated with the Agency-wide
Information Security and Infrastructure activities coordinated and managed in the Information
Security and IT/Data Management programs.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$300.0) Increased resource levels required to support the deployment and maintenance
of five mobile local area networks (LANs) that will facilitate remote, real-time, secure
information and data access.
Statutory Authority
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); CERCLA; Clean
Water Act; Homeland Security Act of 2002; Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act
(Title XIV of Public Law 104-201)
Superfund-34
-------
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $1,052.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,960.5
$17,822.3
$1,447.7
$25,230.5
44.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$6,840.8
$3,515.6
$852.6
$11,209.0
47.0
FY 2006
Request
$6,946.9
$47,568.7
$1,052.6
$55,568.2
59.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$106.1
$44,053.1
$200.0
$44,359.2
12.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program involves several EPA activities, as they relate to the Superfund program, that help
protect the nation's critical public infrastructure from terrorist threats. Through this program,
EPA provides subject matter expertise and training support for terrorism-related environmental
investigations to support responses authorized by CERCLA.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the program will continue to build its response capabilities, through training and
coordination with other Federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations. The program
will expand its National Counter Terrorism Evidence Response Team (NCERT)-Weapons of
Mass Destruction/Environmental Crime Scene/Forensic Evidence Collection training to all EPA
criminal investigators, and will provide associated specialized response and evidence collection
equipment. This will enable all EPA criminal investigators to collect evidence and process a
crime scene safely and effectively in a contaminated environment ("hot zone") following a
terrorist attack.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$200.0) for training and equipping criminal investigators to safely collect and process
evidence in a contaminated environment (hot zone).
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA as amended; EPCRA; Fraud and False Statements Act; Pollution Prosecution Act
Superfund-35
-------
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $48,964.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$766.7
$14,763.9
$63,979.9
$79,510.5
141.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,839.8
$25,396.0
$29,163.2
$56,399.0
97.6
FY 2006
Request
$3,348.2
$44,116.2
$48,964.9
$96,429.3
165.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,508.4
$18,720.2
$19,801.7
$40,030.3
68.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Through this program EPA continues to increase the state of preparedness, response and
recovery capabilities for homeland security incidents by providing trained emergency response
personnel, including specialized decontamination and emergency response teams. Increasing the
state of knowledge of potential threats and response protocols through research, development
and technical support is another priority of this program. The National Response Plan (NRP) has
identified EPA as the lead Federal agency for protection of public health and the environment
following a hazardous substance incident including a terrorist incident; this role builds upon
capabilities that have been established and implemented for many years through the National
Contingency Plan and the Emergency Support Function 10 of the Federal Response Plan. EPA
plans to continue to develop and maintain its preparedness to help meet the minimum
requirements set out in the NRP and related Homeland Security Presidential Directives as
coordinated with DHS and other agencies.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006 EPA requests additional resources to fill critical gaps in preparedness. At the same
time, the Agency will continue to play its unique role within the overall Federal effort by
enhancing readiness of emergency response personnel, providing expertise and guidance to first-
responders, participating in training/homeland security exercises and also continuing related
Superfund-36
-------
research and development. EPA will participate in the Department of Homeland Security's
national TOPOFF (e.g., Top Officials) Weapons of Mass Destruction exercise which is
scheduled for 2006. EPA plans to expand existing capabilities in order to more fully implement
national directives for addressing Homeland Security threats. In addition, EPA will continue the
decontamination and consequence management research to develop and validate environmental
sampling and analysis methods for known and emerging biological threat agents. This research
will also produce data, information and technologies to assist EPA in developing standards,
protocols and capabilities to recover from and mitigate the risks associated with biological
attacks. In FY 2006 the Agency plans to enhance or expand several components of Homeland
Security preparedness and response:
Decontamination
In FY 2006, the Preparedness/Response program will use base resources to incorporate 51
additional On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) to improve response to chemical, biological and
radiological incidents including multiple simultaneous incidents. They will receive training and
certification for response to terrorist or weapons of mass destruction events. EPA also requests
additional resources for field equipment, special event pre-deployments and to develop
decontamination protocols.
A. Equipment: The Agency will identify and procure state-of-the-art detection, sampling,
monitoring, and response equipment designed to address chemical, biological and radiological
agents. In addition, EPA will build inventories of standard response equipment to ensure it is
prepared to respond to multiple large-scale, simultaneous incidents. These supplies will need to
be replaced periodically to ensure the Agency maintains state-of-the-art and fully functional
capabilities. EPA's responders require extensive and ongoing training in a variety of response-
related areas, including the Incident Command System management processes, with associated
equipment training.
B. Pre-Deployments: In FY 2006, the EPA and other Federal agencies will participate in
national events requiring heightened security. EPA's effectiveness during these events is
maximized through pre-deployments of assets such as emergency response personnel and
detection equipment. EPA estimates participation in six pre-deployment events in FY 2006.
C. Decontamination Protocols: EPA will continue to play a key role in FY 2006 in the
development of environmental policies regarding decontamination of facilities and the
environment. EPA is requesting additional resources to develop basic decontamination protocols.
Environmental Laboratory Preparedness and Response (ELPR)
The National Homeland Security strategy calls upon EPA to be the primary agency responsible
for environmental sampling and analysis in response to terrorist incidents. In FY 2006, EPA will
conduct proactive planning and policy development leading to the creation of a network of
environmental laboratories that will serve that purpose. The environmental laboratory
preparedness and response function shall plan for certain fundamental lab network needs, such as
identification and location of labs and their specific capabilities, appropriate connectivity
Superfund-37
-------
between labs, standardized methods and measurements for environmental samples, continued
training and education for member laboratories, and accreditation and accountability between
labs. As the environmental laboratory network is developed EPA will coordinate with other
federal laboratory networks to explore opportunities for inter-network coordination.
Additionally in FY 2006, EPA will assist in the development of enhanced environmental
analytical capabilities in the state lab community. Equipment, personnel, and infrastructure
improvements will allow these laboratories to accept and analyze warfare agent samples in
addition to samples associated with conventional chemical and biological agents.
FY 2006 Changes from 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$13,500.0 and +5 FTE) are requested to develop decontamination protocols, acquire
emergency response equipment for decontamination and support pre-deployment of
personnel and resources to national security events. Of this, $9.5 million is requested for
a new initiative to develop an environmental laboratory preparedness and response
capability.
(+51 FTE) These FTE and related payroll are requested to provide additional On Scene
Coordinators for homeland security related preparedness and response.
(-19.9 FTE) This reduction represents a shift of 19.9 workyears from the Superfund
appropriation to the Science and Technology appropriation for continuing support of
Homeland Security research.
Statutory Authority
CERCLA Section 104, 105, 106; Clean Water Act; Oil Pollution Act
Superfund-38
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $600.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,431.3
$1,663.1
$12,488.7
5677. 8
$20,260.9
3.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$6,344.3
$2,100.0
$11,500.0
$600.0
$20,544.3
3.0
FY 2006
Request
$6,403.0
$2,100.0
$11,500.0
$600.0
$20,603.0
3.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$58.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$58.7
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and operational and that the Agency is prepared to conduct its essential functions during an
emergency or threat situation. This involves safeguarding EPA's staff, ensuring the continuity of
operations, and protecting EPA's vital infrastructure assets.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will continue to update its physical security vulnerability assessments and continue
the mitigation of medium vulnerabilities at our most sensitive facilities. The Agency will also
conduct rehearsal of (1) Continuity Of Operations (COOP) site activation, (2) movement of
COOP site and (3) the mission essential functions from its remote alternate site, including
interagency operations.
In FY 2006 EPA plans to complete the fielding of high frequency radios to all Regions to ensure
a back-up system for emergency communications and update/replace IT and voice
communications equipment as part of the Agency's emergency preparedness activities linked to
CERCLA.
Superfund-39
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No Change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; CERCLA.;
104-102 (Nunn-Lugar II) National Response Plan; and National Security Act of 1947, as
amended (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.)
Superfund-40
-------
Human Health Risk Assessment
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $4,021.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Human Health Risk Assessment (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$28,084.2
$3,952.6
$32,036.8
165.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$32,880.4
$3,951. 8
$36,832.2
159.8
FY 2006
Request
$36,240.1
$4,021.5
$40,261.6
183.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$3,359.7
$69.7
$3,429.4
23.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Human health risk assessment is a process where information is analyzed to determine if an
environmental hazard might cause harm to exposed persons (National Research Council, 1983).
Risk assessment is widely used by EPA programs, regions and other parties to determine levels
of environmental contaminants that do not pose a human health hazard, to develop regulatory
standards, and to manage environmental cleanups.
The Human Health Risk Assessment program provides assessment and methods development
support to Superfund in the following areas:
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Peer-Reviewed Provisional Toxicity Values,
and other health risk assessments: Based on the expressed needs of the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, this program prepares hazard characterization and dose-response
profiles for environmental pollutants and issues of specific relevance to site assessments and
remediation. Where IRIS values are unavailable, the HHRA program develops peer-
reviewed provisional toxicity values for evaluating chemical specific exposures at Superfund
sites. Support for these assessments is provided through the Superfund Technical Support
Centers.
Risk assessment research, methods, and guidance: Specific activities for Superfund include
1) research to improve dermal absorption exposure data and methods, 2) refinement of the all
ages biokinetic model for metals exposure, and 3) consultative support to the application of
these methods.
Superfund-41
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The FY 2006 Human Health Risk Assessment program directly supports several key elements of
EPA's Strategic Plan for Land Preservation and Restoration for the characterization of risks,
reduction of contaminant exposures, and cleanup of contaminated sites. HHRA activities of
relevance to Superfund cleanups will include:
Development of major IRIS dose-response assessments for high priority chemicals
contributing to decision-making needs at multiple Superfund sites and other Agency
programs;
Preparation of 25 peer reviewed provisional toxicity values to support Superfund decision-
making;
Expansion of the All Ages Lead Uptake Model, the foremost model for determining the
uptake of lead from the environment;
Refinement of exposure factors, emphasizing dermal absorption from contaminated soils and
sediments; and,
Provision of technical support to Superfund site and program managers on human health risk
assessment through the Superfund Technical Support Centers.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA
Superfund-42
-------
Human Resources Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $4,789.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Human Resources Management (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$41,725.0
$4.0
$5,034.7
$46,763.7
363.1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$44,139.5
$3.0
$4,410.6
$48,553.1
323.1
FY 2006
Request
$38,871.6
$3.0
$4,789.7
$43,664.3
297.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($5,267.9)
$0.0
$379.1
($4,888.8)
-25.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Resources in this program support Superfund activities related to the provision of human
resources management services to the entire Agency. EPA supports organizational development
and management activities by supporting Agency-wide and interagency councils and committees
and serving as EPA's liaison on interagency management improvement initiatives. The Agency
continually evaluates human resource and workforce functions, employee development,
leadership development, workforce planning, and succession management
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA is committed to fully implementing "Investing in Our People II, EPA's Strategy for Human
Capital" l, which was issued in December 2003. The Agency will continue to take advantage of
the Workforce Planning System throughout the entire organization to identify competency gaps.
A focused effort will target the delivery of training in the Workforce Development Strategy2 to
help organizations eliminate their competency gaps. In accordance with OMB Circular A-76
"Implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 19983 (Public Law 105-270)
1 US EPA Investing in OUR People II, EPA's Strategy for Human Capital. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oarm/strategv.pdf
2 Workforce Assessment Project: Executive Summary and Tasks 1-4 Final Reports. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/epahrist/workforce/wap.pdf
3 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/fair2002notice4.html
Superfund-43
-------
("FAIR Act"), the Agency will continue to utilize competitive sourcing as an approach to
determine who can provide the necessary service at the best value to the government.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE
Statutory Authority
Title V United States Code
Superfund-44
-------
Information Security
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $408.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Information Security (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$7,067.5
$151.4
$7,218.9
15.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$4,188.3
$508.9
$4,697.2
15.0
FY 2006
Request
$3,888.3
$408.8
$4,297.1
14.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($300.0)
($100.1)
($400.1)
-0.7
* Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Information Security program protects the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of the
EPA's information assets. The program: establishes a risk-based cyber security program using a
defense-in-depth approach that includes partnering with other Federal agencies and the states;
implements aggressive efforts to respond to evolving threats and computer security alerts and
incidents, and integrates information security into its day-to-day business; manages the Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) data collection and reporting requirements; and,
supports the development, implementation and operations and maintenance of the ASSERT
security documentation system.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will continue its technical and
system analyses, evaluations and assessments to
maintain the security of EPA's information. The
Superfund resources support the constant system and
network monitoring essential to detect and identify
any potential weaknesses or vulnerabilities that might
compromise EPA's Superfund information assets.
These proactive efforts allow EPA to develop cost
effective solutions that extend EPA's long-term goal
Superfund-45
Key FY 2006 Program Activities
S Implement technical controls to protect the network,
infrastructure, and systems;
"/ Conduct independent effectiveness testing of the security
program;
S Conduct systems and infrastructure risk assessments to
maintain awareness of evolving threats and vulnerabilities;
f Establish an incident response capability;
S Maintain up-to-date security and contingency plans for
all Agency major IT applications and general support
systems
"/ Perform annual security awareness training for all
employees; and
S Conduct technical training for employees with
significant security responsibility.
-------
of building analytical capacity. EPA will also coordinate information security activities with the
Homeland Security IT, Exchange Network and IT/Data Management program requirements and
where possible identify and implement more efficient solutions.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$100) The reduction in resources reflects efficiencies gained in implementing a
standard platform for the Agency's secure information technology infrastructure.
Statutory Authority
Federal Information Security Management Act; Government Performance and Results Act;
Government Management Reform Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; Freedom
of Information Act; Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act
Superfund-46
-------
IT'/Data Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $16,113.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
IT / Data Management (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$101,091.2
$4,611.0
$109.3
$36.7
$16,886.3
$122,734.5
577.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$108,359.4
$4,821.4
$177.6
$32.8
$16,628.4
$130,019.6
467.0
FY 2006
Request
$105,999.0
$4,250.9
$177.6
$32.8
$16,113.2
$126,573.5
457.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($2,360.4)
($570.5)
$0.0
$0.0
($515.2)
($3,446.1)
-9.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making.
The program: implements the Agency's e-Government responsibilities; designs, develops and
manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet resources including the Integrated Portal; supports
the development, collection, management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both
point source and ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in
strategic planning at the national, program, and regional levels; provides a secure, reliable, and
capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data
standardization, integration, and public access; manages the Agency's Quality System ensuring
EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines, and, supports Regional
information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs, and
telecommunications. These functions are integral to the implementation of Agency information
technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX)
and Permit Compliance System (PCS). Agency Offices rely on the IT/Data Management
program and its capabilities to develop and implement tools for ready access to accurate and
Superfund-47
-------
timely data. Recent partnerships include portals projects with the Offices of Research and
Development and Air and Radiation to access scientific and program data.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA's Information Technology community's FY 2006 activities focus on the Agency's
Technology Initiative and fulfilling the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) commitments. The
Agency's IT/Data Management program forms the core of this effort with its focus on building
and implementing the Agency's Integrated Portal and Enterprise Content Management System
(ECMS), developing of Environmental Indicators, and continuing to deploy enterprise-wide IT
infrastructure solutions.
The Agency's Technology Initiative builds on efforts
started in FY 2004 and FY 2005 to enhance
environmental analytical capacity for EPA, its partners
and stakeholders. The Initiative is designed with the
understanding that the majority of environmental data are
collected by states and Tribes, not directly by EPA and
that ready access to real time quality environmental data
and analytical tools are essential to making sound
environmental decisions. Understanding these factors
focused EPA's FY 2006 Technology Initiative on five
related and supporting activities:
S Building the Agency's analytical capacity to facilitate sound environmental decision-making
and address critical data gaps;
S Developing a central integrated portal to manage the flow of information to and from the
Agency;
S Providing more effective, secure, and integrated information exchange through the
environmental exchange network with our state partners;
S Streamlining, securing, and technically advancing the infrastructure through enterprise-wide
solutions across EPA; and,
S Implementing a central content management system that provides ready access to documents
and data.
EPA's Environmental Information Exchange Network Program (Exchange Network,
www.epa.gov/cdx), the Electronic Content Management System (ECMS) and EPA's 'Readiness
to Serve' enterprise-wide IT infrastructure solutions provide the foundation for states, Tribes, the
public, regulated community and EPA for improved information and data access and sharing
opportunities. The Integrated Portal manages a variety of environmental information allowing
increased data availability, better data quality and accuracy, security of sensitive data, and
prevents data redundancy. Finally, with proven infrastructures and increased data access, EPA,
its partners and stakeholders can conduct better data analyses to answer environmental questions.
In FY 2006 the IT/Data Management Superfund resources support EPA's Technology
Initiative including the Integrated Portal, ECMS, 'Readiness to Serve' infrastructure program and
regional programs. The Integrated Portal is the user interface that provides the ready access and
Superfund-48
-------
capability to perform real time data searches and analyses. It provides a single business gateway
for people to access, exchange and integrate nationally standardized local, Regional and national
environmental and public health data, including Superfund site information. In FY 2006 EPA's
Integrated Portal activities include implementing identity and access management solutions,
integrating geospatial tools and linking the Central Data Exchange. The Portal is the Technology
Initiative's link to diverse data sets and systems giving users the ability to perform complex
environmental data analyses.
The ECMS development and implementation project is an enterprise-wide, multi-media solution
designed to manage and organize environmental data and documents for EPA, Regions, field
offices and laboratories. Formerly fragmented data storage approaches will be converted into a
single tool on a standard platform, accessible to everyone, reducing data and document search
time and assisting in security and information retention efforts. The ECMS is a cornerstone in
EPA's Technology Initiative providing streamlined means to access and receive records from all
sources, reducing costs for data storage and records duplication. The Superfund Document
Management System (SDMS) is one of the first systems to be piloted using this platform. The
ECMS capabilities will be instrumental in assisting with Superfund document storage and
retrieval (e.g., the Administrative Record).
EPA's 'Readiness to Serve' infrastructure program delivers secure information services to
ensure that the Agency and its programs have a full range of information technology
infrastructure components (e.g., user equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application
hosting, remote access) that make information accessible across the spectrum of mission needs at
all locations. The Program uses performance-based, outsourced services to obtain the best
solutions (value for cost) for the range of program needs. This includes innovative multi-year
leasing that sustains and renews technical services in a least-cost, stable manner as technology
changes over time (e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance).
In addition to supporting key components of EPA's Technology Initiative, IT/Data Management
Superfund resources will continue to provide local program offices in the Regions' support for
hardware requirements determination, software programming and applications, records
management systems, data base services, local area network activities, intranet web design, and
desktop support. EPA's environmental information efforts require the Agency to ensure that it is
keeping pace with the states in the areas of data collection, management and utilization.
Additionally, this program will continue to focus on information security and the need for each
Region to have an internal IT security capacity. The Regions will implement Agency information
resource management policies in areas such as data and technology standards, central data base
services, and telecommunications. The Regions will also continue to work on the implementation
of cost accounting procedures to capture in detail all IT expenditures for EPA offices. This will
enable the Agency to better address OMB's IT reporting requirements.
Superfund IT/Data Management efforts work in tandem with the Exchange Network and
Information Security programs. Together these programs work to design, develop and deploy
secure systems and analytical tools to promote sound environmental decision-making.
Superfund-49
-------
In FY 2005, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) redistributed their
IT/Data Management resources among the Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement,
Compliance Assistance and Centers, and Compliance Incentives programs, to more accurately
reflect their direct support to OECA's Superfund-related programs and activities within Goal 3.
For comparability purposes, program project totals for FY 2005 also reflect this resource shift.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$515.2) The reduction in resources reflects efficiencies gained in aligning activities and
project resource shifts to support the Technology Initiative.
(-$5,497.2) This resource reduction reflects efficiencies gained in aligning resources for
infrastructure and data management necessary to develop and deploy the Integrated
Portal.
(-$4,043.6) This reduction reflects a shift of resources from non-project specific activities
to support the development and implementation of the ECMS, analytical tools including
Environmental Indicators and geospatial/locational data and the Agency's 'Readiness to
Serve' enterprise-wide information technology infrastructure solutions.
(+$900.0) This resource increase supports the development and deployment of the
ECMS.
(+$866.0) This resource increase reflects a shift of the System of Registry (SoR) and
Facility Registry System (FRS) data management activities to more closely align with the
Integrated Portal and Enterprise Architecture functions.
(+$6,115.1) This resource increase supports the continued development and operations
and maintenance of the Agency's 'Readiness to Serve' enterprise-wide infrastructure
solutions.
Statutory Authority
Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
Clean Air Act and amendments; Clean Water Act and amendments; Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act; Toxic Substance Control Act; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Superfund Amendments and Re-
authorization Act; Government Performance and Results Act; Government Management Reform
Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; Freedom of Information Act; Computer
Security Act; Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act
Superfund-50
-------
Legal Advice: Environmental flagrant
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $836.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Legal Advice: Environmental Program (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$33,516.3
$800.6
$34,316.9
233.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$34,678.8
$844.0
$35,522.8
255.8
FY 2006
Request
$36,314.3
$836.1
$37,150.4
250.9
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$1,635.5
($7.9)
$1,627.6
-4.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA's General Counsel and Regional Counsel provide legal representational services, legal
counseling and legal support for all Agency environmental activities.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, legal advice to environmental programs will include but is not limited to:
representing EPA and providing litigation support in cases where EPA is a defendant as well as
those cases where EPA is not a defendant but may have an interest in the case: providing legal
advice, counsel and support to Agency management and program offices on matters involving
environmental issues including, for example, providing interpretations of relevant and applicable
laws, regulations, directives, policy and guidance documents and other materials.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes
Superfund-51
-------
Radiation: Protection
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Radiation
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $2,387.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Radiation: Protection (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$11,608.6
$4,185.6
$2,223.9
$18,018.1
119.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$11,811.7
$2,847.0
$2,323.2
$16,981.9
114.4
FY 2006
Request
$11,765.1
$2,120.5
$2,387.1
$16,272.7
103.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($46.6)
($726.5)
$63.9
($709.2)
-10.9
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Superfund portion of the Radiation Protection program helps to identify critical technology
problems associated with radioactively contaminated and mixed waste clean ups and tests and
evaluates specific technologies that focus on the radioactive component. The intent of this
program is that: (1) Superfund site clean-up activities reduce and/or mitigate the health and
environmental risk of radiation to safe levels; (2) appropriate clean up technologies and methods
are adopted to effectively and efficiently reduce the health and environmental hazards associated
with radiation problems encountered at the sites; and, (3) appropriate technical assistance is
provided on remediation approaches of NPL (National Priority List) and non-NPL sites.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will make available appropriate methods to manage and mitigate radioactive releases and
exposures. Program activities will include risk modeling, technical assistance for clean-up,
sampling, and waste management activities at Superfund sites. EPA will maintain an on-going
capability to provide radioanalytical and mixed waste analytical data on environmental samples
to support site characterization and remediation activities.
The program will provide training assistance to the regions on radioactivity hazards, transport,
safety procedures, and field worker safety and health as they relate to clean-up at Superfund sites
containing radioactive materials.
Superfund-52
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
Superfund-53
-------
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $23,098.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Land Protection and Restoration (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$10,230.3
$627.1
$928.2
$32,264.8
$44,050.4
142.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$8,841.9
$628.5
$917.8
$22,671.1
$33,059.3
136.8
FY 2006
Request
$13,696.5
$646.2
$905.7
$23,098. 7
$38,347.1
135.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$4,854.6
$17.7
($12.1)
$427.6
$5,287.8
-1.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
In order to accelerate cleanup of contaminated sites and reduce risk of contaminant exposure,
research focuses on three main themes: addressing questions in characterizing sites and deriving
more definitive human and ecological risk assessments; reducing specific gaps in our
understanding of human exposure; and expanding the number of remedial alternatives with
documented performance. To guide these research efforts, EPA has developed a draft Multi-Year
Plan for Contaminated Sites1 research, with input from across the Agency, to ensure research
conducted supports the Agency's mission to protect human health and the environment (R&D
Criteria: Relevance). Specific human health risk and exposure assessments and methods and site
specific risk characterizations are discussed and conducted under the Superfund Human Health
Risk Assessment Program- Project.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, research will continue to advance EPA's ability to accurately characterize the risks
posed by contaminated sediments, and determine the range and scientific foundation for remedy
selection options by improving risk characterization, site characterization, and an understanding
of remedial options (OMB Criterion: Relevance). EPA will continue to develop remediation
alternatives, conduct evaluations of their short- and long-term performance, and test several
remedies to identify approaches that have potential cost and performance advantages.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Contaminated Sites Multi-Year Plan, [online] Available:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/csites.pdf
Superfund-54
-------
Multiple treatment technologies will be combined to accelerate successful DNAPL site cleanup,
with a focus on advanced thermal treatment and flushing processes. Alternative approaches, such
as permeable reactive barriers (PRBs), will also be evaluated for their applicability to remediate
ground water contaminants such as arsenic and mercury. Although PRBs are a recently-
developed technology, they are being selected more often for Superfund sites based on
documented performance and cost advantages of the systems.2
EPA will also continue to provide technical support to Superfund project managers via seven
technical support centers (TSCs) and two modeling assistance websites that provide site-specific
technical support to more than 100 cleanup program sites in the form of responses to scientific
questions (e.g., human health and environmental toxicity), and technology transfer products to
EPA program offices and other stakeholders. TSCs provide direct, practical, expert assistance to
EPA program offices, Regions and other stakeholders. TSCs provide information based on
research results to increase the speed and quality of Superfund cleanups and reduce associated
cleanup costs. Development of human health toxicity values and technical support activities are
discussed and conducted under the Human Health Risk Assessment Program-Project.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
. (+$1,110.0) This internal shift of resources represents an increased investment in the
Technical Support Centers (TSCs) and modeling assistance websites utilized extensively by
Superfund project managers. The centers provide significant technical support in the areas of
remote sensing; monitoring and site characterization; exposure assessment and subsurface
modeling; human health and ecological risk assessment; contaminated sediments
characterization; engineering and treatment; ground water and subsurface contamination; and
site remediation.
. (-$1,110.0) This redirection to Technical Support Centers (TSCs) will reduce research on
geophysical techniques characterizing DNAPLs location and concentration in contaminated
porous media; cover/liner work addressing the performance of materials used in containment
remedies and the long-term performance of landfills; exposure assessment tools designed to
provide analytical and statistical methodologies that reduce exposure risk; and ecological risk
assessment research focusing on bioavailability and trophic transfer.
. There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA
2 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Capstone Report on the Application, Monitoring, and Performance of
Permeable Reactive Barriers for Ground-Water Remediation. (EPA/600/R-03/045) Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office. (2003).
Superfund-55
-------
Research: SITE Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $1,484.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: SITE Program (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,815.2
$5,815.2
3.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$6,927.7
$6,927.7
9.7
FY 2006
Request
$1,484.7
$1,484.7
9.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($5,443.0)
($5,443.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program conducts high-quality field
demonstrations of remediation technologies at sites that pose high risks to human health and the
environment. Complex sites where existing remediation methods are inadequate, do not exist, are
unsafe for the surrounding communities, and/or are too costly are the focus of these advances in
technology. Since 1987, the SITE program has helped private sector technology developers
accelerate implementation of their innovative technologies and gain market share.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, The SITE1 program will conclude demonstrations of innovative remediation,
monitoring, and measurement approaches. EPA will begin distributing final information about
these innovative and alternative environmental technologies to developers, remediation site
managers and regulators. Through a competitive solicitation process, final technologies that
have been initiated in prior years and address high priority remediation problems identified by
the Agency and Regions will be completed. (R&D Criteria: Quality).
Innovative remedies for contaminated sediments such as Sediment Washing Technology for
PCB and PAH Contamination in New Jersey, In-Situ Sediment Capping Using Bauxite for
Department of Defense (DoD) at Navy Dodge Pond site in Connecticut, and Subaqueous
Capping Techniques for the Anacostia River in Washington D.C. are scheduled for
demonstration in FY 2005-2006. The technologies being demonstrated in these projects could
potentially be used at 215 National Priorities List (NPL) sites that contain PCBs, poly cyclic
1 For more information about EPA's SITE program, see http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/
Superfund-56
-------
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and pesticides in sediments, as well as at 223 National Priorities
List sites that contain mercury and other hazardous metals in sediments.
Additional demonstration projects slated for FY 2005-2006 address in-situ treatment of
contaminated soils and ground water at sites in Hudson, New Hampshire, Dallas, Texas (an
Environmental Justice Project), and at the Roosevelt Mills Revitalization Project in Vernon,
Connecticut. These technologies are potentially applicable at more than 800 sites on the final
National Priorities List that contain hazardous organic compounds and/or dense non-aqueous
phase liquid (DNAPL) contamination in soils, source zones, and ground water plumes.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$5,500.0) This reduction to the SITE program reflects termination of the program in FY 2006.
As the Superfund program has matured, innovative approaches evaluated through the SITE
program and other mechanisms have become standard tools for remediation. Additionally, the
business of environmental remediation has matured and the private sector now offers many more
opportunities for vendors to promote their products and systems. Continuing priority research
needs for the Superfund Response function are also being pursued by the Agency. The funding
requested in FY 2006 will be used by SITE program researchers to close out projects at
Superfund, RCRA, and voluntary cleanup sites, and document program achievements and results
for the benefit of other researchers.
. There are additional increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA
Superfund-57
-------
Research: Sustainability
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $0
Research: Sustainability (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations**
$46,609.6
$593.0
$47,202.6
121.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.**
$30,991.9
$593.0
$$31,584.9
126.2
FY 2006
Request
$23,187.8
$0.0
$23,187.8
77.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
-$7,804.1
-$593.0
-$8,397.1
-49.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
** Resources under this Program Project were formerly captured under the Research: Pollution Prevention Program Project. The
FY 2005 resources represent the Sustainability (SF) portion of the FY 05 Research: Pollution Prevention Program Project
request. In the FY 05 request, the Sustainability (SF) portion of the Pollution Prevention Program Project was S0.6M and 0.0
FTE. The FY 2004 obligation levels are estimates.
Program Project Description
In compliance with the Small Business Act as amended,1 EPA sets aside 2.5% of its extramural
research funds for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, which awards
contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies.
The resources above represent a portion of the Superfund (SF) account resources that Congress
annually transfers to the Science and Technology (S&T) account. For more information about
the SBIR program, see the Research: Sustainability program project description under the S&T
account section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
See the Research: Sustainability program project description under the S&T account section.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$570.6) In FY 2006, EPA is not requesting Superfund (SF) resources to support the
SBIR program.
Statutory Authority
SBA.
1 U.S. Public Law 219. 79th Congress, 2nd session, 22 July 1982. Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. More
information is available on the Internet at:
Superfund-58
-------
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $197,999.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$205,310.2
$205,310.2
298.7
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$201,088.0
$201,088.0
300.0
FY 2006
Request
$197,999.9
$197,999.9
293.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($3,088.1)
($3,088.1)
-6.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Emergency Response and Removal program ensures that all releases of chemicals to the
environment, oil in the inland zone, and biological and radiological incidents are appropriately
addressed through either a federally funded lead or by providing technical support to state, local
and other federal responders.
As the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) in the inland zone, EPA evaluates and
responds to thousands of small to large releases annually as part of the National Response
System (NRS) and under the new National Response Plan (NRP).
EPA leads and/or provides support at over 350 removal actions each year, including
emergencies, time-critical incidents, and important but less urgent non-time critical
threats.
EPA works to improve its ability to respond effectively to incidents that may involve
harmful chemical, oil, biological, and radiological substances.
Each year, EPA personnel assess, respond to, mitigate, and clean up thousands of releases,
whether accidental, deliberate, or naturally occurring. EPA undertakes removals to prevent,
reduce or mitigate threats posed by releases or potential releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, and contaminants in emergency and non-emergency situations at National Priority
List (NPL) and non-NPL sites.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will undertake removal response actions at: (1) emergency incidents where
response is necessary within a matter of hours (e.g., threats of fire or explosion); (2) time-critical
Superfund-59
-------
incidents posing public health and environmental threats; and, (3) non-time critical situations at
both NPL and non-NPL sites to promote quicker and less costly cleanup.
EPA will work to improve its ability to respond effectively to incidents that may involve harmful
chemical, oil, biological, and radiological substances. As part of its strategy for improving
effectiveness, the Agency will improve response readiness using response data provided in the
after-action reports prepared by EPA emergency responders and lessons learned reports. The
Agency will continue to train technical personnel in the field to ensure their readiness to respond
to releases of dangerous materials without compromising health and safety. In addition, EPA
will continue to strengthen the security, collection, and exchange of information.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$3,000.0) This reduction to the Superfund Response and Removal program aligns the
program with recent Congressional Action.
(-6.2) This reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustments described in
the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of Agency authorized
positions, but not to overall Agency FTE utilization.
Statutory Authority
CERCLA Sections 104, 105, 106; Clean Water Act; Oil Pollution Act
Superfund-60
-------
Superfund: Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $164,257.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Superfund: Enforcement (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$161,412.6
$161,412.6
997.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$155,809.8
$155,809.8
1,005.7
FY 2006
Request
$164,257.7
$164,257.7
1,002.4
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$8,447.9
$8,447.9
-3.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
** The reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment described in the Overview Section. This
represents a reduction to the total number of Agency authorized positions, but not to actual FTE levels.
Program Project Description
The Superfund Enforcement program secures cleanups from Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) at EPA's priority sites. The PRPs perform approximately 70% of the long-term cleanups
and EPA uses appropriated dollars to pay for the other 30% of the long-term cleanups. If PRPs
do not perform a cleanup, and EPA uses appropriated dollars to clean up sites, the Superfund
enforcement program recovers EPA's expenditures from the PRPs.
The Agency has also been encouraging the establishment and use of Special Accounts. These
accounts segregate site-specific funds obtained from responsible parties that complete settlement
agreements with EPA. These funds can be provided as an incentive for other PRPs to perform
work they might not be willing to perform or used by the Agency to fund clean up. The result is
the Agency can clean up more sites and preserve appropriated Trust Fund dollars for sites
without viable PRPs.
EPA's financial management community maintains a strong partnership with the Superfund
program, providing a full array of financial management support services necessary to pay
Superfund bills and recover cleanup and oversight costs for the trust fund. This component of
the program allows the Agency to centrally manage Superfund budget formulation, justification,
and execution, as well as financial cost recovery. It also manages oversight billing for Superfund
site cleanups (cost of overseeing the responsible party's cleanup activities), Superfund cost
documentation (the Federal cost of cleaning up a Superfund site), and refers delinquent accounts
receivable and oversight debts to the Department of Justice for collection. This program was
included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of
Superfund-61
-------
Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section. For more information,
visit: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency's Superfund program pursues an "enforcement first" policy to ensure that sites for
which there are viable responsible parties are cleaned up by those parties. In tandem with this
approach, various Superfund reforms have been implemented to increase fairness, reduce
transaction costs, and promote economic redevelopment. Information about EPA's Superfund
enforcement program, and its various components, can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/
compliance/cleanup/superfund/.
Throughout FY 2006 the Superfund Enforcement program will maximize PRP participation in
cleanups while promoting fairness in the enforcement process, and will continue to recover costs
from PRPs when EPA expends funds. In 2006 the Agency will provide $27.2 million in funding
to the Department of Justice (DOJ), through an Interagency Agreement (IAG) to assist the
program in enforcement efforts. EPA's Superfund enforcement program is responsible for case
development and preparation, referral to DOJ, and post-filing actions as well as for providing
case and cost documentation support for the docket of current cases with DOJ. The program also
ensures that EPA meets cost recovery statute of limitation deadlines, resolves cases, issues bills
for oversight, and makes collections in a timely manner.
In 2006, the Agency will negotiate remedial design/remedial action cleanup agreements and
removal agreements at contaminated properties. Where negotiations fail, the Agency will either
take unilateral enforcement actions to require PRP cleanup or use appropriated dollars to
remediate sites. When appropriated dollars are used to clean up sites, the program will recover
this money from the PRPs. The Agency will also continue its efforts to establish and use special
accounts to facilitate clean up.
By pursuing cost recovery settlements, the program promotes the principle that polluters should
perform or pay for cleanups and preserves the Trust Fund to address future threats posed by
contaminated sites. The Agency's expenditures will be recouped through administrative actions,
CERCLA section 107 case referrals, and through settlements reached with the use of alternative
dispute resolution.
A critical component of many response actions selected by EPA is institutional controls. These
are established to ensure that property is used and maintained in an appropriate manner after
construction of the selected cleanup is complete. The Superfund program will oversee the
implementation and enforcement of institutional controls as part of its remedies, focusing on
sites where construction of engineered remedies has been completed.
During FY 2006, The Agency will also continue its efforts in support of Superfund cost recovery.
These efforts include managing Superfund delinquent debt, maintaining the Superfund cost
documentation system, and preparing cost documentation packages. The Agency continues to
refine and streamline the cost documentation process to gain further efficiencies; provide DOJ
case support for Superfund clean-up sites; and calculate indirect cost rates to be applied to direct
Superfund-62
-------
costs incurred by EPA for site cleanup. The Agency will also continue to maintain the accounting
and billing of Superfund oversight costs attributable to responsible parties. These costs represent
EPA's cost of overseeing Superfund site clean-up efforts by responsible parties as stipulated in
the terms of settlement agreements.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$1,024.0) This increase represents a redirection to support the full array of financial
management support services necessary to pay Superfund bills and recover cleanup and
oversight cost for the trust fund.
(-3.3 FTE) The reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment
described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of
Agency authorized positions, but not to actual FTE levels.
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CERCLA; SBLRBRERA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; SOW A; CCA; FGCAA;
FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations; FMFIA; FOIA; GMRA; IPIA; IGA; PRA; Privacy Act;
CFOA; GPRA; The Prompt Payment Act; Executive Order 12241; Executive Order 12656
Superfund-63
-------
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $10,506.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$7,705.0
$7,705.0
20.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$10,091.4
$10,091.4
45.7
FY 2006
Request
$10,506.8
$10,506.8
44.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$415.4
$415.4
-1.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Preparedness on a national level is essential to ensure that emergency responders are able to
handle multiple, large scale emergencies, including those that may involve chemicals, oil,
biological, or radiological substances. EPA's Superfund Emergency Preparedness Program
develops plans and procedures to respond to nationally significant events. By enhancing its core
emergency response and preparedness program, EPA will be able to respond quickly and more
effectively to simultaneous large-scale national emergencies, including homeland security
incidents.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Over the next several years, the program will work to enhance our readiness capabilities by
improving internal and external coordination and communication mechanisms. As part of the
National Incident Command Team (NICT), EPA will continue to improve its policies, plans,
procedures and decision making processes for coordinating responses to national emergencies.
EPA chairs the 16-Agency National Response Team (NRT) and co-chairs the 13 Regional
Response Teams (RRT) throughout the US. The NRT and RRT coordinate the actions of
Federal partners to prevent, prepare for and respond to hazardous substances and petroleum
emergencies, whether accidental or intentional. Building on current efforts to enhance national
emergency response management, NRT agencies will continue implementation of the new
National Incident Management System (NEVIS) and National Response Plan (NRP). NRT
agencies will improve notification and response procedures, develop response technical
assistance documents, and continue to implement and test incident command/unified command
systems across all levels of government and the private sector as well as assist in the
Superfund-64
-------
development of Regional Contingency Plans and Local Area Plans. Technical assistance,
training and exercises will be provided to continue fostering a working relationship between
state, local and Federal responders implementing the system. The NRT will also continue to
assist web-based responder training and innovative use of incident notification technologies,
hazmat/WMD research, and health and safety issues.
Under the National Response Plan (NRP), EPA has the lead responsibility for the NRP's
emergency support function covering hazardous materials and inland petroleum releases. The
program participates in the Federal Emergency Support Function Leaders Group and the
Interagency Incident Management Group. These inter-agency groups address NRP planning and
implementation at the operational level. This includes participating in exercises, training and
post event evaluation actions and coordinating these activities closely with the NRT.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to provide staff support to the Homeland Security Operations
Center (HSOC) as needed during a national disaster or emergency and other responses enacted
under the NRP. The program will continue to participate in training courses on emergency
support function responsibilities, deliver presentations on the NRP to national forums and
participate in nationwide exercises to test and improve the Federal Government's preparedness
and response system and its capabilities.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CERCLA; CWA; and OPA
Superfund-65
-------
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $31,610.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Superfund: Federal Facilities (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$31,481.6
$31,481.6
129.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$32,182.0
$32,182.0
143.8
FY 2006
Request
$31,610.9
$31,610.9
134.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($571.1)
($571.1)
-9.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response Program provides technical assistance and regulatory
oversight at Federal facilities, including Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) and Formerly
Utilized Site Remedial Action Plan (FUSRAP) Sites, to ensure protection of human health and
the environment. EPA works closely with other Federal agencies in striving to ensure that
cleanup decisions are made in a transparent manner.1 EPA, the States, and state associations
have worked collaboratively over the past decade to improve the Department of Energy's (DOE)
Environmental Management cleanup program.
Although progress has been made, there are still 178 Federal sites listed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) 158 final, 13 deleted, 7 proposed; over 9,300 FUDS; and approximately
50 FUSRAP sites. In many cases, Federal facility cleanups face unique challenges due to the
types of contamination present, the size of the facility (mega-sites), ongoing operations/missions
or the complexities of reuse related to environmental issues, as in the case at military base
closures. Other challenging sites include abandoned mines, nuclear weapons production
facilities, area-wide groundwater plumes and landfills. At the beginning of FY 2005, there are
469 remedial investigations/ feasibility studies, 63 remedial designs, and 216 remedial actions
being addressed at NPL sites in the program. Forty-three NPL Federal facility sites have reached
construction completion, two sites are scheduled to begin this fiscal year and three more are
targeted for next fiscal year.
1 For more information on this program or EPA's efforts to work closely with other agencies, please refer to
www.epa.gov/fedfac/ and www.epa.gov/fedfac/stakeholder.htau respectively.
Superfund-66
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
There is continued EPA involvement in the Department of Defense's (DOD) military munitions
response sites including many that are FUDS. FUDS are sites formerly owned, leased,
possessed, or operated by DOD that are now owned by the States, Tribes, cities, and other
Federal or state government entities, as well as individuals or corporations. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has estimated that over 15 million acres (no longer under DOD
control) in the United States are known to be or are suspected of being contaminated with
military munitions.2 EPA is working on several initiatives with DOD, the States, and Federal
Land Managers to address DOD's military munitions issues.
There is also continued EPA involvement at FUDS. Response actions at FUDS must be
consistent with CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Although the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) implements the FUDS program for DOD, EPA is finding itself
increasingly involved in oversight and consultation roles for environmental investigation and
cleanup of FUDS. The Agency is working on several initiatives with the USAGE, States, and
Tribes in the identification and cleanup of FUDS.
The Agency will continue working with DOE in accelerating environmental cleanup across
DOE sites. In expediting their cleanup program, DOE has signed an interagency agreement
(TAG) with EPA's Region 4 (Savannah River Site). The Savannah River IAG provides resources
for technical input regarding innovative and flexible regulatory approaches, streamlining of
documentation, integration of projects, deletion from the NPL, field assessments, and
development of management documents and processes. The IAG has received recognition by
DOE as a model for potential use at other DOE field offices.
In FY 2006, the program will continue to address contaminants that are attracting ever increasing
attention from both within EPA and the Federal Government as well as with interested
stakeholders as new science, toxicity values and occurrence data is becoming available. These
include chemicals such as perchlorate, 1, 4-Dioxane, trichloroethelyne (TCE), napthaline,
dinitrotoluene (DNT) and tungsten alloys.
The program will continue to support and encourage citizen involvement by working with DOD
and DOE to establish and operate the 184 Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) and Site-
Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs), respectively.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-9.3 FTE) The reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment
described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of
Agency authorized positions, but not to overall Agency FTE utilization.
(-$571.1) This reduction reflects a decrease in payroll due to a reduction in FTE.
2 GAO Report, www.gao.gov/new.items/d04147.pdf.
Superfund-67
-------
Statutory Authorities
CERCLA; RCRA; Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended by the
National Defense Authorization Acts and the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and
Homeless Assistance Act; CERFA; and NEPA
Superfund-68
-------
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $10,240.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$7,987.2
$7,987.2
65.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$10,044.4
$10,044.4
82.7
FY 2006
Request
$10,240.9
$10,240.9
82.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$196.5
$196.5
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement program ensures that all Federal facility sites on
the National Priority List sign Inter-Agency agreements (lAGs), which provide enforceable
schedules for the progression of the entire cleanup.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Under CERCLA, ง120 mandates, EPA will enter into interagency agreements (lAGs) to ensure
protective cleanup at a timely pace in FY 2006. EPA will also monitor milestones in existing
lAGs, resolve disputes, and oversee all remedial work being conducted by Federal facilities.
EPA will also continue its work with affected agencies, to resolve outstanding policy issues
relating to the cleanup of Federal facilities. This program was included in the Civil Enforcement
PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more information is
included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$386.8) This reduction reflects a redistribution of working capital fund investments.
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
CERCLA; SBLRBRERA; DBCRA; Defense Authorization Amendments; BRAC; PPA;
CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; DRAA; SOW A; Executive Order 12241; Executive
Order 12656
Superfund-69
-------
Superfund: Remedial
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land; Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $599,396.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Superfund: Remedial (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$673,394.0
$673,394.0
984.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$725,483.8
$725,483.8
970.4
FY 2006
Request
$599,396.0
$599,396.0
948.3
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($126,087.8)
($126,087.8)
-22.1
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Superfund Remedial Program manages the risks to human health and the environment at
contaminated properties or sites through clean up, stabilization, or other action, and makes land
available for reuse. Resources in this program are used to: (1) collect data on sites to determine
the need for CERCLA response; (2) conduct or oversee investigations and studies to select
remedies; (3) design and construct or oversee construction of remedies and post-construction
activities at non-Federal facility sites, including technical and administrative support activities
and redevelopment, (4) facilitate participation of other Federal agencies, state, local, and tribal
governments and communities in the program, and (5) provide sound science and continually
integrate smarter technical solutions into protection strategies. EPA stays abreast of state of the
art analytical methods and remediation technologies, working in partnership with academia,
other Federal agencies, and industry to identify and deploy promising technologies and
strategies. For more information about the program, please refer to
www.epa.gov/superfund/about.htm. This program underwent a PART review for 2006 and
received a rating of adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the program will continue its clean-up and response work to reduce current and
direct human exposures to hazardous pollutants. In FY 2006, EPA expects to complete
construction for cleanup remedies at 40 sites and initiate remedial action at additional sites. The
program will continue to provide alternative drinking water supplies when appropriate to people
at National Priorities List (NPL) and non-NPL sites to protect them from contaminated ground
and surface water. In addition, the program will continue to relocate people at NPL and non-
NPL sites in instances where contamination poses severe, immediate threats to life and health.
Superfund-70
-------
The program's ongoing priorities are reflected in five of its GPRA performance measures, which
are: (1) making final site assessment decisions at possible sites, (2) selecting final remedies
(clean-up targets), (3) placing protective controls at sites to prevent any unacceptable human
exposures under current land and groundwater uses, (4) placing protective controls at sites to
prevent migration of contaminated groundwater, and (5) completing construction of the selected
remedies at NPL sites. In FY 2006, the program plans to accomplish the following:
(1) 500 Final Site Assessment Decisions, for a cumulative total of 40,134;
(2) 20 Final Remedy Selections, for a cumulative total of 1,043;
(3) 10 sites with Human Exposures under Control, for a cumulative total of 1,262;
(4) 10 sites with Groundwater Migration under Control, for a cumulative total of 895; and
(5) 40 Construction Completions, for a cumulative total of 1,006.
These FY 2006 targets will keep the program on schedule to meet its FY 2008 cumulative
accomplishments targets under the Agency' s FY 2003 - 2008 Strategic Plan. Through FY 2004,
cleanups had been completed at 926 sites, and over 8,200 removal actions had been taken. In
addition, more than 83% of baseline sites had human exposures under control, meaning that
adequately protective controls are in place to prevent any unacceptable human exposures from
occurring under current land and groundwater use. For more information regarding the
program's cumulative accomplishments through FY 2004, please refer to the Goal 3 Chapter of
the Agency' s FY 2004 Annual Report at www.epa.gov/ocfo.
Even though the program met its FY 2004 targets for each of its existing performance measures,
it is not without challenges in the coming years. The program faces a large and growing number
of projects that are ready to begin construction, while at the same time trying to fully fund
several large and complex ongoing remedial action projects at their optimal pace. In addition, as
the program has matured it has become necessary for the Agency to devote more resources
toward post construction activities, including long-term remedial actions and five-year reviews.
In FY 2006, the Agency will continue to take the following steps to improve program
effectiveness and efficiency: (1) carefully review the scope, budget and schedule of ongoing and
new construction projects to ensure available resources are directed where they are needed, (2)
review construction start candidates to ensure that projects that present the greatest risk to human
health are addressed, while balancing the programmatic need to complete construction at other
projects, (3) maximize the use of resources already available to the Agency through
deobligations of prior year funds and reimbursements, (4) continue to work with developers and
partner with other Federal Agencies, such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, to leverage the
program's resources. The Agency will continue to maximize the use of PRP-funded cost
recovery and special account funds to accomplish clean-ups. Over 70 percent of clean-ups are
funded through these mechanisms.
In FY 2006, the program will continue its efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
clean-ups through the use of the latest advancements in science and technology. Three major
types of activities are anticipated, including 1) continued use of the TRIAD strategy, which has
been shown to decrease lifecycle costs for site investigation, cleanup, and monitoring, while
Superfund-71
-------
increasing confidence in the protectiveness of project decisions, 2) demonstration of optimization
techniques at 10 selected Superfund sites to showcase promising cleanup technologies, and 3)
application of nanotechnology to the clean-up of Superfund sites, which has the potential to
revolutionize advances in waste treatment and remediation.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-22.1 FTE) The reduction is in accordance with the Agency workforce adjustment
described in the overview section. This represents a reduction to the total number of
Agency authorized positions, but not to overall Agency FTE utilization.
(-$126,087.8) Resources would have been used to fund new construction projects and to
address the backlog of projects that are ready to begin construction in the program. This
funding request is consistent with recent Congressional action.
Statutory Authorities
CERCLA of 1980, Section 104, as amended by SARA of 1986, as reauthorized through October
1994 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
Superfund-72
-------
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation Superfund: $9,754.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies (Superfund)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,446.4
$5,446.4
2.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$10,676.0
$10,676.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$9,754.2
$9,754.2
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($921.8)
($921.8)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Other Federal agencies contribute to the Superfund program by providing essential services in
areas where EPA does not possess the necessary specialized expertise. These agencies provide
numerous Superfund related services which Superfund resources support. Contributors include
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Interior
(DOT), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the Agency will continue to provide resources through Interagency Agreements to
support other Federal agencies. NOAA will continue to provide technical support during
hazardous waste site investigations, to identify and evaluate the severity of risks posed to natural
resources from hazardous waste sites, and evaluate strategies/methods of minimizing those risks.
NOAA will also assist in developing and conducting field testing of advanced chemical sampling
and analytical equipment used for efficient response operations. In addition, NOAA will apply
new technology and information to identify effective countermeasures during response
operations.
DOI will provide response preparedness and management assistance that supports the National
Response Team/Regional Response Teams (NRT/RRTs). It also provides Trustee Assistance
and Damage Assessment Capability (TA/DAC) which builds capacity among state and Federal
trustee officials for conducting natural damage assessments resulting from hazardous substance
releases.
Superfund-73
-------
OSHA, under existing safety and health standards, has the primary responsibility for worker
protection at Superfund sites. In FY 2006, OSHA will continue to carry out this responsibility
by inspecting Superfund sites for compliance with OSHA standards and providing employers,
employees, and other on-site personnel with the most current technical experience or knowledge
in this area.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), serving as a Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), will conduct
small scale Superfund removals in the coastal zone to any release or threatened release into the
environment of hazardous substances, or pollutants or contaminants which may present an
imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the environment. Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will provide technical and financial assistance to
support the National Contingency Plan through development of preparedness exercises and
hazardous materials training.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$921.8) Overall reductions to EPA's Superfund resources require decreases to lower
priority programs.
Statutory Authority
CERCLA Section 104, 105, 106; Clean Water Act; Oil Pollution Act
Superfund-74
-------
Index - Superfund
Acquisition Management 1, 3
Alternative Dispute Resolution 1,5
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations.. 1, 6
Brownfields 1, 6
Brownfields Projects 1
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 1,
8
Civil Enforcement.. 1, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20,
22,23,31,32,50,61,69
Compliance Assistance and Centers 1, 12, 50
Compliance Incentives... 1, 2, 10, 12, 14, 16,
50
Compliance Monitoring. 1, 2, 10, 12, 14, 16,
50
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations 1,2, 18
Criminal Enforcement 1, 2, 20, 21, 22, 32
Enforcement Training 1, 2, 21, 22
Environmental Justice 1, 2, 23, 57
Exchange Network... 1, 2, 24, 25, 46, 47, 48,
49
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations. 1, 2,
27
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management 1, 2, 29
Forensics Support 1, 2, 31
Homeland Security
Communication and Information.. 1, 2, 33
Critical Infrastructure Protection .. 1, 2, 35
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. 1,
2,36
Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure 1, 2, 39
Human Health Risk Assessment 1, 2, 41, 42,
54,55
Human Resources Management 1, 2, 43
Information Security.. 1, 2, 7, 25, 26, 34, 45,
46, 49, 50
IT / Data Management 1, 2, 47
Legal Advice
Environmental Program 1, 2, 51
Pollution Prevention Program 58
Radiation
Protection 1, 2, 52
Research
Land Protection and Restoration... 1, 2, 54
Pollution Prevention 2
SITE Program 1,2, 56
Superfund
Emergency Response and Removal... 1, 2,
59
Enforcement 1, 2, 61
EPA Emergency Preparedness 1, 2, 64
Federal Facilities 1, 2, 66
Remedial 1, 2, 70
Support to Other Federal Agencies 1, 2, 73
-------
Table of Contents - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Resource Summary Table 1
Program Projects in LUST 1
Acquisition Management (LUST) 2
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance (LUST) 4
Compliance Assistance and Centers (LUST) 6
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (LUST) 8
Human Resources Management (LUST) 10
IT / Data Management (LUST) 11
LUST Cooperative Agreements (LUST) 14
LUST / UST (LUST) 16
Research: Land Protection and Restoration (LUST) 19
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Resource Summary Table
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2004
Obligations
$73,372.4
74.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$72,545.0
79.3
FY 2006
Request
$73,027.0
77.4
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$482.0
-1.9
BILL LANGUAGE: LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND
For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground storage tank cleanup activities
authorized by section 205 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and
for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to exceed
$85,000 per project, [$70,000,000] $73,027,000, to remain available until expended.
(Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.)
Program Projects in LUST
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Acquisition Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management *
Human Resources Management
IT / Data Management
LUST/UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
FY 2004
Obligations
$347.9
$723.6
$463.5
$862.1
$24.5
$4.0
$109.3
$9,473.6
$60,736.8
$627.1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$366.7
$950.4
$585.3
$883.9
$0.0
$3.0
$177.6
$10,499.6
$58,450.0
$628.5
FY 2006
Request
$346.5
$935.9
$773.6
$883.9
$0.0
$3.0
$177.6
$10,583.7
$58,676.6
$646.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($20.2)
($14.5)
$188.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$84.1
$226.6
$17.7
* There is no factsheet for this program because there are no resources being requested.
LUST - 1
-------
Acquisition Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation LUST: $346.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Acquisition Management (LUST)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$23,081.3
$347.9
$17,465.1
$40,894.3
359.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$24,264.3
$366.7
$19,028.5
$43,659.5
365.3
FY 2006
Request
$23,054.6
$346.5
$20,367.4
$43,768.5
364.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,209.7)
($20.2)
$1,338.9
$109.0
-0.5
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Resources in this program support LUST contract and acquisition management at Headquarters,
Regions, Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati. EPA focuses on maintaining a high level of
integrity in the management of its procurement activities and fostering relationships with State
and local governments to support the implementation of environmental programs.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will improve electronic government capabilities and enhance the education of its
contract workforce. EPA will utilize the central contractor registry, which is the single
government-wide database for vendor data and part of the Integrated Acquisition Environment
(IAE)1. Contract actions will be sent to the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation
(FPDS-NG)2 as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The Agency will work to
eliminate paper-processing in the acquisition process and manage acquisition records
electronically.
1 Integrated Acquisition Environment available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/intemal/acquisition.htm
2 More information on the FPDS-NG is available at http://www.fpds-ng.com/questions.html
LUST - 2
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE
Statutory Authority
EPA's environmental statutes; annual Appropriations Act; Federal Acquisitions Regulation
(FAR); contract law
LUST - 3
-------
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation LUST: $935.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance (LUST)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$62,360.2
$723.6
$19,945.2
$83,029.0
525.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$64,486.8
$950.4
$20,945.5
$86,382.7
562.4
FY 2006
Request
$72,790.2
$935.9
$22,445.0
$96,171.1
548.1
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$8,303.4
($14.5)
$1,499.5
$9,788.4
-14.3
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Activities under the Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program support the management
of integrated planning, budgeting, financial management, performance and accountability
processes and systems to ensure effective stewardship of LUST resources.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue efforts to modernize the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
The modernization effort will reduce cost, comply with Congressional direction, and new
Federal financial systems requirements. This work is framed by the Agency's Enterprise
Architecture and will make maximum use of enabling technologies for e-Gov initiatives
including e-Procurement, e-Payroll, and e-Travel. In FY 2006, the Agency will become a
customer of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for e-payroll and convert its
electronic Travel System to e-Travel.
EPA plans further improvements to its budgeting and planning system, financial data warehouse,
business intelligence tools and reporting capabilities. These improvements will support EPA's
"green" score in financial performance on the President's Management Agenda scorecard by
providing more accessible data to support accountability, cost accounting, budget and
LUST - 4
-------
performance integration, and management decision-making. Also during FY 2006, EPA will
continue reorganizing its financial services to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in the
support of LUST resources.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to support program efforts to develop more outcome-based
annual performance goals and efficiency measures, develop new sources of performance data,
improve the quality and usability of existing data sources and develop tools to set strategic
priorities and track performance. EPA will work with state partners in targeted efforts to
improve performance goals and measures that strengthen results-based management. EPA will
complete its revised Strategic Plan by September 30, 2006.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Annual Appropriations Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act; Computer Security Act; E-Government Act of 2002; Electronic
Freedom of Information Act; EPA's Environmental Statutes, and the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act; Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act; Federal Acquisition
Regulations, contract law and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46,
47); Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act (1982); Freedom of Information Act; Government
Management Reform Act (1994); Improper Payments The Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5
United States Code. Information Act; Inspector General Act of 1978 and Amendments of 1988;
Paperwork Reduction Act; Privacy Act; The Chief Financial Officers Act (1990); GPRA (1993)
LUST - 5
-------
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Object!ve(s): Preserve Land
Total Request for Appropriation LUST: $773.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance Assistance and Centers (LUST)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$27,177.2
$463.5
$251.6
$0.0
$27,892.3
204.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$28,574.5
$585.3
$276.6
$26.6
$29,463.0
213.8
FY 2006
Request
$29,097.1
5773.6
$286.5
$22.5
$30,179.7
212.4
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$522.6
$188.3
$9.9
($4.1)
$716.7
-1.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
To improve compliance with environmental laws regulated entities, Federal agencies and the
public benefit from easy access to tools that help them understand these laws and find efficient,
cost-effective means for putting them into practice. To protect our Nation's groundwater and
drinking water from petroleum releases from underground storage tanks, EPA will continue to
provide compliance assistance tools, technical assistance, and training to promote and enforce
UST systems compliance. This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review
for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more information is included in the
Special Analysis Section. For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/ swerustl /cat
/index.htm.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
During FY 2006 the Agency will continue its work to obtain states' commitments to increase
their inspection and enforcement presence, where state-specific UST compliance goals are not
met. The Agency and states will use innovative compliance approaches, along with outreach and
education tools, to bring more underground storage tanks into compliance. The Agency will also
continue to provide guidance to foster the use of new technology to enhance compliance.
LUST - 6
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
PPA: CERFA: NEPA: AEA: UMTRLWA
LUST - 7
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation LUST: $883.9 (Dollars in Thousands)
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (LUST)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$299,417.3
$9,331.4
$31,382.3
$862.1
$499.1
$62,299.2
$403,791.4
355.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$326,793.8
$8,715.8
$31,418.0
$883.9
$504.4
$70,981.9
$439,297.8
441.8
FY 2006
Request
$358,045.6
$8,715.8
$28,718.0
$883.9
$504.4
$72,725.9
$469,593.6
438.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$31,251.8
$0.0
($2,700.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$1,744.0
$30,295.8
-3.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
LUST resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program are used to manage
activities and support services in many centralized administrative areas such as health and safety,
environmental compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness/wellness and safety,
and environmental management functions at EPA. Resources for this program also support a
full range of ongoing facilities management services including: facilities maintenance and
operations; Headquarters security; space planning; shipping and receiving; property
management; printing and reproduction; mail management; and transportation services.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order (EO)
13ISO3 "Federal Workforce Transportation."
Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
LUST - 8
-------
The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with GSA and other private landlords
by conducting rent reviews and verifying monthly statements to ensure the charges are correct.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; annual Appropriations
Act; Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive Orders 10577 and
12598; Department of Justice United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of
Federal Facilities Report; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection)
LUST - 9
-------
Human Resources Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation LUST: $3.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Human Resources Management (LUST)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$41,725.0
$4.0
$5,034.7
$46,763.7
363.1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$44,139.5
$3.0
$4,410.6
$48,553.1
323.1
FY 2006
Request
$38,871.6
$3.0
$4,789.7
$43,664.3
297.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($5,267.9)
$0.0
$379.1
($4,888.8)
-25.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Resources in this program support activities relate to the provision of human resources
management services pursuant to the LUST appropriation. EPA supports organizational
development and management activities by supporting Agency-wide and interagency councils
and committees and serving as EPA's liaison on interagency management improvement
initiatives. The Agency continually evaluates human resource and workforce functions,
employee development, leadership development, workforce planning, and succession
management
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to meet Department of Labor requirements for distributing
workmen's compensation.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Title 5 United States Code
LUST- 10
-------
IT'/Data Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation LUST: $177.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
IT / Data Management (LUST)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$101,091.2
$4,611.0
$109.3
$36.7
$16,886.3
$122,734.5
577.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$108,359.4
$4,821.4
$177,6
$32.8
$16,628.4
$130,019.6
467.0
FY 2006
Request
$105,999.0
$4,250.9
$177.6
$32.8
$16,113.2
$126,573.5
457.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($2,360.4)
($570.5)
$0.0
$0.0
($515.2)
($3,446.1)
-9.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making.
The program: implements the Agency's e-Government responsibilities; designs, develops and
manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet resources including the Integrated Portal; supports
the development, collection, management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both
point source and ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in
strategic planning at the national, program, and regional levels; provides a secure, reliable, and
capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data
standardization, integration, and public access; manages the Agency's Quality System ensuring
EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines, and, supports Regional
information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs, and
telecommunications. These functions are integral to the implementation of Agency information
technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX)
and Permit Compliance System (PCS). Agency Offices rely on the IT/Data Management
program and its capabilities to develop and implement tools for ready access to accurate and
timely data. Recent partnerships include portals projects with the Offices of Research and
Development and Air and Radiation to access scientific and program data.
LUST - 11
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA's Information Technology community's FY 2006
activities focus on the Agency's Technology Initiative
and fulfilling the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov)
commitments. The Agency's IT/Data Management
program forms the core of this effort with its focus on
building and implementing the Agency's Integrated
Portal and Enterprise Content Management System
(ECMS), developing of Environmental Indicators, and
continuing to deploy enterprise-wide IT infrastructure
solutions.
EPA
Infrastructure:
"Readiness
to Serve"
State
Infrastructure:
Exchange
Network
Stakeholder
Infrastructure:
"ECM"
The Agency's Technology Initiative builds on efforts started in FY 2004 and FY 2005 to enhance
environmental analytical capacity for EPA, its partners and stakeholders. The Initiative is
designed with the understanding that the majority of environmental data are collected by states
and Tribes, not directly by EPA and that ready access to real time quality environmental data and
analytical tools are essential to making sound environmental decisions. Understanding these
factors focused EPA's FY 2006 Technology Initiative on five related and supporting activities:
S Building the Agency's analytical capacity to facilitate sound environmental decision-
making and address critical data gaps;
S Developing a central integrated portal to manage the flow of information to and from the
Agency;
S Providing more effective, secure, and integrated information exchange through the
environmental exchange network with our state partners;
S Streamlining, securing, and technically advancing the infrastructure through enterprise-
wide solutions across EPA; and,
S Implementing a central content management system that provides ready access to
documents and data.
EPA's Environmental Information Exchange Network Program (Exchange Network,
www.epa.gov/cdx), the Electronic Content Management System (ECMS) and EPA's 'Readiness
to Serve' enterprise-wide IT infrastructure solutions provide the foundation for states, Tribes, the
public, regulated community and EPA for improved information and data access and sharing
opportunities. The Integrated Portal manages a variety of environmental information allowing
increased data availability, better data quality and accuracy, security of sensitive data, and
prevents data redundancy. Finally, with proven infrastructures and increased data access, EPA,
its partners and stakeholders can conduct better data analyses to answer environmental questions.
In FY 2006 the IT/Data Management LUST resources continue to support EPA's 'Readiness to
Serve' infrastructure program. This program delivers secure information services to ensure that
the Agency and its programs have a full range of information technology infrastructure
components (e.g., user equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application hosting, remote
access) that make information accessible across the spectrum of mission needs at all locations.
The Program uses performance-based, outsourced services to obtain the best solutions (value for
LUST - 12
-------
cost) for the range of program needs. This includes innovative multi-year leasing that sustains
and renews technical services in a least-cost, stable manner as technology changes over time
(e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance).
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
Clean Air Act and amendments; Clean Water Act and amendments; Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act; Toxic Substance Control Act; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Superfund Amendments and Re-
authorization Act; Government Performance and Results Act; Government Management Reform
Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; Freedom of Information Act; Computer
Security Act; Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act
LUST - 13
-------
LUST Cooperative Agreements
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation LUST: $58,676.6 (Dollars in Thousands)
LUST Cooperative Agreements (LUST)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$60,736.8
$60,736.8
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$58,450.0
$58,450.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$58,676.6
$58,676.6
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$226.6
$226.6
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description:
The Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) program promotes rapid and effective
responses to releases from federally regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) containing
petroleum by enhancing state, local, and tribal enforcement and response capability. EPA
provides resources to 50 States, the District of Columbia, and five territories (Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam) through cooperative
agreements for the oversight and cleanup of petroleum releases from underground storage tanks
(USTs). These states and territories have the authority to respond to petroleum releases from
USTs using Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Trust funds where owners and
operators are unknown, unwilling, or unable to take corrective actions themselves (see
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/20clenup.htm). States and territories use the LUST Trust Fund to
administer their corrective action programs, oversee cleanups by responsible parties, undertake
necessary enforcement actions, and pay for cleanups in cases where a responsible party cannot
be found or is unwilling or unable to pay for a cleanup. States and territories may also oversee
and enforce responsible party cleanups and cost recover from responsible parties who are
unwilling to pay for cleanups. When the LUST Trust Fund is used, tank owners/operators are
liable to the state for costs incurred and are subject to cost recovery actions.
EPA, with few exceptions, does not perform the cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks.
More than 40 states have their own cleanup funds to pay for the majority of owners' and
operators' cleanup costs. The vast majority of LUST cleanups are paid for by state LUST
cleanup funds and not by private parties; state funds are separate from the Federal LUST Trust
Fund. The Agency has primary responsibility for implementing the LUST program in Indian
Country, and uses a portion of its LUST funding to implement the LUST program in Indian
LUST - 14
-------
Country (including, but not limited to cleanup activities and enforcement). This program was
included in the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks PART review for 2006 which received an
overall rating of adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights:
In FY 2006 EPA will continue to make incremental improvements in reducing the national
backlog of confirmed releases yet to be cleaned up. At the end of FY 2004, the backlog of sites
requiring remedial action was 129,828 sites, a five percent decrease from FY 2003. EPA will
continue to work with the States to achieve more cleanups completed each year, thus reducing
the backlog. At the FY 2006 request level the Agency will provide approximately 84% of LUST
appropriated funds to States and Tribes.
Concerns about the use of fuel oxygenates (e.g., methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE) in
gasoline further underscores EPA's and the states' programmatic emphasis on better oversight
and quicker action to reduce the costs of cleaning up MTBE contamination, which can increase
cleanup costs by 25% to more than 100%. For example, states face multi-million dollar cleanup
costs at sites with widespread MTBE contamination such as Santa Monica, CA, Long Island,
NY, Pascoag, RI and Hopkins, SC.
LUST funding in Indian Country is used to educate owners and operators about the requirements
for addressing leaking USTs; oversee and conduct site assessments, site investigations, and
remediation in Indian Country; enforce against responsible parties; perform cleanup of soil
and/or groundwater; provide alternate water supplies and cost recovery against UST owners and
operators in Indian Country; provide technical expertise and assistance by utilizing in-house
personnel, contractors and grants/cooperative agreements to tribal entities using P.L. 105-276
and to non-state entities using RCRA 8001; conduct response activities in very limited
circumstances; oversee responsible party lead cleanups in Indian Country at the regional level;
and provide direction, support and assistance to tribal governments as well as negotiate and
monitor their cooperative agreements at the regional level.
In FY 2004, the LUST Program received an overall rating of "adequate" from OMB's PART
review. To achieve this rating, the LUST Program created two long-term performance measures
that focus on environmental outcomes related to the backlog of cleanups in states and Indian
Country.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(+$226.6) Increases the funds for cooperative agreements for States and Tribes.
Statutory Authority
States: Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976, as amended, Section 9003(h); Section
8001(a). Tribal Grants: P.L. 105-276
LUST- 15
-------
LUST/VST
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation LUST: $10,583.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
LUST / UST (LUST)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$6,833.7
$9,473.6
$16,307.3
111.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$7,094.5
$10,499.6
$17,594.1
117.1
FY 2006
Request
$7,719.4
$10,583.7
$18,303.1
114.1
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$624.9
$84.1
$709.0
-3.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description:
The Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) program promotes rapid and effective
responses to releases from federally regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) containing
petroleum by enhancing State, local, and tribal enforcement and response capability. EPA
provides technical information, forums for information exchange and training opportunities to
States, Tribes and Intertribal Consortia to encourage program development and/or
implementation of the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) program and helps to
address groundwater and drinking water contamination from oxygenates. For more information,
visit http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/20clenup.htm.
EPA works with state UST programs to clean up LUST sites by measuring and evaluating
performance, works with other cleanup programs to streamline the remediation process, and
promotes innovative approaches to corrective action. EPA works with its partners in making
progress in assessing, cleaning up and reusing abandoned gas stations and other sites with
underground storage tanks while exploring ways to encourage public and private partnerships to
leverage financial, technical, and managerial resources to advance the cleanup and reuse of
abandoned gas station sites. The Agency has primary responsibility for implementing the LUST
program in Indian Country, and uses a portion of its LUST funding to implement the program in
Indian Country (including, but not limited to cleanup activities and enforcement). This program
was included in the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks PART review for 2006 which received
an overall rating of adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
LUST - 16
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights:
EPA continues to make incremental improvements in reducing the national backlog of confirmed
releases yet to be cleaned up. At the end of FY 2004, the backlog of sites requiring remedial
action was 129,828 sites, a five percent decrease from FY 2003. EPA will continue to work with
the States and the Tribes to achieve more cleanups completed each year. EPA's LUST Program
priorities continue to focus on cleaning up LUST sites; addressing contamination from
oxygenates; and promoting the continued use, reuse, and long-term management of LUST sites.
EPA will also identify how to improve the long-term management of LUST sites, and continue
to measure program performance. In FY 2006, EPA will continue to improve methods of
tracking and analyzing LUST program performance, e.g., projecting cleanup goals, analyzing
trends, looking at new and existing performance measures and their definitions, and developing
diagnostic tools to help EPA and state managers improve strategies for expediting cleanups. EPA
will continue working with states to improve performance reporting and tracking.
EPA will continue coordinating with Agency task forces on groundwater cleanup, site
assessment decision-making, and long-term site stewardship. LUST program-specific projects
include developing information about long-term site management and a strategy for evaluating
the impact of vapor intrusion at LUST sites, and working with others to optimize the use of
cleanup technologies.
EPA will continue to perform its oversight responsibilities, strengthen partnerships among
stakeholders, and provide technical assistance and training to improve and expedite corrective
action at LUST sites. To help state and EPA regulators respond to releases and sites in a
proactive manner, EPA will continue to provide a national LUST web-based training module that
addresses topics such as basic hydrogeology, source control, sampling techniques, remediation
technologies, and performance monitoring. This module is one element of a national UST/LUST
training effort initiated in FY 2003 by a state and EPA work group.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to encourage the use of multi-site cleanup approaches to expedite
the cleanup, identifying ways to optimize traditional cleanup methods, and use performance-
based contracting to achieve LUST program objectives. UST owners and operators undertake
nearly all cleanups under the supervision of state or local agencies.
To educate owners and operators about the requirements for addressing leaking USTs in Indian
Country EPA will continue to provide support for; site assessments, investigations and
remediation; enforcement against responsible parties; cleanup of soil and/or groundwater;
alternate water supplies and cost recovery against UST owners and operators; technical expertise
and assistance by utilizing in-house personnel, contractors and grants/cooperative agreements to
Tribal entities; response activities; oversight of responsible party lead cleanups; and support and
assistance to tribal governments. The Agency estimates that cleaning up all known and yet-to-
be-discovered releases in Indian Country will take several years.
LUST - 17
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
States: Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976, as amended (Subtitle I); Section 8001(a).
Tribal Grants: P.L. 105-276
LUST- 18
-------
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation LUST: $646.2 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Land Protection and Restoration (LUST)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$10,230.3
$627.1
$928.2
$32,264.8
$44,050.4
142.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$8,841.9
$628.5
$917.8
$22,671.1
$33,059.3
136.8
FY 2006
Request
$13,696.5
$646.2
$905.7
$23,098.7
$38,347.1
135.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$4,854.6
$17.7
($12.1)
$427.6
$5,287.8
-1.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Research applicable to leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) addresses assessment and
cleanup for fuels and fuel additives, including methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Assessment
is focused on development of source, term, and transport modeling modules that can be applied
by state project managers. Remediation research addresses multiple remediation approaches
applicable to spilled fuels, with or without oxygenates. Specific human health risk and exposure
assessments and methods and site specific risk characterizations are discussed and conducted
under the Superfund Human Health Risk Assessment Program- Project.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) assessment research will focus on the development
of online transport models that can be used by state project managers.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
. There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA
LUST- 19
-------
-------
Index - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Acquisition Management 1,2 Human Health Risk Assessment 19
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 1, Human Resources Management 1, 10
4 Information Security 13
Civil Enforcement 6 IT / Data Management 1, 11
Compliance Assistance and Centers 1, 6 LUST /UST 1, 16
Exchange Network 11, 12 LUST Cooperative Agreements 1, 14
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations.. 1, 8 Research: Land Protection and Restorationl,
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG 19
Management 1
-------
Table of Contents - Oil Spill Response
Resource Summary Table 1
Program Projects in Oil Spills 1
Civil Enforcement (Oil Spills) 2
Compliance Assistance and Centers (Oil Spills) 4
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (Oil Spills) 6
IT / Data Management (Oil Spills) 8
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response (Oil Spills) 11
Research: Land Protection and Restoration (Oil Spills) 13
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Oil Spill Response
Resource Summary Table
Oil Spill Response
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2004
Obligations
$17,455.1
89.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$16,425.0
100.0
FY 2006
Request
$15,863.0
99.2
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($562.0)
-0.8
BILL LANGUAGE: OIL SPILL RESPONSE
For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental Protection Agency's responsibilities
under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, [$16,000,000] $15,863,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended. (Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.)
Program Projects in Oil Spills
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Civil Enforcement
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
IT / Data Management
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
FY 2004
Obligations
$1,583.2
$251.6
$499.1
$36.7
$14,156.3
$928.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,628.7
$276.6
$504.4
$32.8
$13,064.7
$917.8
FY 2006
Request
$1,789.5
$286.5
$504.4
$32.8
$12,344.1
$905.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$160.8
$9.9
$0.0
$0.0
($720.6)
($12.1)
OIL-1
-------
Civil Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation Oil Spills: $1,789.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Civil Enforcement (Oil Spills)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$106,875.9
$1,583.2
$131.4
$108,590.5
924.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$113,406.6
$1,628.7
$659.3
$115,694.6
952.7
FY 2006
Request
$117,462.2
$1,789.5
$883.2
$120,134.9
960.7
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$4,055.6
$160.8
$223.9
$4,440.3
8.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Compliance Assistance program is designed to prevent oil spills using civil enforcement and
compliance assistance approaches, and to prepare for, and respond to, any oil spills affecting the
inland waters of the United States. EPA's oil program has a long history of effective response to
oil spills, including several major oil spills, and the lessons learned have helped to improve our
country's prevention and response capabilities. This program was included in the Civil
Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more
information is included in the Special Analysis Section. For more information, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/prevent.htm.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 311 (Oil Spill and Hazardous Substances) requirements,
EPA's Civil Enforcement program will develop policies; issue administrative cleanup orders
and/or judicial actions for injunctive relief; assess civil penalties for violations of those orders or
for spills into the environment; and assist in the recovery of cleanup costs expended by the
government. In FY 2006 the program will also provide support for field investigations and
inspections for spills, as well as Spill Control Countermeasure compliance assistance.
OIL-2
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
OP A; CWA; CERCLA; NEPA; Pollution Prosecution Act
OIL-3
-------
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation Oil Spills: $286.5 (Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance Assistance and Centers (Oil Spills)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$27,177.2
$463.5
$251.6
$0.0
$27,892.3
204.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$28,574.5
$585.3
$276.6
$26.6
$29,463.0
213.8
FY 2006
Request
$29,097.1
$773.6
$286.5
$22.5
$30,179.7
212.4
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$522.6
$188.3
$9.9
($4.1)
$716.7
-1.4
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Compliance Assistance program is designed to prevent oil spills using Compliance
Assistance and Civil Enforcement tools and strategies, and to prepare for, and respond to, any oil
spill affecting the inland waters of the United States. EPA's oil program has a long history of
effective response to oil spills, including several major oil spills, and the lessons learned have
helped to improve our country's prevention and response capabilities. This program was
included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating of
Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section. For more information,
visit: http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/prevent.htm.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 311 (oil spill and hazardous substances) requirements,
in FY 2006 the Agency will continue to provide regulated entities with support through the
Compliance Assistance Centers program, to assist them in understanding their legal
requirements under the Clean Water Act, and to provide them with cost effective compliance
strategies to help prevent oil spills.
OIL-4
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are additional increases for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
OP A; CWA; CERCLA; PPA; NEPA; PHSA; DREAA; SOW A; Executive Order 12241;
Executive Order 12656
OIL-5
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Oil Spills: $504.4 (Dollars in Thousands)
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (Oil Spills)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$299,417.3
$9,331.4
$31,382.3
$862.1
$499.1
$62,299.2
$403,791.4
355.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$326,793.8
$8,715.8
$31,418.0
$883.9
$504.4
$70,981.9
$439,297.8
441.8
FY 2006
Request
$358,045.6
$8,715.8
$28,718.0
$883.9
$504.4
$72,725.9
$469,593.6
438.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$31,251.8
$0.0
($2,700.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$1,744.0
$30,295.8
-3.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Oil spill account resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program are used to
manage activities and support services in many centralized administrative areas such as health
and safety, environmental compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness/wellness
and safety, and environmental management functions at EPA. Resources for this program also
support a full range of ongoing facilities management services including: facilities maintenance
and operations; Headquarters security; space planning; shipping and receiving; property
management; printing and reproduction; mail management; and transportation services.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order (EO)
13ISO1 "Federal Workforce Transportation."
! Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
OIL-6
-------
The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with GSA and other private landlords
by conducting rent reviews and verifying monthly statements to ensure the charges are correct.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; annual Appropriations
Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup and Liability Act; Clean Water Act;
Clean Air Act; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive Orders 10577 and 12598; Department of
Justice United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities Report;
Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection)
OIL-7
-------
IT'/Data Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Total Request for Appropriation Oil Spills: $32.8 (Dollars in Thousands)
IT / Data Management (Oil Spills)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$101,091.2
$4,611.0
$109.3
$36.7
$16,886.3
$122,734.5
577.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$108,359.4
$4,821.4
$177.6
$32. 8
$16,628.4
$130,019.6
467.0
FY 2006
Request
$105,999.0
$4,250.9
$177.6
$32. 8
$16,113.2
$126,573.5
457.8
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($2,360.4)
($570.5)
$0.0
$0.0
($515.2)
($3,446.1)
-9.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making.
The program: implements the Agency's e-Government responsibilities; designs, develops and
manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet resources including the Integrated Portal; supports
the development, collection, management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both
point source and ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in
strategic planning at the national, program, and regional levels; provides a secure, reliable, and
capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data
standardization, integration, and public access; manages the Agency's Quality System ensuring
EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines, and, supports Regional
information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs, and
telecommunications. These functions are integral to the implementation of Agency information
technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX)
and Permit Compliance System (PCS). Agency Offices rely on the IT/Data Management
program and its capabilities to develop and implement tools for ready access to accurate and
timely data. Recent partnerships include portals projects with the Offices of Research and
Development and Air and Radiation to access scientific and program data.
OIL-8
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA's Information Technology community's FY 2006 activities focus on the Agency's
Technology Initiative and fulfilling the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) commitments. The
Agency's IT/Data Management program forms the core of this effort with its focus on building
and implementing the Agency's Integrated Portal and Enterprise Content Management System
(ECMS), developing of Environmental Indicators, and continuing to deploy enterprise-wide IT
infrastructure solutions.
The Agency's Technology Initiative builds on efforts
started in FY 2004 and FY 2005 to enhance
environmental analytical capacity for EPA, its partners
and stakeholders. The Initiative is designed with the
understanding that the majority of environmental data are
collected by states and Tribes, not directly by EPA and
that ready access to real time quality environmental data
and analytical tools are essential to making sound
environmental decisions. Understanding these factors
focused EPA's FY 2006 Technology Initiative on five
related and supporting activities:
S Building the Agency's analytical capacity to facilitate sound environmental decision-
making and address critical data gaps;
S Developing a central integrated portal to manage the flow of information to and from the
Agency;
S Providing more effective, secure, and integrated information exchange through the
environmental exchange network with our state partners;
S Streamlining, securing, and technically advancing the infrastructure through enterprise-
wide solutions across EPA; and,
S Implementing a central content management system that provides ready access to
documents and data.
EPA's Environmental Information Exchange Network Program (Exchange Network,
www.epa.gov/cdx), the Electronic Content Management System (ECMS) and EPA's 'Readiness
to Serve' enterprise-wide IT infrastructure solutions provide the foundation for states, Tribes, the
public, regulated community and EPA for improved information and data access and sharing
opportunities. The Integrated Portal manages a variety of environmental information allowing
increased data availability, better data quality and accuracy, security of sensitive data, and
prevents data redundancy. Finally, with proven infrastructures and increased data access, EPA,
its partners and stakeholders can conduct better data analyses to answer environmental questions.
Together these efforts increase efficiency, security, and flexibility, for people as they access,
exchange, and integrate nationally standardized local, Regional, and national environmental and
public health data. The streamlined information systems, improved readily available data, central
information collection and reporting, and reduced information gaps will enhance analytical
OIL-9
-------
capacity, provide more efficient business practices, and promote more comprehensive
environmental understanding.
In FY 2006 the IT/Data Management Oil Spill resources continue to support EPA's 'Readiness to
Serve' infrastructure program. This program delivers secure information services to ensure that
the Agency and its programs have a full range of information technology infrastructure
components (e.g., user equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application hosting, remote
access) that make information accessible across the spectrum of mission needs at all locations.
The program uses performance-based, outsourced services to obtain the best solutions (value for
cost) for the range of program needs. This includes innovative multi-year leasing that sustains
and renews technical services in a least-cost, stable manner as technology changes over time
(e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance).
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
Clean Air Act and amendments; Clean Water Act and amendments; Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act; Toxic Substance Control Act; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Superfund Amendments and Re-
authorization Act; Government Performance and Results Act; Government Management Reform
Act; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; Freedom of Information Act; Computer
Security Act; Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act
OIL -10
-------
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation Oil Spills: $12,344.1 (Dollars in Thousands)
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response (Oil Spills)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Oil Spill Response
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$14,156.3
$14,156.3
79.7
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$13,064.7
$13,064.7
83.3
FY 2006
Request
$12,344.1
$12,344.1
82.5
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($720.6)
($720.6)
-0.8
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Oil program protects U.S. waters by effectively preventing, preparing for, responding to
and/or monitoring oil spills. EPA conducts oil spill prevention, preparedness, and enforcement
activities associated with the over half million non-transportation-related oil storage facilities
that EPA regulates through its spill prevention program. The Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) regulation and the Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations establish
EPA's oil program regulatory framework. In addition to its prevention responsibilities, EPA
serves as the lead responder for the inland zone for all spills, including transportation-related
spills from pipeline, trucks, and other transportation systems. EPA accesses the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund, administered by the U.S. Coast Guard, to obtain reimbursement for site
specific spill response activities. Over 24,000 oil spills occur in the U.S. every year, with half of
these spills to the inland zone over which EPA has jurisdiction. On average, one spill of greater
than 100,000 gallons occurs every month from EPA-regulated oil storage facilities and the inland
oil transportation network.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA is currently developing program guidance to clarify expectations for EPA's inspectors and
to communicate the flexibility in the SPCC rule that can be used by facility owners to address
issues of major concern. In FY 2006, EPA intends to propose additional regulatory changes to
simplify compliance requirements for smaller facilities, including small businesses, and to clarify
the rule's requirements for oil-filled and processing equipment. Substantial supporting work,
including data gathering activities, is planned for FY 2005 leading up to a series of proposed
rulemakings anticipated to occur in FY 2005 and 2006.
OIL-11
-------
The largest oil storage facilities and refineries must prepare Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to
identify response resources and ensure their availability in the event of a worst case discharge.
FRPs establish communication, address security, identify an individual with authority to
implement removal actions, and describe training and testing drills at the facility. In FY 2006,
EPA will continue to review/approve FRPs and conduct inspections at FRP facilities. EPA will
emphasize emergency preparedness, particularly through the use of unannounced drills and
exercises, to ensure facilities and responders can effectively implement response plans.
Working with area committees (state, local and Federal officials in a given geographic location),
EPA will enhance the existing National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) by
strengthening area and regional contingency plans (ACPs, RCPs). The ACPs detail the
responsibilities of various parties in the event of a spill/release; describe unique geographical
features, sensitive ecological resources, and drinking water intakes for the area covered, and
identify available response equipment and its location. EPA conducts a small number of ACP
exercises each year to evaluate and strengthen the plans.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$720.6) This reduction applies to prevention activities at regulated facilities such as the
Federal Response Plan regulations. This decrease will not affect the oil spill response
part of the program. The reduction reflects a redirection toward higher priorities.
Statutory Authority
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990. The
regulatory framework includes the Oil and Hazardous Substances National Contingency Plan
(NCP) (40 CFR Part 300) and the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (40 CFR Part 112) which
covers the SPCC, and FRP program requirements
OIL -12
-------
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Total Request for Appropriation Oil Spills: $905.7 (Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Land Protection and Restoration (Oil Spills)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$10,230.3
$627.1
$928.2
$32,264.8
$44,050.4
142.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$8,841.9
$628.5
$917.8
$22,671.1
$33,059.3
136.8
FY 2006
Request
$13,696.5
$646.2
$905.7
$23,098.7
$38,347.1
135.6
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$4,854.6
$17.7
($12.1)
$427.6
$5,287.8
-1.2
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Land protection research in the oil spills area consists of three aspects: test protocol
development, fate and transport modeling, and remediation. EPA develops and uses protocols for
testing various spill response product classes to pre-qualify products as required by the
preparedness and response requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Specific human health
risk and exposure assessments and methods and site specific risk characterizations are discussed
and conducted under the Superfund Human Health Risk Assessment Program- Project.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Oil spill model development will include linkage of the model to uncertainty analysis tools.
Ongoing development activities include incorporation of exposure simulation with various
modeled response actions. Remediation research continues on physical, chemical, and biological
risk management methods for petroleum and non-petroleum oils spilled to freshwater and marine
environments.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
There are increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA
OIL -13
-------
-------
Index - Oil Spill Response
Civil Enforcement 1, 2, 4 IT / Data Management 1, 8
Compliance Assistance and Centers 1, 4 Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and
Exchange Network 8, 9 Response 1, 11
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations.. 1, 6 Research: Land Protection and Restorationl,
Human Health Risk Assessment 13 13
Information Security 10
-------
Table of Contents - State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Resource Summary Table 1
Program Projects in STAG 6
Brownfields Projects (STAG) 12
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection (STAG) 15
Categorical Grant: Brownfields (STAG) 17
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information (STAG) 19
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance (STAG) 21
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security (STAG) 23
Categorical Grant: Lead (STAG) 25
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) (STAG) 27
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement (STAG) 29
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation (STAG) 31
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) (STAG) 34
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention (STAG) 37
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) (STAG) 39
Categorical Grant: Radon (STAG) 41
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds (STAG) 43
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance (STAG) 45
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program (STAG) 46
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC) (STAG) 48
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks (STAG) 50
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training (STAG) 52
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements (STAG) 53
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development (STAG) 54
Categorical Grant: Sector Program (STAG) 56
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management (STAG) 58
Categorical Grant: State and Tribal Performance Fund (STAG) 60
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management (STAG) 62
Clean School Bus Initiative (STAG) 63
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages (STAG) 65
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF (STAG) 67
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF (STAG) 69
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border (STAG) 71
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico (STAG) 73
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Resource Summary Table
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2004
Obligations
$3,908,696.0
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$3,231,800.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$2,960,800.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request
V.
FY 2005 Pres.
Bud.
($271,000.0)
0.0
BILL LANGUAGE: STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, including capitalization grants
for State revolving funds and performance partnership grants, [$3,604,182,000]
$2,960,800,000, to remain available until expended, of which [$1,100,000,000]
$730,000,000 shall be for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State
Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(the "Act") [, of which up to $50,000,000 shall be available for loans, including interest
free loans as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(l)(A), to municipal, inter-municipal,
interstate, or State agencies or nonprofit entities for projects that provide treatment for or
that minimize sewage or stormwater discharges using one or more approaches which
include, but are not limited to, decentralized or distributed stormwater controls,
decentralized wastewater treatment, low-impact development practices, conservation
easements, stream buffers, or wetlands restoration]; $850,000,000 shall be for
capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under section 1452 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended [, except that, notwithstanding section 1452(n)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, none of the funds made available under this
heading in this Act, or in previous appropriation Acts, shall be reserved by the
Administrator for health effects studies on drinking water contaminants]; $50,000,000
shall be for architectural, engineering, planning, design, construction and related
activities in connection with the construction of high priority water and wastewater
facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the
appropriate border commission; [$45,000,000] $15,000,000 shall be for grants to the
State of Alaska to address drinking water and waste infrastructure needs of rural and
Alaska Native Villages [: Provided, That, of these funds: (1) the State of Alaska shall
provide a match of 25 percent; (2) no more than 5 percent of the funds may be used for
administrative and overhead expenses; and (3) not later than October 1, 2005 the State of
Alaska shall make awards consistent with the State-wide priority list established in 2004
for all water, sewer, waste disposal, and similar projects carried out by the State of
Alaska that are funded under section 221 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1301) or the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq.) which shall allocate not less than 25 percent of the funds provided for projects in
STAG-1
-------
regional hub communities; $4,000,000 shall be for remediation of above ground leaking
fuel tanks pursuant to Public Law 106-554; $309,925,000 shall be for making grants for
the construction of drinking water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure and for
water quality protection in accordance with the terms and conditions specified for such
grants in the joint explanatory statement of the managers accompanying this Act, and, for
purposes of these grants, each grantee shall contribute not less than 45 percent of the cost
of the project unless the grantee is approved for a waiver by the Agency; $90,000,000];
$120,500,000 shall be to carry out section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including
grants, interagency agreements, and associated program support costs; [$7,500,000 for a
cost-shared grant program to school districts for necessary upgrades of their diesel bus
fleets;] $4,000,000 shall be for a grant to Puerto Rico for drinking water infrastructure
improvements to the Metropolitano community water system in San Juan; $10,000,000
for cost-shared grants for school bus retrofit and replacement projects that reduce diesel
emissions: Provided, That beginning in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter, the Administrator
is authorized to make such grants, subject to terms and conditions as the Administrator
shall establish, to State, tribal, and local governmental entities responsible for providing
school bus services to one or more school districts; and [$1,145,757,000] $1,181,300,000
shall be for grants, including associated program support costs, to States, federally
recognized tribes, interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and air pollution control agencies
for multi-media or single media pollution prevention, control and abatement and related
activities, including activities pursuant to the provisions set forth under this heading in
Public Law 104-134, and for making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for
particulate matter monitoring and data collection activities of which and subject to terms
and conditions specified by the Administrator of which [$50,000,000] $60,000,000 shall
be for carrying out section 128 of CERCLA, as amended, [and $19,500,000] $20,000,000
shall be for Environmental Information Exchange Network grants, including associated
program support costs, [and $18,000,000] $24,000,000 of the funds available for grants
under section 106 of the Act shall be for water quality monitoring activities that meet
EPA standards for statistically representative monitoring programs, [and $18,000,000]
$15,000,000 shall be for making competitive targeted watershed grants: Provided further,
That for fiscal year [2005] 2006, State authority under section 302(a) of Public Law 104-
182 shall remain in effect: [Providedfurther, That notwithstanding section 603(d)(7) of
the Act, the limitation on the amounts in a State water pollution control revolving fund
that may be used by a State to administer the fund shall not apply to amounts included as
principal in loans made by such fund in fiscal year 2005 and prior years where such
amounts represent costs of administering the fund to the extent that such amounts are or
were deemed reasonable by the Administrator, accounted for separately from other assets
in the fund, and used for eligible purposes of the fund, including administration:]
Provided further, That for fiscal year [2005] 2006, and notwithstanding section 518(f) of
the Act, the Administrator is authorized to use the amounts appropriated for any fiscal
year under section 319 of that Act to make grants to Indian tribes pursuant to sections
319(h) and 518(e) of that Act: Provided further, That for fiscal year [2005] 2006,
notwithstanding the limitation on amounts in section 518(c) of the Act, up to a total of 1
!/2 percent of the funds appropriated for State Revolving Funds under title VI of that Act
may be reserved by the Administrator for grants under section 518(c) of such Act:
STAG - 2
-------
Provided further, That no funds provided by this legislation to address the water,
wastewater and other critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United States
along the United States-Mexico border shall be made available to a county or municipal
government unless that government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or
other zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the development or construction of
any additional colonia areas, or the development within an existing colonia the
construction of any new home, business, or other structure which lacks water,
wastewater, or other necessary infrastructure [: Provided further, That the referenced
statement of the managers under this heading in Public Law 108-7, in reference to item
number 471, is deemed to be amended by striking everything after "for" and inserting the
following: "for water infrastructure improvements": Provided further, That the
referenced statement of the managers under this heading in Public Law 108-199, in
reference to item number 22, is deemed to be amended by striking everything after "22."
and inserting the following: "$200,000 to Jackson County, Alabama, for water system
improvements and $200,000 to the City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama, for water and sewer
infrastructure improvements": Provided further, That the referenced statement of the
managers under this heading in Public Law 108-199, in reference to item number 158, is
deemed to be amended by inserting "water and" after "for": Provided further, That the
referenced statement of the managers under this heading in Public Law 107-73, is
deemed to be amended by striking "Southeast" in reference to item 9 and inserting
"Southwest": Provided further., That the referenced statement of the managers under this
heading in Public Law 107-73, in reference to item number 103, is deemed to be
amended by striking everything after the word "for", and adding, "the City of Chicago,
Illinois for water infrastructure improvements at the Thomas Jefferson and Lakeview
Pumping Stations": Provided further, That the referenced statement of the managers
under this heading in Public Law 108-199, in reference to item number 484, is deemed to
be amended by striking "City of Norfolk" and inserting "Portsmouth, Virginia": Provided
further, That the referenced statement of the managers under this heading in Public Law
108-199, in reference to item number 283, is deemed to be amended by striking "City of
Kalispell, Montana" and inserting "Flathead County Water and Sewer District No. 1-
Evergreen": Provided further, That the referenced statement of managers under this
heading in Public Law 108-7, in reference to item number 139, is deemed to be amended
by striking "State of Hawaii Health Department" and inserting "County of Hawaii":
Provided further, That the referenced statement of managers under this heading in Public
Law 108-199, in reference to item number 148, is deemed to be amended by striking
everything after the word "for" and inserting "the replacement of cesspools in Hawaii,
$250,000 to the City and County of Honolulu for Verona Village, $500,000 to the County
of Hawaii and the remainder to the Housing and Community Development Corporation
of Hawaii;": Provided further, That the referenced statement of the managers under this
heading in Public Law 108-199, in reference to item number 388, is deemed to be
amended by striking everything after the word "for" and inserting "the Southeast Water
Treatment Plant in Lawton, Oklahoma for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements;": Provided further, That the referenced statement of the managers under
this heading in Public Law 106-377, in reference to item number 46, is deemed to be
amended by striking "to construct pump stations, force mains, storage lagoons and spray
irrigation facility", and inserting "for wastewater treatment improvements": Provided
STAG - 3
-------
further, That the referenced statement of the managers under this heading in Public Law
108-199, in reference to item number 409, is deemed to be amended by striking "City of
and "Pennsylvania": Provided further, That the reference statement of the managers
under this heading in Public Law 108-199, in reference to item number 265, is deemed to
be amended by striking "Franklin County", and inserting "Okhissa Lake Sewer District":
Provided further, That the referenced statement of the managers under this heading in
Public Law 108-199, in reference to item number 322, is deemed to be amended by
inserting "and water" after "waste water": Provided further., That the referenced
statement of the managers under this heading in Public Law 108-199, in reference to item
number 173, is deemed to be amended by inserting "planning, design and" prior to
"construction": Provided further, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation are authorized to award a $2,000,00 grant to the Town of Wheatfield,
Niagara County, New York for the construction of sanitary collector sewers from funds
realloted to the State of New York under title II of the Clean Water Act: Provided
further, That the referenced statement of the managers under this heading in Public Law
108-199, in reference to item number 184, is deemed to be amended by striking "be
divided equally between" and by striking "and" and inserting in place of "and", "or"].
(Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.)
STAG - 4
-------
FY 2006 President's Budget Request
STAG Resources
(ollars in Thousands)
FY 2004
Enacted
Budget1
FY 2005 Pres
Budget
Request
FY 2006 Pres
Budget
Request
FY 06 PB vs
FY05 PB
State/Tribal Categorical Grant Assistance
$1,168,267
$1,252,300
$1,181,300
-$71,000.0
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
$1,342,035
$850,000
$850,000
$0.0
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
$844,985
$850,000
$730,000 -$120,000.0
Brownfields Infrastructure Projects
$92,948
$120,500
$120,500
$0.0
Mexico Border
$49,705
$50,000
$50,000
$0.0
Alaskan Native Villages
$42,746
$40,000
$15,000
-$25,000.0
Puerto Rico3
$4,000
$4,000
$0.0
Alaska - Above Ground Leaking Fuel Tanks
$3,479
$0
$0
$0.0
Natl. Decentralized Wastewater Demo Prog.
$6,561
$0
$0
$0.0
Clean School Bus Initiative
$0
$65,000
$10,000
-$55,000.0
Congressional Projects
$326,661
$0
$0
$0.0
Unallocated
$0
$0
$0
$0.0
Total
$3,877,388
$3,231,800
$2,960,800
-$271,000.0
1 Reflects FY 2004 Enacted 0.59% rescission.
STAG - 5
-------
Program Projects in STAG
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Brownfields Projects
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Categorical Grant: Lead
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management
Categorical Grant: State and Tribal Performance Fund
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
Clean School Bus Initiative
Congressionally Mandated Projects*
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
FY 2004
Obligations
$87,380.4
$8,826.3
$50,000.4
$19,474.3
$103,688.6
$4,051.1
$14,099.7
$241,542.3
$19,775.6
$13,225.1
$202,936.7
$6,149.9
$101,904.2
$8,062.1
$7,472.2
$5,036.1
$62,195.9
$10,800.0
$11,724.9
$0.0
$16,607.5
$17,110.4
$1,838.3
$237,296.7
$0.0
$12,384.9
$0.0
$263,524.2
$37,433.8
$1,397,784.5
$881,523.6
$64,846.3
$0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$120,500.0
$10,000.0
$60,000.0
$25,000.0
$106,400.0
$5,000.0
$13,700.0
$209,100.0
$19,900.0
$13,100.0
$222,400.0
$6,000.0
$105,100.0
$8,150.0
$25,000.0
$5,150.0
$62,500.0
$11,000.0
$37,950.0
$1,500.0
$20,500.0
$20,000.0
$2,250.0
$228,550.0
$23,000.0
$11,050.0
$65,000.0
$0.0
$40,000.0
$850,000.0
$850,000.0
$50,000.0
$4,000.0
FY 2006
Request
$120,500.0
$10,000.0
$60,000.0
$20,000.0
$104,400.0
$5,000.0
$13,700.0
$209,100.0
$18,900.0
$13,100.0
$231,900.0
$6,000.0
$100,600.0
$8,150.0
$15,000.0
$5,150.0
$57,500.0
$11,000.0
$11,950.0
$0.0
$0.0
$20,000.0
$2,250.0
$223,550.0
$23,000.0
$11,050.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$15,000.0
$730,000.0
$850,000.0
$50,000.0
$4,000.0
FY 2006
Request v.
FY 2005 Pres.
Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
($5,000.0)
($2,000.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
($1,000.0)
$0.0
$9,500.0
$0.0
($4,500.0)
$0.0
($10,000.0)
$0.0
($5,000.0)
$0.0
($26,000.0)
($1,500.0)
($20,500.0)
$0.0
$0.0
($5,000.0)
$0.0
$0.0
($55,000.0)
$0.0
($25,000.0)
($120,000.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
* There is no factsheet for this program, because there are no resources being requested
STAG - 6
-------
CATEGORICAL GRANTS PROGRAM (STAG)
(Dollars in millions)
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
$856
$883
$1,006
I
$1,079
$1,143
^
$1,168
$1,252
$1,181
7
1999Ena. 2001 Ena. 2003 Ena. 2005 Pres.
2000 Ena. 2002 Ena. 2004 Ena. 2006 Pres.
In FY 2006, the President's Budget requests a total of $1,181 million for 23 "categorical"
program grants for state and tribal governments. EPA will continue to pursue its strategy of
building and supporting state, local and tribal capacity to implement, operate, and enforce the
Nation's environmental laws. Most environmental laws envision establishment of a
decentralized nationwide structure to protect public health and the environment. In this way,
environmental goals will ultimately be achieved through the actions, programs, and
commitments of state, tribal and local governments, organizations and citizens.
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to offer flexibility to state and tribal governments to manage their
environmental programs as well as provide technical and financial assistance to achieve mutual
environmental goals. First, EPA and its state and tribal partners will continue implementing the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS). NEPPS is designed to allow
states more flexibility to operate their programs, while increasing emphasis on measuring and
reporting environmental improvements. Second, Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) will
continue to allow States and Tribes funding flexibility to combine categorical program grants to
address environmental priorities.
HIGHLIGHTS:
State & Local Air Quality Management, Radon, and Tribal Air Quality Management Grants
The FY 2006 request includes $242.8 million for Air State and Local Assistance grants to
support state, local, and tribal air programs as well as radon programs. State and Local Air
Quality Management grant funding is requested in the amount of $223.6 million. These funds
STAG - 7
-------
provide resources to state and local air pollution control agencies for the development and
implementation of programs for the prevention and control of air pollution or for the
implementation of national primary and secondary ambient air standards. They can also be used
to support the coordination and implementation of research, investigations, experiments,
demonstrations, surveys and studies relating to the causes, effects (including health and welfare
effects), extent, prevention and control of air pollution. Tribal Air Quality Management grants,
requested in the amount of $11.0 million, provide funds to Tribes to develop and implement air
pollution prevention and control programs, or to implement national primary and secondary
ambient air standards. Lastly, this request includes $8.2 million for Radon grants, to provide
funding for state radon programs. The President's Budget includes appropriations language for
2006 that would reduce the state match requirement for the radon grants from 50 percent to 40
percent. This will improve effectiveness of these grants by increasing States' ability to obligate
funds to conduct radon testing and mitigation programs.
Pesticide Enforcement, Toxics Substance Compliance, and Sector Program Grants
In FY 2006, the President's Budget includes $26.3 million to build environmental partnerships
with States and Tribes and to strengthen their ability to address environmental and public health
threats. The enforcement state grants request consists of $18.9 million for Pesticides
Enforcement, $5.15 million for Toxic Substances Enforcement Grants, and $2.25 million for
Sector Grants. State and Tribal enforcement grants will be awarded to assist in the
implementation of compliance and enforcement provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). These grants
support state and tribal compliance activities to protect the environment from harmful chemicals
and pesticides.
Under the Pesticides Enforcement Grant program, EPA provides resources to States and Indian
Tribes to conduct FIFRA compliance inspections and take appropriate enforcement actions and
implement programs for farm worker protection. Under the Toxic Substances Compliance Grant
program, states receive funding for compliance inspections of asbestos and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and for implementation of the state lead abatement enforcement program. The
funds will complement other Federal program grants for building state capacity for lead
abatement, and enhancing compliance with disclosure, certification and training requirements.
Pesticides Program Implementation Grants
The President's FY 2006 Budget includes $13.1 million for Pesticides Program Implementation
grants. These resources will assist States and Tribes in implementing the safer use of pesticides,
including: worker protection; certification and training of pesticide applicators; protection of
endangered species; tribal pesticide programs; integrated pest management and environmental
stewardship; and protection of water from pesticide contamination.
Lead Grants
The President's FY 2006 Budget includes $13.7 million for Lead grants. This funding will
support the development of authorized programs in both States and Tribes to prevent lead
STAG - 8
-------
poisoning through the training of workers who remove lead-based paint, the accreditation of
training programs, the certification of contractors, and renovation education programs. Another
activity that this funding will support is the collection of lead data to determine the nature and
extent of the lead problem within an area.
Pollution Prevention Grants
The FY 2005 request includes $6.0 million for Pollution Prevention grants. The grant program
provides technical assistance towards the achievement of reduced pollution through source
reduction.
Environmental Information Grants
In FY 2006, the President's Budget includes $20.0 million to continue the Environmental
Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network) grant program. Started in 2002, the
Exchange Network grant program provides States, territories, Tribes, and Tribal Consortia
assistance to develop the information management and technology (EVI/IT) capabilities they need
to participate in the Exchange Network. The Exchange Network is an Internet and standards-
based information systems network that allows the EPA and its partners to exchange a variety of
environmental data electronically. Implementation and continued use of the Exchange Network
improves environmental decision making, increases environmental data quality and accuracy,
and reduces burden on those who provide and those who access information.
Underground Storage Tanks (VST) Grants
The President's FY 2006 Budget includes $11.95 million for Underground Storage Tank grants.
States and Tribes will use these resources to ensure that UST owners and operators routinely and
correctly monitor all regulated tanks and piping in accordance with regulations, and also to
develop programs with sufficient authority and enforcement capabilities to operate in lieu of the
Federal program.
Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants
In FY 2005, the President's Budget includes $104.4 million for Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance grants. Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance grants are used for the implementation
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste program, which
includes permitting, authorization, waste minimization, enforcement, and corrective action
activities.
Brownfields Grants
In FY 2006, the President's Budget includes $60.0 million to continue the Brownfields grant
program that provides assistance to states and Tribes to develop and enhance their state and tribal
response programs. This funding will help States and Tribes develop legislation, regulations,
procedures, and guidance to establish or enhance the administrative and legal structure of their
response programs. In addition, grant funding will help to capitalize Revolving Loan Funds for
STAG - 9
-------
Brownfields cleanup, purchase environmental insurance, and conduct site-specific related
activities such as assessments at Brownfields sites.
Water Pollution Control (Clean Water Act Section 106) Grants
In FY 2006, the President's Budget includes $231.9 million for Water Pollution Control grants,
an increase of $9.5 million over 2005. This increase in funds will be used to bolster National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting efforts, enhance water quality
monitoring activities and will lead to improved water quality standards.
Wetlands Grants
In FY 2006, the President's Budget includes $20.0 million for Wetlands Program Grants. These
grant resources will be used to assist States and Tribes in protecting wetlands and waters not
covered by the Clean Water Act.
Public Water System Supervision Grants
In FY 2006, the President's Budget includes $100.6 million for Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) grants. These grants provide assistance to implement and enforce National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations to ensure the safety of the Nation's drinking water
resources and to protect public health.
Indian General Assistance Program Grants
In FY 2006, the President's Budget includes $57.5 million for the Indian General Assistance
Program (GAP) to help federally recognized tribes and inter-tribal consortia develop, implement
and assume environmental programs.
Homeland Security Grants
In FY 2006, the President's Budget includes $5.0 million for homeland security grants to support
states' efforts to work with drinking water and wastewater systems to develop and enhance
emergency operations plans; conduct training in the implementation of remedial plans in small
systems; and, develop detection, monitoring and treatment technology to enhance drinking water
and wastewater security.
Underground Injection Control (VIC) Grants
The FY 2006 President's Budget includes $11.0 million for the Underground Injection Control
grants program. Ensuring safe underground injection of waste materials is a fundamental
component of a comprehensive source water protection program. Grants are provided to States that
have primary enforcement authority (primacy) to implement and maintain UIC programs.
STAG- 10
-------
Targeted Watershed Grants
The President's FY 2006 Budget funds Targeted Watershed grants at $15 million. The program
supports competitive grants to watershed stakeholders ready to undertake immediate action to
improve water quality, and to improve watershed protection measures with tools, training and
technical assistance. Special emphasis will be given to projects that promote water quality
trading opportunities to more efficiently achieve water quality benefits through market-based
approaches.
State and Tribal Performance Fund
The President's FY 2006 Budget includes a $23 million competitive performance based state and
tribal grants program. Awardees will be selected that have solid program plans and can show the
ability to achieve and measure real results, improvements in the environment and/or public
health. These grants will stimulate the development of environmental protection projects that
focus on results, not just process. It will also focus on the setting of performance goals, and the
collection and evaluation of performance data that justify the costs. These projects will serve as
results-based environmental protection models for replication across the nation.
Elimination of Tribal Cap on Non-Point Sources
In 2006, the President's Budget eliminates the statutory one-third-of-one-percent cap on Clean
Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution grants that may be awarded to Tribes. Tribes
applying for and receiving Section 319 grants have steadily increased from two in 1991 to over
70 in 2001. This proposal recognizes the increasing demand for resources to address tribal
nonpoint source program needs.
STAG - 11
-------
Brownfields Projects
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $120,500.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Brownfields Projects (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$87,380.4
$3,995.9
$91,376.3
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$120,500.0
$0.0
$120,500.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$120,500.0
$0.0
$120,500.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Economic changes over several decades have left thousands of communities with contaminated
properties and abandoned sites known as Brownfields. The Agency's Brownfields program
assists in addressing environmental site assessment and cleanup through grants and cooperative
agreements authorized by CERCLA Section 104(k) through competitive grants to eligible
entities and cooperative agreements authorized by CERCLA Section 104(k). The Brownfields
program must allocate 25% of the total available funds for CERCLA 104(k) grants to address
sites contaminated by petroleum. With the funds requested, EPA will provide: (1) assessment
and cleanup grants for recipients to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct cleanup and
redevelopment planning related to Brownfields sites; (2) capitalization grants for Revolving
Loan Funds (RLFs) to provide low interest loans for clean ups; (3) job training grants; (4)
petroleum grants and (5) financial assistance to localities, states, Tribes, and non-profit
organizations for research, training, and technical assistance.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Funding requested for FY 2006 will be used to support the following activities:
$29,000 in funding and technical support for 126 assessment grants for recipients to
inventory, assess, and conduct cleanup and redevelopment planning at Brownfields sites. In
FY 2006, this will result in the assessment of 1,000 Brownfields properties, cleanup of 60
Brownfields properties, together with the extension of the Brownfields tax credit, leverage
5,000 cleanup and redevelopment jobs, and $1,000 in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
STAG - 12
-------
$41,500 in funding to capitalize RLF and award cleanup grants for 70 communities; enabling
eligible entities to develop cleanup strategies, make loans to prospective purchasers to clean
up properties, and encourage communities to leverage other funds into their RLF pools and
cleanup grants. The Agency will award cooperative agreements to capitalize RLF grants of
up to $1,000 each and award direct cleanup grants of up to $200 per site to communities and
non-profits.
$30,300 in funding for assessment and cleanup of abandoned underground storage tanks
(USTs) and other petroleum contamination found on Brownfields properties to address
approximately 60 Brownfields communities.
$2,500 in funding to award Brownfields job training and development grants of up to $200
each, over two years. Also, $3,000 to the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) to supplement its minority worker training programs that focus on
Brownfields workforce development activities. Since 1996, EPA has awarded 92 job
training grants, trained 200 participants and averaged 65 percent job placement.
$14,200 in funding for training, research and technical assistance grants and cooperative
agreements as authorized under CERCLA Section 104(k)(6).
In addition, EPA will continue to support the existing 28 showcase communities which
demonstrate the benefits of interagency cooperative efforts in addressing environmental and
economic issues related to Brownfields.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act (CERCLA) as
amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (P.L. 107-
118); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 8001; Government
Management Reform Act (1990); Solid Waste Disposal Act; Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act; Annual Appropriations Act.
STAG- 13
-------
CATEGORIAL PROGRAM
GRANTS (STAG)
by National Program and State Grant
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant
Air & Radiation
State and Local Assistance
Tribal Assistance
Radon
Water Quality
Pollution Control (Section 106)
Beaches Protection
Nonpoint Source (Section 319)
Wetlands Program Development
Water Quality Cooperative Agrmts
Targeted Watersheds
Wastewater Operator Training Grants
Drinking Water
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Homeland Security
Hazardous Waste
H.W. Financial Assistance
Brownfields
Underground Storage Tanks
Pesticides & Toxics
Pesticides Program Implementation
Lead
Toxic Substances Compliance
Pesticides Enforcement
Multimedia
Environmental Information
Pollution Prevention
Sector Program
Indian General Assistance Program
State and Tribal Performance Fund
TOTALS
FY 2005
President's
Budget
$228,550.0
$11,050.0
$8,150.0
$247,750.0
$222,400.0
$10,000.0
$209,100.0
$20,000.0
$20,500.0
$25,000.0
$1,500.0
$508,500.0
$105,100.0
$11,000.0
$5,000.0
$121,100.0
$106,400.0
$60,000.0
$37,950.0
$204,350.0
$13,100.0
$13,700.0
$5,150.0
$19,900.0
$51,850.0
$25,000.0
$6,000.0
$2,250.0
$62,500.0
$23,000.0
$118,750.0
$1,252,300.0 $1
FY 2006
President's
Budget
$223,550.0
$11,050.0
$8,150.0
$242,750.0
$231,900.0
$10,000.0
$209,100.0
$20,000.0
$0.0
$15,000.0
$0.0
$486,000.0
$100,600.0
$11,000.0
$5,000.0
$116,600.0
$104,400.0
$60,000.0
$11,950.0
$176,350.0
$13,100.0
$13,700.0
$5,150.0
$18,900.0
$50,850.0
$20,000.0
$6,000.0
$2,250.0
$57,500.0
$23,000.0
$108,750.0
,181,300.0
Difference
FY 2006 v
FY 2005
($5,000.0)
$0.0
$0.0
($5,000.0)
$9,500.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
($20,500.0)
($10,000.0)
($1,500.0)
($22,500.0)
($4,500.0)
$0.0
$0.0
($4,500.0)
($2,000.0)
$0.0
($26,000.0)
($28,000.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
($1,000.0)
($1,000.0)
($5,000.0)
$0.0
$0.0
($5,000.0)
$0.0
($10,000.0)
($71,000.0)
STAG - 14
-------
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $10,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$8,826.3
$8,826.3
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA awards grants to eligible coastal and Great Lakes States, territories, and Tribes to improve
water quality monitoring at beaches and to notify the public of beach warnings and closings.
The BEACH grant program is a collaborative effort between EPA and States, territories, local
governments, and Tribes to help ensure that recreational waters are safe for swimming.
Congress created the program with the passage of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) in October 2000, with the goal of improving water quality
testing at beaches and to help beach managers better inform the public when there are water
quality problems.
EPA awards grants to eligible States, territories, and Tribes using an allocation formula
developed in 2002. Prior to allocating funds EPA consults with States and other organizations,
taking into consideration: beach season length; beach miles; and beach use. (See
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches for more information.)
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
States and territories currently monitor 3,472 beaches. To continue making progress on
monitoring beaches FY 2006, EPA expects to:
Make available grant funds to all 35 eligible States and territories to monitor beach water
quality and notify the public of beach warnings and closings;
Begin working with States to examine the allocation formula based on new data from the
States.
STAG- 15
-------
Continue to make available to the public real-time information through EPA's Beach
Advisory Closing On-line Notification (BEACON) system on the status of beach closings
at all monitored beaches; and,
Continue to work with coastal and Great Lakes States, territories, and Tribes to
address monitoring issues.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change from FY 2005.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000.
STAG- 16
-------
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $60,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Brownfields (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$50,000.4
$50,000.4
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$60,000.0
$60,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$60,000.0
$60,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be
complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant. Unlike Superfund sites, generally Brownfields are not highly contaminated
properties and, therefore, present lesser health risks. Economic changes over several decades
have left thousands of communities with these contaminated properties and abandoned sites.
The Agency's Brownfields program coordinates a Federal, State, tribal, and local government
approach to assist in addressing environmental site assessment and cleanup.
Under CERCLA Section 128(a), grants are provided to States and Tribes for their Brownfields
response programs. The state/tribal programs address contaminated sites that do not require
Federal action, but need cleanup before the sites are considered for reuse. States and Tribes may
use grant funding to develop a public record, capitalize a Revolving Loan Fund for Brownfields
cleanup under CERCLA Section 104(k)(3), purchase environmental insurance, and conduct site-
specific related activities such as assessments at Brownfield sites.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will provide $60 million to establish or enhance state and tribal Response programs
in 50 States and 30 Tribes. Since the program's inception in 1995, States, territories, and Tribes
have received over $238 million for State and tribal Response Program grants.
In addition, EPA has signed 22 Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) memoranda of agreement
(MOAs) with States. VCP MOAs clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Federal/state
relationship. These agreements encourage the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated
STAG- 17
-------
properties. In FY 2006, EPA will continue to negotiate with States, signing additional MOAs.
Under the Brownfields law, state response programs that have a VCP MOA are automatically
eligible for CERCLA 128(a) grant funding, therefore streamlining the grant award process.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act (CERCLA) as
amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (P.L. 107-
118): Government Management Reform Act (1990); Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Act; Annual Appropriations Act.
STAG- 18
-------
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $20,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$19,474.3
$19,474.3
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$25,000.0
$25,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($5,000.0)
($5,000.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Environmental Information grants provide funding to states, territories, federally recognized
Indian tribes, and Tribal consortia to support their participation in the Environmental Information
Exchange Network. The network is an Internet and standards-based, secure information network
that facilitates electronic reporting and the sharing, integration, analysis, and use of
environmental data from many different sources. The funding supports the acquisition and
development of computer hardware and software EPA's partners need to connect to the Exchange
Network
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006 the Exchange Network Grant
Program will continue to develop and add to
the 31 state and Tribal nodes currently in
existence. The program will define and
implement common data standards, formats,
and trading partner agreements for sharing
data over the Exchange Network. The
Grant program will also establish
standardization, exchange, and integration
of geospatial data to address environmental and related human health issues. In addition, EPA
plans to support regulatory and non-traditional data flow development and implementation
through the Exchange Network. These efforts continue to promote greater Exchange Network
utility and efficiency supporting sound environmental decision-making.
y FY 2006 Program Activities
S Issue Readiness, Implementation and Challenge Grants to
develop State and Tribal nodes
/ Define and implement data standards
/ Establish trading partner agreements
S Exchange and integrate geospatial data
S Develop regulatory and non-traditional data flows
STAG- 19
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$5,000.0) The reduction in resources reflects the shift in the Grant program's emphasis
from infrastructure needs to building data flows and Web services.
Statutory Authority
Authority for the Exchange Network Grant program to date has been provided in annual
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies, as follows: FY 2002, Public Law 107-73; FY 2003, Public Law 108-7;
FY 2004, Public Law 108-199; and, FY 2005, Public Law 108-447.
STAG - 20
-------
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $104,400.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$103,688.6
$103,688.6
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$106,400.0
$106,400.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$104,400.0
$104,400.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($2,000.0)
($2,000.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) statute authorizes EPA to provide
financial assistance to States through the Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants program
for the purpose of controlling the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of
hazardous wastes, including controlling and cleaning up releases from hazardous waste
management facilities through corrective action. States must demonstrate, at minimum,
equivalence with the Federal Hazardous Waste Management Program, and apply to EPA for
authorization to administer the program. Hazardous waste financial assistance grants provide for
the development and implementation of state authorized hazardous waste management programs,
and also provide funding for the direct implementation of the RCRA program by Regions 7 and
10 and for the States of Iowa and Alaska, respectively.
In addition, this program provides support to Tribes for tribal hazardous waste programs. This
program also coordinates with the American Indian Environmental Office as part of the annual
distribution of the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) Funds to address
tribal waste concerns. The GAP Act of 1992 authorizes EPA to provide grants to eligible tribal
governments or Intertribal Consortia for planning, developing and establishing environmental
protection programs on Indian lands. This program supports Agency Performance Partnership
Grants to states. For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/wastes.html. This
program was included in the RCRA Base, Permitting, Grants PART review for 2006 which
received an overall rating of adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis
Section.
STAG-21
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the following activities will be accomplished using RCRA Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance funds:
Issue post-closure permits or use appropriate enforcement mechanisms to address
environmental risk at inactive land disposal facilities and put approved controls in place,
as part of efforts toward the 2008 strategic goals.
Approve closure plans for interim status treatment and storage facilities that are not
seeking permits to operate, so these facilities can be brought under "approved controls"
as part of the efforts toward the 2008 strategic goals.
Review permit renewals and modifications for hazardous waste management facilities to
keep permit controls up to date.
Provide input to the RCRA Info National Reporting System to support higher quality,
more useable, and more accessible information.
Operate comprehensive compliance monitoring and enforcement actions related to the
RCRA hazardous waste program.
Provide funding for the direct implementation of the RCRA program by Region 7 for the
State of Iowa and Region 10 for the State of Alaska.
Focus corrective action from high priority facilities' stabilization to final cleanup.
Measure facility-wide remedy selection and completion of the construction of these
remedies.
Increase the percentage of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or
other approved controls by an additional 2.5%.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$2,000.0) Reduces funds from categorical grants to states for hazardous waste financial
assistance - corrective action. EPA's decision to reduce the corrective action portion of
the grant reflects Agency priority on maintaining funding levels for RCRA base
permitting program.
Statutory Authority
Solid Waste Disposal Act; Section 3011 (a) and (c) as amended; Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended; Public Law 94-580, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Department of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act; Public Law 105-276; 112 Stat, 2461, 2499 (1988)
STAG - 22
-------
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $5,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,051.1
$4,051.1
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$5,000.0
$5,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$5,000.0
$5,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA provides grants for coordination activities for critical water infrastructure protection efforts
that include work with drinking water systems as well as with state, local, and Federal agencies.
These activities include coordinating and providing technical assistance, training, and education
within the state or territory on homeland security issues (particularly with homeland security
offices and emergency response officials) relating to: ensuring the quality of drinking water
systems' vulnerability assessments and associated security enhancements; and developing and
overseeing emergency response and recovery plans. Emergency response and recovery plan
implementation activities include table-top workshops, exercises, drills, response protocols, or
other activities focusing on implementing security enhancements and improving the readiness of
individuals and groups involved in first response at a drinking water system.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to award homeland security grants to states to support their
efforts to work with drinking water and wastewater systems to:
Develop and enhance emergency operations plans;
Conduct training in the implementation of remedial plans in small systems; and,
Develop detection, monitoring and treatment technology to enhance drinking water
security.
For more information, visit http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/financeassist.cfm
STAG - 23
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA); Clean Water Act (CWA); Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002.
STAG - 24
-------
Categorical Grant: Lead
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $13,700.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Lead (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$14,099.7
$14,099.7
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$13,700.0
$13,700.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$13,700.0
$13,700.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program/Project Description
The Lead Categorical Grant Program will continue providing assistance to states, territories, the
District of Columbia, and Indian Tribes to develop and carry out authorized programs for the
training of individuals engaged in lead-based paint remediation, the accreditation of training
programs for those individuals, and the certification of contractors engaged in lead-based paint
remediation.
EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan includes a strategic target for reducing the number of childhood
lead poisoning cases to 90,000 by 2008, from approximately 400,000 cases in 1999/2000.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue to implement the lead-based paint activities training and certification program
through EPA-authorized state, territorial and tribal programs and, in areas without authorization,
through direct implementation by the Agency. Activities conducted as part of this program
include issuing grants for the training and certification of individuals and firms engaged in lead-
based paint abatement and inspection activities and the accreditation of qualified training
providers. Since their inception in 1998, the state, tribal and Federal programs have certified
more than 24,000 individuals.
EPA will continue to allocate grant funding to reduce lead poisoning in areas which continue to
present a high risk for childhood lead poisoning, despite the successes which have been achieved
elsewhere. This program supports projects to address areas with a high incidence of elevated
blood lead levels, to identify and address areas with high potential for as yet undocumented
elevation in blood lead levels, to develop tools to address unique and challenging issues in lead
poisoning prevention, and to identify tools that are replicable and scalable for other areas.
STAG - 25
-------
In addition to the Categorical Grant, the Lead program has a companion EPM program, "Lead
Risk Reduction Program." The EPM program focuses on EPA activities (e.g., rulemaking) other
than assistance to states, territories, the District of Columbia and Indian Tribes. Both of these
programs contribute to the achievement of common strategic targets and annual performance
goals.
For more information, visit www.epa.gov/oppt.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authorities
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA); Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of
1992 (which is designated as Title IV of TSCA).
STAG - 26
-------
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $209,100.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$241,542.3
$241,542.3
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$209,100.0
$209,100.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$209,100.0
$209,100.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The national nonpoint source (NPS) program is the primary program enacted by Congress to
enable States to combat the greatest remaining source of surface and ground water quality
impairments and threats in the United States. Grants under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
are provided to States, territories, and Indian Tribes to help them implement their EPA-approved
NPS management programs by remediating NPS pollution that has occurred in the past and by
preventing or minimizing new NPS pollution.
Section 319 broadly authorizes States to use a range of tools to implement their programs,
including: both non-regulatory and regulatory programs, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects. States currently
focus approximately one-half of their Section 319 funds on the development and implementation
of watershed-based plans that are designed to restore impaired (listed under Section 303(d))
waters to meet water quality standards. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/coastnps.html. This program underwent a PART review in
2006 and received a rating of adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis
Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Dealing with pervasive NPS pollution will require cooperation and involvement throughout
society to enable EPA and the States to solve NPS pollution problems. Therefore, EPA will
work closely with and support the many efforts of States, interstate agencies, Tribes, local
governments and communities, watershed groups, and others to develop and then implement
their local watershed-based plans and restore surface and ground waters nationwide.
STAG - 27
-------
Towards achieving our strategic goal of waters attaining designated uses, in F Y 2006, Sates will
continue to develop and implement watershed-based plans to restore impaired waterbodies to
meet water quality standards. Watershed-based plans enable States to determine the most cost-
effective means to meet their water quality goals through the analysis of sources of pollutants of
concern; the sources' relative significance; available cost-effective techniques to address those
sources; availability of needed resources, authorities and community buy-in to effect change; and
monitoring that will enable States and local communities to track progress and make changes
over time as they deem necessary to meet their water quality goals.
EPA will continue to forge and strengthen strategic partnerships with agricultural, forestry,
development, and other communities that have an interest in achieving water quality goals in a
cost-effective manner. Most particularly, because agriculture is the most significant remaining
source of water quality impairments in the United States, EPA will work with USDA to ensure
that Federal resources, including both Section 319 grants and Farm Bill funds, are managed in a
coordinated and effective manner to protect water quality. More broadly, EPA will work with
States to ensure that they develop and implement their watershed-based plans in close
cooperation and consultation with State conservationists, soil and water conservation districts,
and all other interested parties within the watersheds.
EPA will continue to track the steady increases in the cumulative dollar value and number of
projects financed with Clean Water SRF loans to prevent polluted runoff. Properly managed
onsite/decentralized systems are an important part of the Nation's wastewater infrastructure, and
EPA will encourage State, tribal, and local governments to adopt voluntary guidelines for the
effective management of these systems and use Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds
(CWSRF) to finance systems where appropriate.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No Change from F Y 2005.
Statutory Authority
Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations Act (PL 106-554); Clean Vessel Act; Clean Water Act
(CWA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Marine Plastic Pollution,
Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) of 1987; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA); National Environmental Policy Act; National Invasive Species Act of 1996; Ocean
Dumping Ban Act of 1988; Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act (OAPCA); Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Safe Drinking Water
Act (SOWA); Shore Protection Act of 1988; Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA); Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA); Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000; Coastal Zone
Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990; and North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA).
STAG - 28
-------
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $18,900.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$19,775.6
$19,775.6
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$19,900.0
$19,900.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$18,900.0
$18,900.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,000.0)
($1,000.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Pesticide Enforcement grants are used to ensure pesticide product and user compliance with
provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Areas of focus
include problems relating to pesticide worker safety protection, ineffective antimicrobial
products, food safety, adverse effects, and e-commerce. The program provides compliance
assistance to the regulated community through such resources as EPA's National Agriculture
Compliance Assistance Center, seminars, guidance documents, brochures, and other forms of
communication, to foster knowledge of and compliance with environmental laws. This program
underwent a PART review in 2006 and received a rating of ineffective; more information is
included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006 EPA will award state and Tribal enforcement grants to assist in the implementation
of the compliance and enforcement provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). These grants support state and Tribal compliance and enforcement
activities designed to protect the environment from harmful chemicals and pesticides. EPA's
support to state and Tribal pesticide programs will emphasize pesticide worker protection
standards, high risk pesticide activities including antimicrobials, pesticide misuse in urban areas,
and the misapplication of structural pesticides. States will also continue to conduct compliance
monitoring inspections on core pesticide requirements.
STAG - 29
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$1,000.0) The grants provided to the States and tribes for enforcement of FIFRA, will
be reduced in order to implement the recommendations of the Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) review.
Statutory Authority
FIFRA.
STAG - 30
-------
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $13,100.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$13,225.1
$13,225.1
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$13,100.0
$13,100.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$13,100.0
$13,100.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Implementation of EPA's Pesticide Field Programs at the local level is the most effective means
of promoting the program's success. The Agency's philosophy is to put the resources at the level
closest to the potential risks from pesticides, since they are in a position to better evaluate risks
and implement risk reduction measures. EPA provides grants to States, Tribes, partners, and
supporters for implementation of its field programs, described below.
Certification and Training (C&T)/Worker Protection (WP)
Pesticides are classified for general or restricted use. Restricted use pesticides require they be
applied by or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. EPA sets national standards
for the certification programs which are conducted by States and Tribes to certify applicators to
apply restricted use pesticides. All States require commercial applicators to be recertified,
generally every three to five years, and some States also require recertification or other training
for private applicators.
Through the C&T and WP programs, EPA protects workers, pesticide applicators/handlers,
employers, and the public from the potential risks posed by pesticides in their homes and work
environments. Through training, education and outreach activities which enhance workers'
awareness and understanding of pesticide hazards and how to avoid them, individuals are
empowered to play a key role in their own health and safety.
STAG-31
-------
Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP)
The ESPP protects animals and plants in danger of becoming extinct from the risks associated
with pesticide. Successful program implementation requires extensive coordination with States,
Tribes and stakeholders. In consultation and cooperation with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), EPA complies with the
Endangered Species Act requirement to ensure that its regulatory decisions are not likely to
jeopardize species listed as endangered and threatened, or harm habitat critical to those species'
survival.
Groundwater Program
The Ground Water program helps protect our water resources from pesticide contamination,
particularly through development, review, concurrence, and implementation of generic and
chemical-specific Pesticide Management Plans (PMPs). The PMPs, developed by the States and
Tribes, address water quality goals at local levels. The plans provide details to protect water
resources using a combination of educational, scientific, and regulatory tools to fulfill goals
which are consistent with EPA's goals.
Tribal Program
Tribal Program outreach activities support tribal capacity to reduce risk from pesticides in Indian
Country. This unique and challenging task is due to the uniqueness of Native Americans'
lifestyles, which may involve unusual chemical exposure opportunities. These unique exposure
patterns may not be adequately represented in the general public dietary or other exposure
information gathered by USDA, FDA or the registrant, and could result in inaccurate
representation of tribal patterns of exposure.
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
The Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) awards grants for projects that reduce
the risks from pesticide use in agricultural and non-agricultural settings. Selected projects based
on ratings and rankings of applicants from within the regions are funded. PESP is a means for
organizations at national, state, and local levels to voluntarily partner with EPA to promote
adoption of practices that reduce pesticide risk. PESP members develop and test safer practices
for controlling pests on a wide variety of crops. The program coordinates efforts with other
Federal Agencies, encouraging and supporting Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will provide assistance and grants to implement the C&T and WP programs. Grant funding
will provide for maintenance and improvements in training networks; safety training to workers
and handlers; development of Train the Trainer courses; C&T and WP workshops; and
development and distribution of outreach materials. The Agency's partnership with States and
Tribes in educating workers, farmers and employers on the safe use of pesticides and worker
safety will continue to be a major keystone in the success of the program.
STAG - 32
-------
Tribal
The Agency will support tribal activities in implementing pesticide field programs through
grants. These grants support the special needs of Native Americans related to risk reduction
from pesticides, and they provide for education and outreach, support PMP development, and
special projects for Tribes to deal with pesticide related concerns.
Ground Water
Through grant funding, the Agency will support the States and Tribes in their groundwater
protection programs. EPA will also ensure that States and Tribes receive sufficient information
and guidance in the implementation of our regulatory decisions through training and various
outreach activities and continue to provide guidance and direction in the development and
implementation of pesticide management plans.
Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP)
EPA will provide grants to States and Tribes for projects supporting endangered species
protection. Grants to the States and Tribes will be funded to deal with implementation of this
program. Program implementation includes outreach, communications, implementation of use
limitations, county bulletins development and distribution, and mapping and development of
endangered species protection plans.
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP)
EPA will continue to support risk reduction by providing grants promoting the use of safer
alternatives to traditional chemical methods of pest control. PESP grants will support the
implementation of FQPA by assisting in the transition to reduced risk pesticides and other
alternatives to traditional chemical pest control. EPA grants will also support the development
and evaluation of new pest management technologies through Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) and PESP, thus contributing to reduction in both health and environmental risks from
pesticide use.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Pesticides Registration Improvement Act (PRIA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA); Endangered Species Act (ESA).
STAG - 33
-------
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $231,900.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$202,936.7
$202,936.7
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$222,400.0
$222,400.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$231,900.0
$231,900.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$9,500.0
$9,500.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to provide Federal assistance to States
(including Territories and the District of Columbia), Indian Tribes qualified under section 518(e),
and interstate agencies to establish and maintain adequate measures for the prevention and
control of surface and ground water pollution from point and nonpoint sources. Prevention and
control measures supported through these grants include permitting, pollution control studies,
water quality planning and monitoring, standards and TMDL development, surveillance and
enforcement, pretreatment programs, advice and assistance to local agencies, training, public
information, and oil and hazardous materials response. The grants may also be used to fund
services from non-profit organizations, through the Senior Environmental Employment Program
(SEEP). The grants may also be used to provide "in-kind" support through an EPA contract if a
Sate or Tribe requests that part of their allotment be used to purchase equipment or services. For
more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/pollutioncontrol.htm.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
These resources will aid States in moving towards restoring and improving the quality of rivers,
lakes, and streams leading to pollutant reduction towards the long-term national goal of 600
waterbodies attaining designated uses. Increasingly, EPA and Sates are working in partnership
to develop watershed approaches to water quality management. Through the Section 106 grant
program, the Agency continues to support prevention and control measures supported by State
Water Quality management programs which include standards development, monitoring,
permitting and enforcement; advice and assistance to local agencies; and the provision of
training and public information. The Water Pollution Control Program is helping to foster a
watershed protection approach at the state level by looking at states' water quality problems
STAG - 34
-------
holistically, and targeting the use of limited resources available for effective program
management.
In FY 2006, additional funding is requested in Section 106 grants to states to continue the
monitoring initiative which began in FY 2005. These funds will be used to continue the
monitoring network established to obtain statistically valid characterization of water quality
conditions at the national level for all water types. It builds on the 2004 Condition Report and
the ongoing wadeable streams study, with a report on baseline conditions due at the end of 2005.
In 2006, the focus will be on lakes. The intent is that surveys will be repeated periodically so
that trends can be tracked, giving decision makers and the public the information they need to
determine effectiveness of our investments in water quality protection.
EPA is working with Sates, interstate agencies, and Tribes to foster a "watershed approach' as
the guiding principle of clean water programs. Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads or
"TMDLs" for an impaired waterbody is a critical tool for meeting water restoration goals. In
watersheds where quality standards are not attained, Sates will be developing TMDLs.
Watershed plans and TMDLs will focus pollution control efforts for impaired waters on a range
of pollution sources, including runoff from nonpoint sources. While continuously supporting
Sate watershed plans, EPA will continue work with Sates to develop TMDLs consistent with
Sate TMDL development schedules and court-ordered deadlines. States and EPA have made
significant progress in the development and approval of TMDLs (10,800 completed in FY
20001-2004) and expect to maintain the current pace of more than 3,000 TMDLs per year.
The NPDES program requires point source dischargers to be permitted and pretreatment
programs to control discharges from industrial and other facilities to the Nation's wastewater
treatment plants. This program provides a management framework for the protection of the
Nation's waters through the control of billions of pounds of pollutants. EPA has key strategic
objectives for the program:
Assure effective management of the permit program and focus on permits that have the
greatest benefit for water quality;
Implement wet weather point source controls, including the storm water program;
Implement the newly developed program for permits at Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFO);
Advance program innovations, such as watershed permitting and trading; and
Develop national industrial regulations for industries where the risk to waterbodies
supports a national regulation.
EPA also works to provide rural and small communities and special populations with the
information and tools they need to sustain themselves as healthy and successful
communities.
Also in 2006, EPA, working with our Sate partners, will implement the "Permitting for
Environmental Results Strategy" to address concern for the workload in permit issuance and the
health of Sate NPDES programs. The Strategy focuses limited resources on the most critical
environmental problems by targeting three key areas: developing and strengthening systems to
ensure the integrity of the program; focusing headquarters, regions and Sates on environmental
STAG-35
-------
results in the permitting program; and fostering efficiency in permitting program operations.
EPA is working with Stes, Tribes, and other interested parties to strengthen the permit program
in several other key areas that will have significant water quality benefits.
New rules have been finalized for discharges from CAFOs and EPA will work with States to
assure that permits cover most CAFOs by 2008. In addition, by 2008, EPA expects that 100% of
NPDES programs will have issued general permits requiring storm water management programs
for Phase II municipalities (MS4s) and requiring storm water pollution prevention plans for
construction sites covered by Phase II of the storm water program.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
+$9,500.0 - This increase in non-payroll resources is to assist States with monitoring,
permitting, water quality standards and other key activities. A significant portion of the
increase will fund the monitoring initiative to support development of statistically valid
monitoring networks to help target activities and determine water quality status and trends.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act
STAG - 36
-------
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $6,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$6,149.9
$6,149.9
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$6,000.0
$6,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$6,000.0
$6,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program/Project Description
The Pollution Prevention (P2) Grant Program provides grant funds to States and state entities
(i.e., colleges and universities) and federally-recognized Tribes and Intertribal Consortia in order
to deliver technical assistance to small and medium-sized businesses. The goal of the grant
program is to assist businesses and industries with identifying improved environmental strategies
and solutions for reducing waste at the source. The program effectively demonstrates that source
reduction can be a cost-effective way of meeting or exceeding Federal and State regulatory
requirements.
EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan established a number of long-term strategic targets for EPA's
Pollution Prevention Program: reducing pollution by 76 billion pounds, conserving 360 billion
BTUs of energy and 2.7 billion gallons of water, and achieving environmentally-related business
cost savings of $400 million from 2003 levels; reducing 165 thousand metric tons of carbon
dioxide (C02) emissions from 1996 levels; and reducing TRI chemical releases to the
environment from the business sector per unit of production by 40 percent and TRI chemicals in
production-related wastes generated by the business sector per unit of production by 20 percent
from 2001 levels.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The P2 Grant Program will focus on stronger review of the applicant's ability to measure the
results of the grants, particularly environmental outcomes. EPA will expect grant applicants to
demonstrate and document either outcome or output measures. EPA will give preference to
applicants whose work plans address outcome-based measures derived from the P2 targets in
EPA's Strategic Plan. Within the National Grant Guidance, EPA will provide ranking criteria
STAG-37
-------
which will be used to evaluate the applicant's ability to measure expected results. Primarily,
applicants will be evaluated on their use of the National Pollution Prevention Results System (a
database of core P2 metrics being developed by EPA and state P2 organizations) or
documentation, in their work plan, of past experience in measuring outcomes or outputs from
previous grants. EPA will encourage all applicants to share information within and outside of
their region through the National Pollution Prevention Results System, in addition to providing
this information to their EPA project officer.
EPA will continue to support a network of regional centers, collectively called the Pollution
Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx), that provides information and help to state technical
assistance centers.
The Categorical Grant - Pollution Prevention program has a companion EPM program,
"Pollution Prevention Program." Both of these programs contribute to achievement of common
strategic targets and annual performance goals.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authorities
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
STAG-38
-------
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $100,600.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$101,904.2
$101,904.2
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$105,100.0
$105,100.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$100,600.0
$100,600.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($4,500.0)
($4,500.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The PWSS Grant program provides grants to states with primary enforcement authority
(primacy) to implement and enforce National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs).
These grants help to ensure the safety of the Nation's drinking water resources and thereby
protect public health.
NPDWRs set forth monitoring, reporting, compliance tracking, and enforcement elements to
ensure that the Nation's drinking water supplies do not contain substances at levels that may
pose adverse health effects. These grants are a key implementation tool under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and support the states' role in a Federal/state partnership of providing safe drinking
water supplies to the public. Grant funds are used by states to:
Provide technical assistance to owners and operators of water systems;
Maintain compliance data systems and compile and analyze compliance information;
Respond to and enforce violations;
Certify laboratories;
Conduct laboratory analyses;
Conduct sanitary surveys;
Draft new regulations and legislative provisions where necessary; and
Build state capacity.
Funds allocated to the State of Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and Indian tribes without
primacy are used: to support direct implementation activities by EPA; for developmental grants
and "Treatment in a similar manner as a State" (TAS) grants to Indian Tribes to develop the
PWSS program on Indian lands with the goal of Indian tribal authorities achieving primacy. A
STAG-39
-------
portion of the funds allocated to primacy states that have not yet acquired the necessary
statutory/regulatory authorities to implement new requirements may be used by EPA to ensure
compliance with the new requirements in these states. (For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/pwss.html).
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue to support state and tribal efforts to meet new and existing drinking water
standards through the Public Water Systems Supervision (PWSS) grant program. In FY 2006, the
Agency will emphasize that states use their PWSS funds to ensure that:
1) Drinking water systems of all sizes achieve or remain in compliance;
2) Drinking water systems of all sizes are meeting new health-based standards that came into
effect in FY 2005; and
3) Data quality and other data issues have been addressed and resolved.
This program was included in the PWSS PART review for 2006, which received an overall
rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis section.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$4,500.0) This reduction aligns program with recent Congressional Action.
Statutory Authority
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA)
STAG - 40
-------
Categorical Grant: Radon
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $8,150.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Radon (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$8,062.1
$8,062.1
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$8,150.0
$8,150.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$8,150.0
$8,150.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
EPA assists states and Tribes through the State Indoor Radon Grant Program (SIRG), which
provides categorical grants to develop, implement, and enhance programs to assess and mitigate
radon risks. States and Tribes are the primary implementers of radon testing and mitigation
programs.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
States receiving SIRG funds will continue to focus their efforts on priority activities to achieve
risk reduction through FY 2006. These activities include promoting radon testing and
mitigation, with emphasis on testing in conjunction with real estate transactions, promoting
radon-resistant new construction, addressing radon in schools, setting results targets, developing
action-oriented coalitions, and conducting innovative activities to achieve measurable results.
EPA has included appropriations language for 2006 that would reduce the state match
requirement for the radon grants from 50% to 40%. This will improve effectiveness of these
grants by increasing states' ability to obligate funds to conduct radon testing and mitigation
programs.
STAG-41
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget
No change in funding
Statutory Authority
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), section 6, Titles II, and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and
2641-2671 Section 306 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Section 306
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
STAG - 42
-------
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $15,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$7,472.2
$7,472.2
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$25,000.0
$25,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$15,000.0
$15,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($10,000.0)
($10,000.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is a relatively new EPA program designed to
encourage successful community-based approaches and management techniques to protect and
restore the nation's waters. The watershed organizations receiving grants exhibit strong
partnerships with a wide variety of support; creative, socio-economic approaches to water
restoration and protection; and explicit monitoring and environmentally-based performance
measures. For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative.
This competitive grants program funds community-based watershed restoration and protection
projects, such as stream stabilization and habitat enhancement. In addition, this program
supports implementation of best agricultural management practices, and promotes sustainable
practices and watershed strategies, through working with local governments and other local
stakeholders.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The fundamental premise of the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is that strong partnerships
lead to measurable environmental results. Hence, the continuing goal of this Program is to build
on the success of strong public/private partnerships that have provided a basis for improving the
state of the nation's waterways. In FY 2006, the program will:
Focus on achieving incremental yet tangible on-the-ground results in a relatively short time
period.
STAG - 43
-------
Ensure watershed plans and projects are innovative, provide tangible solutions, and
encompass broad local support, strong outreach, and ensure strong financial integrity.
Within the funding provided in FY 2006 $4 million is for water quality trading.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$10,000.0) Reduces Targeted Watershed Grants in non-payroll resources and reflects the
completion of the 2005 Chesapeake Bay pilot.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act
STAG - 44
-------
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $5,150.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$5,036.1
$5,036.1
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$5,150.0
$5,150.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$5,150.0
$5,150.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Toxic Substances Compliance program builds environmental partnerships with States and
Tribes to strengthen their ability and EPA's ability to address environmental and public health
threats from toxic substances such as PCBs, asbestos and lead. State grants are used to ensure
the proper use, storage and disposal of PCBs, which prevent persistent bio-accumulative toxic
substances from contaminating food and water. The asbestos funds ensure compliance with
standards to prevent exposure to school children, teachers and staff to asbestos fibers in school
buildings. The program also assures that asbestos and lead abatement workers have received
proper training so they are protected during the abatement process and minimize the public's
exposure to these harmful toxic substances from releases into the environment. This program
was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review for 2006 which received an overall rating
of Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program will continue to award state
and Tribal compliance monitoring grants to assist in the implementation of the compliance and
enforcement provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). These grants support state
and Tribal compliance monitoring and enforcement activities to protect the public and the
environment from PCBs, asbestos and lead.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
TSCA.
STAG - 45
-------
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Build Tribal Capacity
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $57,500.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$62,195.9
$62,195.9
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$62,500.0
$62,500.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$57,500.0
$57,500.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($5,000.0)
($5,000.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) was established by Congress in
1992 to correct a deficiency in Federal efforts to assist Indian Tribal governments in assuring
environmental quality on Indian lands. The purpose of the GAP is to support the development of
a core tribal environmental protection program for federally-recognized tribal governments.
EPA provides GAP grants to Tribes and Intertribal Consortia to develop the capacity to
administer multi-media environmental protection programs tailored to the tribes' needs. GAP
funds are used to locally identify the status of a Tribe's environmental condition; develop
appropriate environmental programs, ordinances and public education and outreach efforts to
address these needs; ensure that tribal communities are informed and able to participate in
environmental decision-making and promote communication and coordination between Federal,
state, local and tribal environmental officials.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will provide approximately 510 federally recognized Tribes and Intertribal
Consortia access to resources to hire at least one person working in their community to build a
strong, sustainable environment for the future. The vital work performed includes locally
assessing the status of a tribe's environmental condition, utilizing available Federal information,
building an environmental program tailored to the Tribe's needs, developing environmental
education programs, developing solid waste management plans, assisting in the building of tribal
environmental capacity, and alerting EPA to serious conditions involving immediate public
health and ecological threats.
STAG - 46
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$5,000.0) This reduction is based on the program realizing increased baseline assistance
over the past several years, with the expectation of more delegations or other tools to
support an environmental presence.
Statutory Authority
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of 1992 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4368b)
STAG - 47
-------
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (VIC)
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $11,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC) (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$10,800.0
$10,800.0
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$11,000.0
$11,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$11,000.0
$11,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program is implemented by Federal, state, and local
governments that oversee underground injection activities in order to prevent contamination of
underground sources of drinking water. Underground injection is the technology of placing
fluids beneath the earth's surface in porous rock formations through wells or other similar
conveyance systems.
When wells are properly sited, constructed, and operated, underground injection is an effective
and environmentally safe method to dispose of fluids. The Safe Drinking Water Act established
the UIC program to provide safeguards so that injection wells do not endanger current and future
underground sources of drinking water. The most accessible underground fresh water is stored
in shallow geological formations (i.e., shallow aquifers), and is the most vulnerable to
contamination.
EPA provides financial assistance in the form of grants to States that have primary enforcement
authority (primacy) to implement and maintain UIC programs. Eligible Indian Tribes who
demonstrate intent to achieve primacy may also receive a grant for the initial development of
UIC programs and be designated for treatment as a "state" if their programs are approved.
Where a jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to assume primacy, EPA uses grant funds for direct
implementation of Federal UIC requirements. (For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/index.html).
STAG - 48
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Ensuring safe underground injection of fluids, including waste-fluids, is a fundamental component of
a comprehensive source water protection program that, in turn, is a key element in the Agency's
multi-barrier approach. Management or closure of the approximately 700,000 shallow injection
wells (Class V) nationwide remains a top priority for the Agency's UIC program.
To protect drinking water, by the end of 2006 the UIC categorical grant program will accomplish the
following:
EPA and the States will address 94 percent or higher of all classes of existing wells
determined to be in violation that year.
EPA and the States will close or permit 90 percent of Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal wells
(Class V) identified during the reporting year.
EPA will continue to carry out its regulatory functions for all well types with States and stakeholders.
The Agency will also continue working with States and Tribes to: educate and assist
underground injection control well operators of all classes of UIC wells; work with stakeholders
to collect and evaluate data on high priority endangering Class V wells; and explore best
management practices for protecting ground water resources used for drinking water.
New technologies for public water supplies and new demands relative to global climate change
have increased the need for new injection wells to be drilled and managed. Specifically, Federal
and state UIC programs need to be able to handle these increasing demands for underground
injection including: carbon sequestration, brine wastes from desalination, and residuals from
drinking water treatment to remove arsenic and radionuclides. Of particular note is that EPA is
collaborating with the Department of Energy and the Council on Environmental Quality to
outline specific new approaches for carbon sequestration research, demonstrations, and policies.
This was included in the UIC PART review for 2006, which received an overall rating of
Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis section.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA)
STAG - 49
-------
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Object!ve(s): Preserve Land
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $11,950.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$11,724.9
$11,724.9
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$37,950.0
$37,950.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$11,950.0
$11,950.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($26,000.0)
($26,000.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description:
EPA provides funding to states, Tribes, and/or Intertribal Consortia through the Underground
Storage Tanks (UST) categorical grants to encourage owners and operators to properly operate
and maintain their underground storage tanks. 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 UST programs approved by EPA to operate in lieu of
the Federal program. For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/overview.htm.
Major activities focus on ensuring that owners and operators routinely and correctly monitor all
regulated tanks and piping in accordance with Underground Storage Tanks regulations, and
developing state programs with sufficient authority and enforcement capabilities to operate in
lieu of the Federal program. For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/OUST /fedlaws
/cfr.htm.
This grant funding may be used in Performance Partnership Agreements with states and Tribes.
A state or Tribe could elect to consolidate this and other categorical media grants into one or
more multimedia or single media grant. The state or Tribe could then target its most pressing
environmental problems and use the performance partnership grant for a number of activities
including pollution control, abatement, and enforcement. This program will not compromise
basic national objectives and legislative requirements.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights:
In FY 2006 EPA will continue to assist states and Tribes in encouraging owners and operators to
properly operate and maintain their underground storage tanks, ensure owners and operators
routinely and correctly monitor all regulated underground storage tanks and piping in accordance
STAG - 50
-------
with regulations, and develop state programs with sufficient authority and enforcement
capabilities to operate in lieu of the Federal program.
FY 2004 marked the first baseline year that states and regional offices reported the percentage of
UST facilities, out of a total estimated universe of approximately 256,000 facilities, that are in
significant operational compliance with both release detection and release prevention (spill,
overfill, and corrosion protection) requirements. In FY 2006 states and regional offices will
continue to be responsible for reporting the percent of facilities in significant operational
compliance with release prevention and release detection requirements. At the end of FY 2004,
the national compliance rate was 77 percent for release prevention, 72 percent for release
detection, and 64 percent for the combined compliance measure.
In FY 2006 the program will work to limit the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to
10,000 or fewer. At the end of FY 2004, the number of confirmed releases has dropped
significantly to 7,850 from the FY 2003 level of 12,000. This represents a drop of approximately
35 percent and reflects the continued efforts of state programs to focus on prevention and
compliance activities.
EPA has the primary responsibility for implementation of the UST Program in Indian Country.
Grants under P.L. 105-276 will continue to help Tribes develop the capacity to administer UST
programs. For example, funding is used to support training for Tribal staff, educate owners and
operators in Indian Country about UST requirements, and maintain information on USTs located
in Indian Country.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$26,000.0) Reduces the categorical grant funds for the underground storage tanks
program. This reduction aligns the program with recent Congressional action and returns
the program to historical levels.
Statutory Authority
States: Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976, as amended (Subtitle I);
Section 2007(f); Section 8001 (a). Tribal Grants: P.L. 105-276.
STAG-51
-------
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $0.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,500.0
$1,500.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($1,500.0)
($1,500.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Section 104(g)(l) of the Clean Water Act authorizes funding for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operator On-site Assistance Training program. This program targets small publicly-owned
wastewater treatment plants, with a discharge of less than 5 million gallons per day. Federal
funding for this program is administered through grants to States, often in cooperation with
educational institutions or non-profit agencies. In most cases, assistance is administered through
an environmental training center.
The goal of the program is to provide direct on-site assistance to operators at these small
wastewater treatment facilities. The assistance focuses on issues such as wastewater treatment
plant capacity, operation training, maintenance, administrative management, financial
management, trouble-shooting, and laboratory operations.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
There is no request for this program in FY 2006.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$1,500.0) No funding is requested in FY 2006. The pilot wastewater operator training
program has matured and assistance is often provided by associations.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act
STAG - 52
-------
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health; Protect Water Quality
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $0.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$16,607.5
$16,607.5
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$20,500.0
$20,500.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($20,500.0)
($20,500.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Under authority of Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act, EPA makes grants to a wide
variety of recipients, including States, Tribes, state water pollution control agencies, interstate
agencies, and other nonprofit institutions, organizations, and individuals to promote the
coordination of environmentally beneficial activities. This competitive funding vehicle is used
by EPA's partners to further the Agency's goals of providing clean and safe water. The program
is designed to fund a broad range of projects, including: innovative water efficiency programs,
research, training and education, demonstration BMPs, stormwater management planning, and
innovative permitting programs and studies related to the causes, effects, extent, and prevention
of pollution.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
There is no request for this program in FY 2006.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$20,500.0) No funds were requested in FY 2006 to fund other priorities.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act
STAG - 53
-------
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Ecosystems
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $20,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$17,110.4
$17,110.4
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
Through the Wetlands Program Development Grant, the EPA provides technical and financial
support to States, Tribes, and local governments to move toward the national goal of no net loss
and net gain of wetland resources and increased protection for vulnerable wetlands. Since the
Wetland Program started in FY 1990, grant funds are awarded under the authority of section
104(b)(3) of the CWA on a competitive basis to support development of State and tribal wetland
programs that further the goals of the CWA and improve water quality in watersheds throughout
the country. Many States and some Tribes have developed wetland protection programs that
assist private landowners, educate local governments and monitor and assess wetland quantity
and quality. For more information, visit http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/grant.nsf.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Achieving the strategic goal and the Administration's wetlands commitment necessitates
stronger State, tribal and local programs to protect the most vulnerable wetlands. These resources
in FY 2006 will aid States and Tribes by providing grant funds to develop, enhance, implement
and administer wetland programs. This will allow States and Tribes to build capacity on
measuring and achieving no-net loss of wetlands, net gain of wetlands, and protection of
vulnerable wetlands.
STAG - 54
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollar in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; Clean
Water Act; Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990; Estuaries and
Clean Waters Act of 2000; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA); 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA); 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; 1996 Habitat
Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy; and US-Canada
Agreements.
STAG - 55
-------
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Compliance
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $2,250.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Sector Program (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$1,838.3
$1,838.3
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$2,250.0
$2,250.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$2,250.0
$2,250.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
A strong State and Tribal enforcement and compliance assurance presence is essential to EPA's
long-term strategic objective: to identify and reduce significant noncompliance in high priority
areas, while maintaining a strong enforcement presence in all regulatory program areas.
Effective partnerships between EPA and government co-implementers are crucial for success in
implementing sector approaches.
Sector program grants will be used to build environmental partnerships with States and tribes to
strengthen their ability to address environmental and public health threats, including
contaminated drinking water, pesticides in food, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and air
pollution. These grants also will support state agencies implementing authorized, delegated, or
approved environmental programs. This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART
review for 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate; more information is included in
the Special Analysis Section. For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/sectors/pubs.html.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006 EPA will continue to support state agencies and Tribes in their efforts to build,
implement, or improve compliance capacity for authorized, delegated, or approved
environmental programs, and to foster program innovation. To achieve this, the Agency will
award state and Tribal enforcement grants to assist in the implementation of the compliance and
enforcement provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
FY 2006 annual funding priorities for the multi-media grants program include improving
compliance data quality; modernizing data systems; improving public access to enforcement and
STAG - 56
-------
compliance data; improving outcome measurement; supporting state and Tribal inspector
training; providing on-site compliance assistance to Tribes; and field testing innovative
approaches to compliance monitoring. The grants and/or cooperative agreements are competed
nationally, and each funding priority is targeted towards enhancing state and Tribal capacity and
capability; or addressing needs identified by States, Tribes or State and Tribal associations.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
STAG - 57
-------
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $223,550.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$237,296. 7
$237,296.7
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$228,550.0
$228,550.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$223,550.0
$223,550.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($5,000.0)
($5,000.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program includes funding support for State and local air pollution control agencies and
regional planning organizations. Section 105 of the Clean Air Act provides EPA with the
authority to award grants to State and local air pollution control agencies to develop and
implement programs for the prevention and control of air pollution and the implementation of
national primary and secondary ambient air standards. Section 103 of the Act provides EPA
with the authority to award grants to State and local air pollution control agencies, colleges,
universities, and multi-state jurisdictional air pollution control agencies to conduct and promote
certain types of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and
training related to air pollution. Under section 106 (interstate pollution) of the Act, EPA may
fund entities to develop or recommend air quality implementation plans for designated air quality
control regions.
This program was included in the Air Toxics PART review in 2006, which received an overall
rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
This program funds over 100 State and local agencies to implement the requirements of the
Clean Air Act Amendments described above. Some issues that will be of priority in FY 2006
include State implementation of Clear Skies1 or the Clean Air Interstate Rule as well as the
development of 8-hour ozone State implementation plans (SIPs), which will be due to EPA in
1 Clear Skies is a legislation proposed by the Administration that expands the current Acid Rain program to dramatically reduce
nationwide power plant emissions of SO2 and NOX, as well as, for the first time ever, reduce mercury emissions from power
plants. This legislation was submitted to Congress in 2002 and the Administration continues to promote its enactment.
STAG-58
-------
FY 2007. States will also begin work on PlV^.s SIPs and will incorporate regional haze reduction
strategies, developed by the regional planning organizations (RPOs) into their Regional Haze
SIPs. Both the PM and Regional Haze SIPs are due to EPA in January, 2008. States that have 8-
hour ozone areas classified as moderate and above will prepare and submit reasonable further
progress (RFP) and reasonably available control technology (RACT) SIPs. In FY 2006, States
will be required to prepare revisions to their New Source Review (NSR) SIPs consistent with the
NSR Reform measures.
The National Air Monitoring Strategy is intended to reshape the air monitoring program in ways
that can easily accommodate both national and local needs; improve information flow to the
public; incorporate new technologies and new pollutant measurements; and maintains fiscal
responsibility. A network design proposal (National Core Network (NCore)) will be issued and
States will begin implementing Phase 1 of the NCore requirements. For additional information
on the National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/monitorstrat/summary.pdf Based upon EPA's final
NCore ambient monitoring rule, States will begin implementing phase I of the NCore monitoring
network requirements in FY 2006.
The Agency will enhance its existing long-term environmental assessment capability. Improving
our current understanding of ecosystem conditions due to changes in air quality requires
increasing access to and linkage of long-term ecological datasets that complement our current
long-term monitoring programs both spatially and temporally. Ecological assessment
approaches will be developed to improve existing goals and increase their efficacy in assessing
our environmental programs.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$5,000.0) Reduces funding for Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs). The RPOs
have completed much of the analysis for the regional haze plans and, over the next few
years, the burden will be more on the States to incorporate this work into their planning.
EPA will work closely with the RPOs to ensure that the most critical work is done and
available for the States to incorporate in their SIPs.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act
STAG - 59
-------
Categorical Grant: State and Tribal Performance Fund
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $23,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: State and Tribal Performance Fund (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$23,000.0
$23,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$23,000.0
$23,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The States and EPA have been working together to improve, measure and document the results
of environmental programs. EPA and the States have made investments in creating a joint
strategic planning process with shared environmental goals and tangible measures of success.
EPA and the States are also working through the planning process to find ways to address
environmental problems across media. It is time to invest in state environmental agencies that
are poised to move promising approaches from drawing boards and pilot programs into
production. It is critical to provide these cutting edge programs the opportunity to demonstrate
environmental performance, and communicate environmental progress to a larger public
audience.
This fund will competitively award grants to States, Tribes, Intertribal Consortia, and Interstate
Agencies (that are eligible for categorical grants) for projects designed to demonstrate public
health and/or environmental results. The Performance Grant Fund will: (1) directly support
EPA's mission and national Strategic Plan, and (2) allow for multi-media approaches.
EPA will support results-oriented work underway with States, Tribes, Intertribal Consortia, and
Interstate Agencies and to test new or alternative methods that emphasize performance measures
and results. The Performance Grant Fund will support projects that include tangible,
performance-based environmental and health outcomes and that can serve as measurement and
results-oriented models for implementation across the nation.
STAG - 60
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Environmental Results through Partnerships: Working with businesses, NGOs, and communities
the grants will encourage alternative means of compliance and performance through a variety of
means including pollution prevention, changes in processes, product stewardship, technical and
compliance assistance, recycling and pollution trading. States experience different problems that
do not always lend themselves to traditional approaches, where multi-stakeholder partnerships
are needed. Funds will support the launch of innovative programs that deal with previously
unaddressed environmental problems involving a myriad of stakeholders.
Geographic/Ecosystem Initiatives: These initiatives will address complex environmental
problems in a distinguishable region or critical habitat of particular interest to the general public.
There are large-scale models such as the Chesapeake Bay Initiative and Great Lakes Restoration
efforts, as well as other projects focusing on smaller regions in which problem, action and
performance can be aligned by virtue of the geographic association. Defining a problem
geographically is more likely to address cause and effect relationships and get to the root of the
problem.
Improving Regulatory Program Performance: Exploring alternative regulatory pathways will be
a priority, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of existing programs. Initiatives could
include those that change the regulatory structure to provide greater efficiency for government as
well as improved compliance and performance. Projects could also involve minor or major
changes in the way existing programs are executed to increase the return on investment.
Other: States can propose other creative initiatives that don't necessarily fit into one of the above
categories but are equivalently targeted at reducing pollution, implementing a multi-media,
cross-program approach and measuring environmental results.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Language authorizing the grants is included in the President's FY 06 budget request.
STAG-61
-------
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $11,050.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$12,384.9
$12,384.9
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$11,050.0
$11,050.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$11,050.0
$11,050.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program includes funding for Tribal air pollution control agencies and/or Tribes. Through
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 105 Grants, Tribes may develop and implement programs for the
prevention and control of air pollution or implementation of national primary and secondary
ambient air standards. Through CAA Section 103 grants, Tribal air pollution control agencies or
Tribes, colleges, universities, or multi-tribe jurisdictional air pollution control agencies and/or
non-profit organizations may conduct and promote research, investigations, experiments,
demonstrations, surveys, studies and training related to air pollution.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
With EPA funding, Tribes will assess environmental and public health conditions on tribal lands
and, where appropriate, access site monitors. Tribes will continue to develop and implement air
pollution control programs. EPA will continue to fund organizations for the purpose of
providing technical support, tools and training for Tribes to build capacity as appropriate.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act
STAG - 62
-------
Clean School Bus Initiative
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $10,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Clean School Bus Initiative (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$4,990.4
$0.0
$4,990.4
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$65,000.0
$65,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$0.0
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
($55,000.0)
($55,000.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program includes development, implementation, and evaluation of a competitive grant
program to equip school buses with diesel retrofit technology or to replace older school buses in
order to reduce diesel emissions. This program will help equip our Nation's school bus fleet
with low-emission technologies sooner than would otherwise occur through normal turnover, a
significant achievement considering most school buses remain in service for 20 years or more.
Older School buses can be retrofitted with pollution controls through the use of ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel and the installation of particulate matter (PM) filters, with the potential of reducing
PM emissions by more than 90 percent.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
In FY 2006, EPA will continue to implement its Clean School Bus USA program. This program
promotes the reduction of emissions from older, high-polluting school buses by awarding grants
for voluntary diesel bus retrofit and replacement projects. The cost-shared grants awarded
through this program will be available to certain governmental entities and priority will be given
to applicants in areas that have not attained or that contribute to another area's inability to attain
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone or particulate matter.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(- $55,000.0) Reduces funding for the Clean School Bus USA grant program to a level
that adequately funds the grant program assuming a distribution pattern similar to those
STAG - 63
-------
of FY 2004 and FY 2005. $10 million will allow EPA to fund approximately 40
programs in FY 2006.
Statutory Authority
Clean Air Act Amendments, Title I (NAAQS); Clean Air Act Amendments, Title III (Air
Toxics); Clean Air Act, Sections 103, 105, and 106 (Grants)
STAG - 64
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $15,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$37,433.8
$37,433.8
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$40,000.0
$40,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$15,000.0
$15,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($25,000.0)
($25,000.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Alaska Rural and Native Village Program address the lack of basic sanitation infrastructure
(i.e., flush toilets and running water) in rural and Native Alaska communities. In many of these
communities, honeybuckets and pit privies are the sole means of sewage collection and disposal.
The grant to the State of Alaska provides funding to construct water and wastewater facilities for
these rural and Native Villages, thereby, improving the health and sanitation conditions in these
communities. This program also supports training, technical assistance, and educational
programs relating to the operation and maintenance of sanitation systems in rural and Native
Villages. For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/indian/anvrs.htm. This
program underwent a PART review in 2006 and received a rating of ineffective; more
information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The Agency will continue to provide funding through a grant to the State of Alaska to meet the
sanitation infrastructure needs of rural and Native Villages as effectively and efficiently as
possible. This funding will continue to move the Agency closer to its commitment to the
Johannesburg 2002 World Summit to reduce by 50 percent the 71,000 households on tribal lands
(including ANVs) lacking access to basic wastewater systems and the 31,000 households lacking
access to drinking water systems by 2015.
In FY 2006 EPA will establish more stringent accountability measures and reforms to address
program deficiencies identified in audits by the State of Alaska and the IG, as well as through a
Program Assessment Rating Tool evaluation.
STAG - 65
-------
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$25,000.0) This reduction is the result of program management and financial deficiencies
identified in audits by the State of Alaska and the IG, and the PART. EPA will periodically
review this program to see if it improves and may modify the request in future budgets to
reflect such improvements.
Statutory Authority
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996
STAG - 66
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $730,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$1,397,784.5
$1,397,784.5
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$850,000.0
$850,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$730,000.0
$730,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
($120,000.0)
($120,000.0)
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) provides funds to capitalize state revolving
loan funds that finance infrastructure improvements for public wastewater systems and projects
to improve water quality. The Federal investment is designed to be used in concert with other
sources of funds to meet water quality needs. The CWSRF is the largest source of funds for
providing loans and other forms of assistance for wastewater treatment facility construction,
implementation of nonpoint source management plans, and development and implementation of
estuary conservation and management plans. This program also includes a provision for a set-
aside with funding for Indian Tribes to better address the serious water infrastructure and
attendant health impacts. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrf/index.htm.
CWSRFs provide low interest loans to help finance wastewater treatment facilities and other
water quality projects. These projects are critical to the continuation of the public health and
water quality gains of the past 30 years. As of early 2005, the Federal government had invested
$22 billion in the CWSRFs. The revolving nature of the funds and substantial additions from
States have magnified that investment so that $52 billion has been available for loans.1 The
CWSRF program measures and tracks the average national rate at which available funds are
loaned, assuring that the fund is working hard to support water quality infrastructure. This
program underwent a PART review in 2006 and received a rating of adequate; more information
is included in the Special Analysis Section.
1 Clean Water State Revolving fund National Information Management System. US EPA, Office of Water, National Information
Management System Reports: Clean Water Waters Revolving Fund (CWSRF). Washington, DC. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwsrf
STAG - 67
-------
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Recognizing the substantial remaining need for wastewater infrastructure, EPA will provide
annual capitalization to the CWSRFs through 2011. This continued Federal investment, along
with other traditional sources of financing (including increased local revenues) will result in
significant progress toward addressing the Nation's wastewater treatment needs as well as
significantly contribute to the long-term environmental goal of watershed's attaining designated
uses.
EPA continues to work with States to meet several key objectives: fund projects designed as part
of an integrated watershed approach, link projects to environmental results through the use of
scientifically-sound water quality and public health data, maintain the CWSRFs' excellent
fiduciary condition, and continue to track the increasing numbers of States that have developed
integrated priority lists addressing nonpoint source pollution and estuaries protection projects in
addition to wastewater projects.
Another important approach to closing the gap between the need for clean water projects and
available funding is to use sustainable management systems to prolong the lives of existing
systems. EPA will work to encourage rate structures that lead to full cost pricing and support
water metering and other conservation measures.
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.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget Request (Dollars in Thousands)
(-$120,000.0) - The FY 2006 Budget funds the CWSRF at $730 million. At this funding
level, the total capitalization provided between FYs 2004 through 2011 will total $6.8
billion, the same total proposed in the 2004 President's Budget. Because total
capitalization remains the same, the program will still meet its long-term revolving level
target of $3.4 billion.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act.
STAG - 68
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $850,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$881,523.6
$881,523.6
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$850,000.0
$850,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$850,000.0
$850,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
This program is designed to support States in helping public water systems finance the costs of
infrastructure improvements needed to achieve or maintain compliance with Safe Drinking
Water Act requirements and to protect public health. Capitalization grant funds may also be
used by States to provide other types of assistance to promote prevention and to encourage
stronger drinking water system management programs. To reduce occurrences of serious public
health threats and to ensure safe drinking water sources nationwide, EPA is authorized to make
capitalization grants to States, so that they can provide low-cost loans and other assistance to
eligible public water systems. Resources may also fund Interagency Agreements to other
Federal agencies, such as the Indian Health Service in the Department of Health and Human
Services, that provide safe drinking water activities in support of the Tribes. The program also
emphasizes providing funds to small and disadvantaged communities and to programs that
encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water. (For more information
visit http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html)
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
Providing drinking water that meets health safety standards often requires an investment in the
construction or maintenance of drinking water infrastructure. Through the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program, states offer low interest loans to help public water systems
across the nation make improvements or upgrades to their infrastructure. In addition, the
DWSRF provides additional financial support to small and disadvantaged communities through
low or zero-interest loans. Every State that administers DWSRF funds must provide a minimum
of 15 percent of available funds for loans to small communities, and has the option of providing
up to 30 percent of available funds to state-defined disadvantaged communities. As of the end of
STAG - 69
-------
FY 2004, the DWSRF program has made available $7.9 billion to finance 3,654 infrastructure
improvement projects nationwide.1 For FY 2006, the DWSRF program has set a target of
providing over 600 additional loans to public water systems for infrastructure improvement
projects.
This program was included in the DWSRF PART review for 2006, which received an overall
rating of Adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis section.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA)
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. Drinking Water National Information Management System.
December 2004. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html
STAG - 70
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $50,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$64,846.3
$64,846.3
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The United States and Mexico share more than 2000 miles of common border. More than 12.6
million people live in the border area, mostly in fifteen "sister city: pairs". The rapid increase in
population and industrialization in the border cities has overwhelmed existing wastewater
treatment and drinking water supply facilities. Untreated and industrial sewage often flows north
into the U.S. from Tijuana, Mexicali, and Nogales, and into the Rio Grande. EPA works closely
with the Mexican Government; the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and
the North American Development Bank (NADBank) to evaluate environmental needs and to
facilitate the construction of environmental infrastructure through the provision of grant funding
for the planning, design, and construction of high priority water and wastewater treatment
construction along the border. This program underwent a PART review in 2006 and received a
rating of adequate; more information is included in the Special Analysis Section.
Further information about this program can be found at http://www.epa.gov/r6border/index.htm.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
The U.S. - Mexico Border 2012 Program, a joint effort between the U.S. and Mexican
governments, will continue to work with the 10 border States and local communities to improve
the region's environmental health. In doing so, the U.S. and Mexico governments will work to
improve water quality along the border through a range of pollution control sanitation projects,
with the goal of restoring the quality of the majority of the currently impaired significant shared
and transboundary surface waters by the year 2012. Because of inadequate drinking water and
sewage treatment, border residents suffer disproportionately from hepatitis A and other water-
borne diseases. By increasing the number of connections to potable water systems 25% by the
year 2012, EPA and its partners will reduce health risks to residents who may currently lack
STAG-71
-------
access to safe drinking water. Similarly, by increasing the number of homes with access to basic
sanitation by the same amount, EPA and its partners will reduce the discharge of untreated
domestic wastewater into surface and ground water. In FY 2006, EPA also will continue to
support the planned assessment of shared and transboundary surface waters to facilitate the
collection, management, and exchange of environmental data essential for effective water
management. In addition, the Agency will support improvements in efficiency of service
provider operations, the protection of public health at the border area coastal beaches, and the
development of alternative funding strategies for Border water infrastructure.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Clean Water Act
STAG - 72
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Object!ve(s): Protect Human Health
Total Request for Appropriation STAG: $4,000.0 (Dollars in Thousands)
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico (STAG)
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears*
FY 2004
Obligations
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$4,000.0
$4,000.0
0.0
FY 2006
Request
$4,000.0
$4,000.0
0.0
FY 2006 Request v.
FY 2005 Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
*Agency Authorized FTE levels are being aligned with actual utilization. See overview section.
Program Project Description
The Agency's work in this program focuses on the design and upgrade of Metropolitano's Sergio
Cuervas drinking water treatment plant in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
FY 2006 Activities and Performance Highlights
EPA will continue to support the design of infrastructure improvements to the largest drinking
system in Puerto Rico to strengthen its infrastructure and, in turn, reduce the health risk to its
consumers. Less than 30 percent of the population in Puerto Rico receives drinking water that
meets all health-based standards.1 To improve public health protection in Puerto Rico, the
Agency will support the next phase of the design of necessary infrastructure improvements.
When all upgrades are complete, EPA estimates that approximately 1.5 million people will
benefit from safer, cleaner drinking water,2 and risks of cancer, gastroenteritis, and other
waterborne diseases will be reduced. This project is key to EPA ultimately meeting its 2008 goal of
ensuring that 95% of the population served by community water systems receives drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
FY 2006 Change from FY 2005 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
No change in funding.
Statutory Authority
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA)
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED),
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED)
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html
STAG - 73
-------
-------
Index - State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Brownfields 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18
Brownfields Projects 1,6, 12
Categorical Grant
Beaches Protection 1,6, 15
Brownfields 1, 6, 17
Environmental Information 1, 6, 19
Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance . 1,
6,21
Homeland Security 1, 6, 23
Lead 1,6,25
Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) 1, 6, 27
Pesticides Enforcement 1, 6, 29
Pesticides Program Implementation ..1,6,
31
Pollution Control (Sec. 106) 1, 6, 34
Pollution Prevention 1, 6, 37
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
1,6,39
Radon 1,6,41
Sector Program 1, 6, 56
State and Local Air Quality Management
1,6,58
State and Tribal Performance Fund ... 1,6,
60
Targeted Watersheds 1, 6, 43
Toxics Substances Compliance 1, 6, 45
Tribal Air Quality Management 6, 62
Tribal General Assistance Program ... 1,6,
46
Underground Injection Control (UIC).. 1,
6,48
Underground Storage Tanks 1, 6, 50
Wastewater Operator Training 1, 6, 52
Water Quality Cooperative Agreements 1,
6,53
Wetlands Program Development.. 1, 6, 54
Civil Enforcement 45, 56
Clean School Bus Initiative 1, 5, 6, 63
Congressionally Mandated Projects 6
Exchange Network 2, 9, 19, 20
Infrastructure Assistance
Alaska Native Villages 1, 6, 65
Clean Water SRF 1, 6, 67
Drinking Water SRF 1, 6, 69
Mexico Border 1, 6, 71
Puerto Rico 1, 6, 73
Pollution Prevention Program 37,38
Wetlands 6, 10, 14, 54, 55
-------
Table of Contents - Program Performance and Assessment
Acid Rain 1
Brownfields 7
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 8
RCRA Corrective Action 9
Superfund Removal 10
Existing Chemicals 11
New Chemicals 13
Pesticide Registration 14
Pesticide Reregistration 15
Civil Enforcement 16
Criminal Enforcement 18
Ecological Research 21
Particulate Matter Research 22
Pollution Prevention and New Technologies Research 23
Environmental Education 24
GOAL: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 50
GOAL: Clean and Safe Water 74
GOAL: Land Preservation and Restoration 88
GOAL: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 98
GOAL: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 123
NPM: Office for Administration and Resources Management 136
NPM: Office of Environmental Information 137
NPM: Office of the Chief Financial Officer 142
NPM: Office of Inspector General 143
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Acid Rain
Recommendation
Remove statutory requirements
that prevent program from having
more impact including (but not
limited to) barriers that; set
maximum emissions reduction
targets, exempt certain viable
facilities from contribution, and
limit the scope of emission
reduction credit trading. The
Administration's Clear Skies
proposal adequately addresses
these and other statutory
impediments. Program should
work as appropriate to promote
the enactment of the Clear Skies
legislation.
Next Milestone
Promulgation of the Clean Air
Interstate Rule.
Completion Date
In February 2002, President Bush
proposed the Clear Skies program,
reintroduced in Congress in 2003,
would create a mandatory
program that is designed to reduce
dramatically power plant
emissions of SO2, NOX, and
mercury about 70 percent from
year 2000 levels. This program
has not been enacted. EPA is
moving forward to cut emissions
administratively through the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The
CAIR program is done within the
strictures of the Clean Air Act.
Next Milestone Date
2005
On Track (Y/N)
The Clear Skies legislation has not
progressed in Congress. EPA is
moving forward administratively
to achieve the same goals.
Lead Organization
Office of Air & Radiation
Comments on Status
EPA continues to support the
Clear Skies by providing analysis
and other supporting material as
required. EPA is focusing its
efforts on the CAIR program
which will achieve much of the
same goals as the Clear Skies
program. The CAIR rule was
proposed in FY 2004.
Lead Official
Brian Mclean
Acid Rain
Recommendation
Program should develop
efficiency measures to track and
improve overall program
efficiency. Measures should
consider the full cost of the
program, not just the federal
Completion Date
The program is following through
on OMB's recommendation in the
2005 Acid Rain PART to develop
"efficiency measures to track and
improve overall program
efficiency." We have been
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
The program is evaluating
industry as well as government
costs. The efficiency measure will
be anchored to the annual and/or
long-term program performance
measures approved by OMB for
PPA-1
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
contribution.
Next Milestone
Developing cost estimates.
developing and evaluating various
metrics to assess and track
program efficiency
Next Milestone Date
2005
Lead Organization
Office of Air & Radiation
this program (e.g., SO2 emissions
reduced, % change in sulfur and
nitrogen deposition in acid
sensitive regions, % change in
number of chronically acidic lakes
and streams).
Lead Official
Brian Mclean
Air Toxics
Recommendation
Increase funding for toxic air
pollution programs by $7 million
in State grants for monitoring to
help fill gaps.
Next Milestone
Data from first quarter monitoring.
Completion Date
Funding was requested in the FY
2004 President's Budget;
Congress included the additional
funding in the FY 2004
appropriation.
Next Milestone Date
Summer 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
Office of Air and Radiation
Comments on Status
All monitoring funds have been
committed as of April 2004.
Monitoring began in January
2005.
Lead Official
Sallv Shaver
Air Toxics
Recommendation
Focus on maximizing
programmatic net benefits and
minimizing the cost per
deleterious health effect avoided.
Completion Date
Ongoing
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
OAR is developing residual risk
standards which will focus
reductions on the FฃAPs and
populations of most concern.
Next Milestone
OAR proposed the coke oven
residual risk proposal in July,
2004. We will take comments on
the proposal and will promulgate
the rule in 2005.
Next Milestone Date
Mid-2005
Lead Organization
Office of Air and Radiation
Lead Official
Sally Shaver
PPA-2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Air Toxics
Recommendation
Establish better performance
measures (including an
appropriate efficiency measure).
Completion Date
In the air toxics re-PART
(summer, 2004), OAR and OMB
agreed on appropriate
performance measures, including
efficiency measures
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
The performance measure
(percentage reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted emissions of
both cancer and non-cancer
HAPS) and efficiency measure
(tons of toxic-weighted
emissions/total cost) will be
included in the FY 2006 Initial
Budget Materials.
Next Milestone
Update of toxic-weighted
emissions based on 1999
inventory.
Next Milestone Date
Mid-2005
Lead Organization
Office of Air and Radiation
Lead Official
Sally Shaver
Clean Water SRF
Recommendation
Develop an outcome efficiency
measure that demonstrates the
marginal benefit to environment
per dollars expended for the
program.
Next Milestone
Work with CWSRF partners to
develop baselines and targets.
Completion Date
September 30, 2005
Next Milestone Date
June 1, 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
Office of Water/Office of
Wastewater Management
Comments on Status
OMB approved two outcome
efficiency measures and Measure
Implementation Plan in 06 PART
reassessment. Program rating
moved from "results not
demonstrated" to "adequate."
Lead Official
James Hanlon
PPA-:
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Clean Water SRF
Recommendation
Develop/Improve annual
performance measures to capture
the full range of sources and
contaminants that affect water
quality and ecosystem health.
Completion Date
September 30, 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
OMB reassessment in FY 06
noted that more work is needed to
capture the full range of sources
and contaminants that affect water
quality and ecosystem health.
Next Milestone
Work with CWSRF partners to
develop/improve annual
performance measures.
Next Milestone Date
June 1, 2005
Lead Organization
Office of Water/Office of
Wastewater Management
Lead Official
James Hanlon
Drinking Water SRF
Recommendation
Develop an outcome efficiency
measure that demonstrates the
marginal benefit to public health
per dollars expended for the
program.
Completion Date
Completed in July 2004
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
During the FY 2006 PART
process, the Office of Water
developed two outcome efficiency
measures: 1) people receiving
drinking water in compliance with
health-based drinking water
standards per million dollars
(Federal and State); includes
DWSRF, UIC, PWSS, state
matching, and federal support
funds; and 2) cost per community
water system that is in compliance
with health based drinking water
standards (includes DWSRF,
PWSS, state match, and federal
support funds. Targets and
PPA-4
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Next Milestone
Report on progress towards
targets.
Next Milestone Date
FY 2007 PART Process
Lead Organization
OW/OGWDW
baselines were developed for these
new measures.
Lead Official
Cynthia Dougherty
Drinking Water SRF
Recommendation
Demonstrate other government
partners' commitment to work
toward annual performance goals
by showing improvement in
drinking water system compliance
reporting by states.
Next Milestone
Completion Date
Ongoing
Next Milestone Date
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
OW/OGWDW
Comments on Status
The Data Reliability Analysis and
Action Plan (2003), developed in
conjunction with the Association
of State Drinking Water
Administrators, identified five
categories of activities for which
EPA and the States are now
developing steps to take over the
next three years to further improve
the compliance data reported by
States to EPA. At the ASDWA
Conference in October 2004, a
report of the draft steps was
presented, and final steps are
planned for review/approval in the
second quarter FY2005 .
Implementation of initial steps is
expected to begin in 2005.
Lead Official
Cynthia Dougherty
Nonpoint Source Grants
PPA-5
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Recommendation
Develop efficiency measures
including an outcome efficiency
measure that demonstrates the
marginal benefit to the
environment per dollars expended
for the program.
Next Milestone
N/A
Completion Date
April 30, 2004
Next Milestone Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
OW/OWOW
Comments on Status
Agreed with OMB on an outcome
efficiency measure, as articulated
in FY06 PART. Received "yes"
on relevant PART question.
Lead Official
Diane Regas
Nonpoint Source Grants
Recommendation
Reduce funding by $14 million in
recognition of increased spending
on nonpoint source pollution
through USDA Farm Bill
programs.
Next Milestone
N/A
Completion Date
February 2, 2004
Next Milestone Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
OW/OWOW
Comments on Status
EPA proposed a reduction in
Section 3 19(h) funding in the
FY2005 Budget request.
Lead Official
Diane Regas
Tribal General Assistance
Recommendation
EPA will develop ambitious
performance targets for its annual
and efficiency measures.
Completion Date
September 30, 2004
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
OMB approved revised
performance measures in 05
PART reassessment. Program
rating moved from "results not
demonstrated" to "adequate." For
further information consult the
Efficiency Measures / Measure
Development Plan subsection
PPA-6
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Next Milestone
Begin reporting on Tribal Gap
fficiency measure.
Next Milestone Date
FY2005
Lead Organization
OW, AIEO
within the Goal 5 Objective 3
section.
Lead Official
Carol Jorgensen
Tribal General Assistance
Next Milestone
N/A
Completion Date
September 30, 2005
Next Milestone Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
OW, AIEO
Comments on Status
Develop and implement national
oversight strategy for Tribal GAP.
Lead Official
Carol Jorgensen
Brownfields
Recommendation
Consistent with program
expansion, continue to assess and
clean-up Brownfields sites at an
accelerated rate.
Completion Date
Ongoing
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
The Brownfields Program is
committed to assessing, cleaning
up and promoting the reuse of
brownfields properties. In
FY2004, the program selected 155
assessment grants, 18 revolving
loan fund grants and 16 job
training grants.
Next Milestone
The Brownfields Program will
continue to report on the progress
of grants awarded under the
Brownfields Law.
Brownfields
Next Milestone Date
September 30, 2005
Lead Organization
OSWER
Lead Official
Juanita Standifer
PPA-7
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Recommendation
Work to develop more ambitious
long term assessment targets that
focus on redevelopment, since the
current targets are within easy
reach.
Completion Date
September 30, 2004
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
The Brownfields Program met
performance targets for FY2003.
The Program is still gathering data
on FY2004. The Program has
established targets for FY2006
based on past performance.
Next Milestone
The Brownfields Program
continues to gather performance
data and will set targets
commensurate with program
performance and funding.
Next Milestone Date
September 30, 2005
Lead Organization
OSWER
Lead Official
Juanita Standifer
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Recommendation
Continue to clean storage tank
sites at a rapid pace.
Completion Date
Ongoing
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
OUST has set long-term outcome
based measures to aim for
efficient and effective UST
cleanups. OUST currently is
examining the cleanup backlog of
several of its states to identify and
assess impediments to closure.
Next Milestone
Identify factors that influence pace
of cleanup and analyze ability to
remove impediments.
Next Milestone Date
N/A
Lead Organization
OSWER
Lead Official
Sammy Ng
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Recommendation
Completion Date
On Track (Y/N)
Comments on Status
PPA-8
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Develop outcome measures that
will test the link between the
activities of the program and the
impact on human health and the
environment.
Next Milestone
N/A
July 1, 2004
Next Milestone Date
N/A
Yes
Lead Organization
OSWER
Annual performance measures
have been forwarded to OMB that
aim to reduce the backlog of
cleanups that exceed state risk-
based standards for human
exposure and groundwater
migration by 105,000 by 2008.
Lead Official
Sammy Ng
RCRA Corrective Action
Recommendation
Program must define a new
baseline for performance measures
and establish appropriate annual
targets to make goals more
ambitious in achieving long-term
objectives of the program.
Next Milestone
Completion Date
February 2005
Next Milestone Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
OSWER
Comments on Status
Finalized baseline. Annual targets
included in the FY2006 CJ.
Lead Official
Bob Maxey
RCRA Corrective Action
Recommendation
Program should establish
appropriate efficiency measures to
adequately track program
efficiency overtime.
Next Milestone
Completion Date
December 2005
Next Milestone Date
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
Comments on Status
Will finalize efficiency measure
and modify RCRA Info system as
needed. Will develop method for
2006 baseline and refining annual
and long-term efficiency targets.
Lead Official
PPA-9
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
OSWER
Bob Maxey
Superfund Removal
Recommendation
Propose funding at the 2003
President's Budget level.
Next Milestone
N/A
Completion Date
Ongoing
Next Milestone Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
OSWER
Comments on Status
In FY 2003, the Superfund
removal program/project under
Goal 3 was enacted at
approximately the 2003 level.
Lead Official
Debbie Dietrich
Superfund Removal
Develop outcome oriented
measures that test the linkage
between program activities and
the impact on human health and
the environment.
Next Milestone
Completion Date
Ongoing
Next Milestone Date
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
OSWER
Comments on Status
OMB approved new efficiency
measure, and work continues on
an outcome-oriented annual
measure.
Lead Official
Dana Stalcup
Superfund Removal
Recommendation
Improve data quality in the
CERCLIS database.
Next Milestone
Implement changes.
Completion Date
Ongoing
Next Milestone Date
March 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
OSWER
Comments on Status
Initial assessment of CERCLIS
data completed in 12/2004. Areas
for improvement were identified,
as were key data quality
objectives.
Lead Official
Dana Stalcup
PPA-10
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Existing Chemicals
Recommendation
Create outcome measures for
AEGLs.
Completion Date
February 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
We have an annual performance
measure that tracks the output
progress of the Agency's FY 2008
AEGL Strategic Target. As the
AEGL Program begins to finalize
more AEGL values for the highest
priority chemicals, we may be
able to develop more outcome-
based AEGL measures. For now,
we are working toward generating
an efficiency measure that can be
linked to our current AEGL output
measure.
Next Milestone
Look towards developing an
annual efficiency measure for the
AEGL program that looks at the
cost per chemical in developing
AEGL values. We hope to have a
measure ready for the FY 2007 re-
PART process.
Next Milestone Date
May 31,2005
Lead Organization
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics
Lead Official
Charlie Auer
PPA-11
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Existing Chemicals
Recommendation
Develop a long-term outcome
efficiency measure.
Completion Date
TBD
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
Developing outcome measures for
the Existing Chemicals Program
has been challenging but the
Agency is making progress. The
Agency has generated an Existing
Chemical Program Measure
Development and Implementation
Plan (MDIP) for the FY 2006
OMB Budget Submission.
Next Milestone
Complete an analysis of efficiency
measure options and provide an
efficiency measure for inclusion in
the FY 2006 President's Budget.
The Agency is investigating three
options for existing chemicals
efficiency measures in its FY 2006
MDIP.
Next Milestone Date
2005
Lead Organization
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics
Lead Official
Charlie Auer
Existing Chemicals
Recommendation
Maintain funding at the 2004
President's Budget level.
Next Milestone
Completion Date
February 5, 2005
Next Milestone Date
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
Comments on Status
Funding in 2005 has been
maintained at the 2004 level.
Lead Official
PPA-12
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
New Chemicals
Recommendation
Maintain funding at the 2004
President's Budget level.
Next Milestone
Completion Date
February 5, 2005
Next Milestone Date
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
Comments on Status
Funding in 2005 has been
maintained at the 2004 level.
Lead Official
New Chemicals
Recommendation
Establish targets and timeframes
for its measures, including
efficiency measures.
Completion Date
August 31,2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
The New Chemicals Program is
continuing its efforts to improve
performance measurement in
response to FY 2005 PART
findings by developing long-term
and associated annual efficiency
measures. The program is also
establishing targets and
timeframes for measures and
considering an independent
evaluation of the program. A new
annual performance measure
based on the prevention/avoidance
of unreasonable risk was
developed for the FY 2006 OMB
Submission.
Next Milestone
Complete an analysis of efficiency
measure options and provide an
efficiency measure for inclusion in
the FY 2006 President's Budget.
Next Milestone Date
August 31,2005
Lead Organization
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics
Lead Official
Charlie Auer
PPA-13
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
New Chemicals
Recommendation
Propose appropriations language
to change the Toxic Substances
Control Act to lift the cap on the
fees that the Agency can collect
for new chemical reviews.
Completion Date
February 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
EPA proposed appropriations
language to remove the cap on
fees in TSCA for PMN reviews as
part of the FY 2005 budget
process and will include proposing
the language again through the FY
2006 CJ.
Next Milestone
Inclusion of language to remove
the cap on fees in TSCA for PMN
reviews as part of the FY 2006 CJ.
Next Milestone Date
N/A
Lead Organization
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics
Lead Official
Charlie Auer
Pesticide Registration
Recommendation
The Administration recommends
maintaining funding at the 2004
President's Budget level adjusted
for the annual pay increase.
Next Milestone
Completion Date
February 5, 2004
Next Milestone Date
February 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
Office of Pesticide Programs
Comments on Status
Program received approximately
$2M additional funding in 2005.
Lead Official
Marty Monell
Pesticide Registration
Recommendation
The program will develop long-
term risk-based outcome
performance measures that will
supplement the existing long-term
measures.
Completion Date
February 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
The program is currently
developing a workplan to identify
available sources of data to
develop more outcome oriented
measures.
PPA-14
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Next Milestone
The program will develop and
MDIP for inclusion in the FY
2006 President's Budget Request.
Next Milestone Date
February 2005
Lead Organization
Office of Pesticide Programs
Lead Official
Marty Monell
Pesticide Registration
Recommendation
The program will also work on
long-term outcome efficiency
measures.
Completion Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
The program submitted two
proposed measures in support of
the PMA "proud to be" process.
Next Milestone
The program will develop and
MDIP for inclusion in the FY
2006 President's Budget Request.
Next Milestone Date
N/A
Lead Organization
Office of Pesticide Programs
Lead Official
Marty Monell
Pesticide Reregistration
Recommendation
Recommends providing an
additional $1.0 million for
antimicrobial pesticides and $0.5
million for inerts reregistration
activities.
Next Milestone
N/A
Completion Date
Ongoing
Next Milestone Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
Office of Pesticide Programs
Comments on Status
Addressed in FY 2005 President's
Budget.
Lead Official
Marty Monell
Pesticide Reregistration
Recommendation
Will implement appropriate long-
term performance measures,
Completion Date
Ongoing
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
An efficiency measure and an
outcome measure were added for
PPA-15
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
improved annual targets, and
adequate long and short term
efficiency measures.
the FY 06 Re-PART exercise. In
addition, the program is
developing an indicators workplan
that will contribute to improved
measures. The reregistration
efficiency measure submitted in
support of the PMA "proud to be"
process has been approved by
OMB and will be included in the
FY 2006 President's Budget
request.
Next Milestone
Results of three specific indicators
projects will be completed. These
should contribute to improvement
in both baseline and goals.
Next Milestone Date
March 2005
Lead Organization
Office of Pesticide Programs
Lead Official
Martv Monell
Civil Enforcement
Recommendation
Redirect funds to statistically valid
non-compliance rates.
Completion Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
N/A
Comments on Status
We were unable to redirect funds
for statistically valid non-
compliance rate (SVNCR) work
because of the Congressional
reduction to OECA's IT/Data
Management budget by $3.3
million, coupled with the need to
fund PCS Modernization at $5
million. However, OECA
continues to apply SVNCR
PPA-16
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Next Milestone
N/A
Next Milestone Date
N/A
Lead Organization
Office of Compliance
methodology to select regulated
populations.
Lead Official
Michael Stahl
Civil Enforcement
Recommendation
Continue to fund $5M for an
improved compliance data system.
Next Milestone
Modernized PCS, Version 1
Completion Date
Version 1 of modernized PCS will
be available in December 2005 for
all EPA Regions and 12 direct
user states.
Modernized PCS will be available
to all states, and legacy PCS will
be available for data retrieval
only, by June 2007.
Next Milestone Date
December, 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
Office of Compliance
Comments on Status
Although Congress reduced
OECA's FY 2004 IT/Data
Management budget by $3.3
million, OECA provided the full
$5 million requested for ICIS
Phase II - PCS Modernization.
The Agency included a total of
$8.8 million for the PCS system
and system modernization efforts
in its FY 2005 Congressional
request.
Lead Official
Michael Stahl
Civil Enforcement
Recommendation
Continue to develop efficiency
and outcome oriented performance
measures.
Completion Date
Ongoing
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
Performance-based strategies for
OECA's FY 2005-2007 National
Priorities include outcome and
other performance measures that
will enable OECA to track
implementation, manage the
PPA-17
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Next Milestone
N/A
Next Milestone Date
N/A
Lead Organization
Office of Compliance
priority, and assess outcomes of
priority work.
Lead Official
Michael Stahl
Civil Enforcement
Recommendation
Develop programs and
methodologies to determine which
enforcement tools, inspections,
compliance assistance centers,
audit incentives, are the most
efficient and result in the most
significant reduction of pollution.
Next Milestone
N/A
Completion Date
Ongoing
Next Milestone Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
Office of Compliance
Comments on Status
EPA continues its work to develop
and use the most appropriate
combination of tools (assistance,
incentives, monitoring, and
enforcement) to address problems,
i.e., environmental risks and
patterns ofnoncompliance; and to
measure all of the outcomes (e.g.,
pollution prevented, changes in
management practices, improved
compliance, and pollutant
reductions) of our activities to
address these problems.
Lead Official
Michael Stahl
Criminal Enforcement
Completion Date
OECA's Office of Compliance
(OC) will begin attempts to
characterize pollution reduction by
hazard and exposure in FY 2004
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
The criminal enforcement
program has a GPRA pollution
reduction measure reported in FY
2003 and FY 2004. The program
PPA-18
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
harmful violations are being
prosecuted.
Next Milestone
Implement Feasibility Assessment
of Measure Improvement Plan
by developing "proxy" measures,
i.e., type of pollutant (hazard) and
population surrounding a facility
(exposure). OC will implement a
feasibility assessment in FY 2005
and evaluate options for
implementing a new hazard and
exposure measure in FY 2006.
Next Milestone Date
2005
Lead Organization
Office of Compliance
will follow the template being
developed by OECA's Office of
Compliance to characterize the
pollution reduction obtained
through enforcement cases by risk
and exposure.
Lead Official
Michael Stahl
Criminal Enforcement
Next Milestone
N/A
Next Milestone Date
N/A
Lead Organization
Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics and Training
Lead Official
Peter Murtha
Criminal Enforcement
Recommendation
Develop statistically based
recidivism rates, and measure the
change to these rates.
Completion Date
The criminal enforcement
program has proposed a new
recidivism measure in its FY 2004
PART submission that has been
approved by OMB. The MDIP
calls for external GPRA reporting
beginning in FY 2007.
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
The recidivism measure will
require integration of certain
categories of both criminal and
civil enforcement data. The
criminal enforcement docket
(CRIMDOC) is currently being
updated and enhanced and will
become the new Case Reporting
System (CRS). CRS is expected to
be fully "on line" and receiving
data entry from criminal
PPA-19
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
enforcement field offices during
the second half of FY 2005.
Integration of the criminal and
civil enforcement data necessary
to measure "recidivism" will also
take place in FY 2005.
Next Milestone
Completing enhancements to CRS
and integrating civil enforcement
and criminal enforcement data.
Next Milestone Date
April 2005
Lead Organization
Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics and Training
Lead Official
Peter Murtha
Criminal Enforcement
Recommendation
Develop programs and
methodologies to address
deterrence issues.
Next Milestone
N/A
Completion Date
N/A
Next Milestone Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
N/A
Lead Organization
Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics and Training
Comments on Status
The criminal program's FY 2004
PART submission included the
new outcome measure based on
"recidivism," which will serve as
the "real world" surrogate for
deterrence.
Lead Official
Peter Murtha
Criminal Enforcement
Recommendation
Develop statistically valid non-
compliance rates.
Completion Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
N/A
Comments on Status
It is not feasible to develop
statistically valid non-compliance
rates for the criminal enforcement
program at this time. As the new
"recidivism" measure in
PPA-20
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Next Milestone
N/A
Next Milestone Date
N/A
Lead Organization
Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics and Training
implemented and data collected
over the next three years, the
program may be able to address
the issue of statistically valid non-
compliance rates in the future.
Lead Official
Peter Murtha
Ecological Research
Recommendation
Encourage EPA to develop one or
two more outcome -oriented long-
term measures, as well as annual
and efficiency measures.
Next Milestone
Resubmit PART
Completion Date
April 2005
Next Milestone Date
June 30, 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
ORD
Comments on Status
ORD has held training for the Eco
program in developing outcome-
oriented goals and measures. The
Eco Research Multi-Year Plan
Writing Team is in the process of
working with clients and
stakeholders to finalize this
information.
Lead Official
Kevin Summers
Ecological Research
Recommendation
Reduce funding in FY 2005 by
$22 million. Savings from this
reduction will be shifted to other
high priority efforts in EPA,
including the water quality
Completion Date
February 2004
On Track (Y/N)
Complete
Comments on Status
The FY05 President's Budget
proposed a $22M cut to this
program. The program is in the
process of developing sufficient
measures and will undergo
PPA-21
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
monitoring initiative. Funding
may be increased when the
program develops sufficient
performance measures and
demonstrates results.
Next Milestone
Expert Review
Next Milestone Date
2nd Quarter FY05
Lead Organization
ORD
independent expert review in 2005
to assess results.
Lead Official
Kevin Summers
Particulate Matter Research
Recommendation
Continue a strong emphasis on
PM research, especially on co-
pollutant efforts, assessment of
hazardous components, and
identification of the sources of
those hazardous components.
Next Milestone
N/A
Completion Date
N/A
Next Milestone Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
ORD
Comments on Status
ORD's PM research continues to
address the NRC's priority topics,
including identifying the effects of
both short- and long-term
exposure to PM and copollutants,
hazardous components and their
sources. Of special note is a new
10-year, $30M study with U. of
WA supporting research into these
topics as well as others.
Lead Official
Dan Costa
Particulate Matter Research
Recommendation
Establish a better metric for
uncertainty reduction, which is the
established and widely supported
outcome for this program.
Completion Date
June 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Comments on Status
ORD is establishing independent
expert reviews of its research
programs to qualitatively assess
the success of research programs
PPA-22
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Next Milestone
PART resubmission
Next Milestone Date
June 2005
Lead Organization
ORD
in reducing uncertainty and
answering key science questions.
Lead Official
Dan Costa
Pollution Prevention and New Technologies Research
Recommendation
Shift funding from this research
program to another EPA pollution
prevention program that has
shown results (see New Chemicals
PART).
Next Milestone
N/A
Completion Date
February 2004
Next Milestone Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
Complete
Lead Organization
ORD
Comments on Status
The FY05 President's Budget
proposed a $5M cut to this
program, transferred to OPPTS.
Lead Official
Alva Daniels
Pollution Prevention and New Technologies Research
Recommendation
Recommend improvement of the
program's strategic planning,
including an independent
evaluation of the program and
responding to previous
evaluations. In addition, the
program should provide
information on why it should
pursue projects instead of other
parties that are capable of
conducting these projects.
Next Milestone
Independent Review
Completion Date
June 2005
Next Milestone Date
FY2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
ORD
Comments on Status
ORD is holding training for its
research programs in developing
outcome-oriented goals and
measures. ORD is also
establishing independent expert
reviews of its research programs
to qualitatively assess the success
of research programs in reducing
uncertainty and answering key
science questions. This program
is currently being redesigned to
included better outcome measures.
Lead Official
Alva Daniels
PPA-23
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
Pollution Prevention and New Technologies Research
Recommendation
Establish performance measures,
including efficiency measures.
Next Milestone
Resubmit PART
Completion Date
June 2005
Next Milestone Date
June 2005
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
ORD
Comments on Status
ORD is holding training for its
research programs in developing
outcome-oriented goals and
measures. The ETV program has
also been working to develop
surveys of vendors, purchasers,
and permitters to determine
whether ETV information is
useful in decision-making. ORD
is awaiting OMB feedback on
proposed efficiency measures that
were submitted in October 2004.
Lead Official
Alva Daniels
Environmental Education
Recommendation
The Administration proposes that
this program not be funded and
resources be used to achieve other
environmental goals.
Next Milestone
N/A
Completion Date
January 2004
Next Milestone Date
N/A
On Track (Y/N)
Yes
Lead Organization
OA
Comments on Status
The program has made significant
progress in establishing
performance measures and
anticipates establishing baselines
and targets in 2005 and reporting
results in 2006. The program will
also design a formal evaluation
plan once performance measures
have been established.
Lead Official
Andrew Burnett
PPA-24
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
The PART was developed to assess and improve program performance so that the Federal government can achieve better results. A
PART review helps identify a program's strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions aimed at making the
program more effective. The PART process identifies annual and long-term performance metrics, which can help to better quantify
environmental results. The following is a table of measures identified in PART assessments conducted for FY 2004 through FY 2006.
PROGRAM
Acid Rain
Acid Rain
Acid Rain
Acid Rain
Acid Rain
Air Toxics
Air Toxics
TERM
Annual
Annual
Long-
term
Annual
Long-
term
Long-
term
Long-
term
MEASURE TYPE
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Output
Output
Outcome
Outcome
MEASURE
Percent change in average nitrogen
deposition and mean ambient nitrate
concentrations.
Percent change in average sulfur
deposition and mean ambient sulfate
concentrations.
Percent change in number of
chronically acidic waterbodies in acid-
sensitive regions.
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted from
electric power generation sources.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from electric
power generation sources.
Percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-
weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of
air toxics.
Percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-
weighted (for noncancer risk) emissions
of air toxics.
EXPLANATION
Data is mainly from Eastern US and is reported
as 3 -year averages due to varying meteorological
conditions and other factors. Progress is
measured as percent reduction from 1990
baseline.
Data is mainly from Eastern U.S. and is reported
as 3 -year averages due to varying meteorological
conditions and other factors. Progress is
measured as percent reduction from 1990
baseline.
Progress is measured as percent reduction from
2001 baseline number of waterbodies. Acid-
sensitive regions include the Northeast, Mid-
Atlantic, and Upper Midwest.
Progress is measured as tons reduced from 1980
baseline of 17.4 million tons.
Progress is measured as tons reduced from 1980
baseline of 17.4 million tons.
Measures percent reduction in the inventory of
air toxic emissions (from a 1993 baseline),
calculated as tons of emissions and multiplied by
a unit risk estimate.
Measures percent reduction in the inventory of
air toxic emissions (from a 1993 baseline),
calculated as tons of emissions and divided by
the reference concentration to get noncancer
PPA-25
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Air Toxics
Air Toxics
Air Toxics
Alaska Native
Villages
Alaska Native
Villages
Alaska Native
Villages
Alaska Native
Villages
Brownfields
Brownfields
Annual
Annual
Long-
term
Long-
term
Annual
Long-
term
Annual
Long-
term
Long-
term
Outcome
Outcome
Efficiency
Outcome
Output
Output
Efficiency
Outcome
Output
Cumulative percentage reduction in
tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer
risk) emissions of air toxics.
Cumulative percentage reduction in
tons of toxicity-weighted (for
noncancer risk) emissions of air toxics.
Tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer
and noncancer risk) emissions reduced
per total cost ($).
Percent of Alaska rural and Native
households with drinking water that
meets SDWA requirements.
Percent of Alaska rural and Native
households with drinking water and
waste water systems.
By 201 1, provide wastewater and
drinking water systems to the remaining
Alaska and Native Village population
living in unserved homes.
Number of households served with
wastewater and drinking water systems
per million dollars (EPA and State)
Brownfields Properties Assessed
Dollars leveraged at Brownfields
properties
tons.
Measures percent reduction in the inventory of
air toxic emissions (from a 1993 baseline),
calculated as tons of emissions and multiplied
by a unit risk estimate.
Measures percent reduction in the inventory of
air toxic emissions (from a 1993 baseline),
calculated as tons of emissions and divided by
the reference concentration to get noncancer
tons.
Will measure cumulative reduction in toxicity-
weighted emissions divided by estimated total
dollars spent by the Federal Government and
regulated industries.
Baseline: As of 2003, 77% of the households
have been served.
Baseline: As of 2003, 77% of the households
have been served.
This measure tracks the number of brownfields
properties assessed by program grant recipients.
Grantees report on this measure in quarterly
reports.
This measure tracks the amount of
cleanup/redevelopment funding leveraged by
program grant recipients at brownfields
PPA-26
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Civil Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Long-
term
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Long-
term
Long-
term
Long-
term
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Efficiency
Outcome
Outcome
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or
eliminated.
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated,
or eliminated, as a result of audit
agreements
Pounds of pollution estimated to be
reduced, treated, or eliminated as a
result of concluded enforcement actions
Percentage of concluded enforcement
cases (including SEPs) requiring
implementation of improved
environmental management practices
Percentage of concluded enforcement
cases (including SEPs) requiring that
pollutants be reduced, treated, or
eliminatedT
Change in behavior as measured by the
percentage of entities making
improvements in management
practices.
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated,
or eliminated per FTE
Percentage of waterbodies identified in
2000 as not attaining standards where
water quality standards are fully
attained
Number of waterborne disease
outbreaks attributable to swimming in,
or other recreational contact with, the
properties. Grantees report on this measure in
quarterly reports.
To be revised for risk. 5% increase by 2008,
baseline set in 2005
5% increase by 2008, baseline set in 2005
2002 Baseline: 0% of 21,632 waterbodies;
255,408 miles and 6.8 million acres.
PPA-27
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
ocean, rivers, lakes, or streams
measured as a five year average
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Long-
term
Outcome
Percentage of water miles/acres with
fish consumption advisory removed
2002 Baseline: 0% of 84,205 river miles;
11,277,276 lake acres.
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Annual
Outcome
Percentage of all major publicly-owned
treatment works (POTWs) that comply
with their permitted wastewater
discharge standards
2002 Baseline: 97% of major POTWs. Measure
includes discharge violations only (excludes
administrative violations).
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Long-
term
Output
CWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level
($billions/yr)
Indicates the amount of funds available to be
disbursed from the CWSRF program. The target
is an average level of $3.4 B/year for the period
2018-2035.
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Annual
Output
Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF
2002 Baseline: 91%. Calculated as cumulative
loan agreement dollars to cumulative funds
available for projects.
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Long-
term
Efficiency
Number of waterbodies restored or
improved per million dollars of
CWSRF assistance provided
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Long-
term
Efficiency
Number of waterbodies protected per
million dollars of CWSRF assistance
provided
Climate Change
Program
Long-
term
Output
Million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MMTCE) of greenhouse
gas emissions reduced in the building
sector.
Climate Change
Program
Long-
term
Output
Million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MMTCE) of greenhouse
gas emissions reduced in the industry
sector.
Climate Change
Program
Long-
term
Output
Million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MMTCE) of greenhouse
gas emissions reduced in the
transportation sector.
PPA-28
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Climate Change
Program
Climate Change
Program
Climate Change
Program
Criminal
Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Long-
term
Long-
term
Long-
term
Long-
term
Long-
term
Long-
term
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions
(MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar
in the building sector.
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions
(MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar
in the industry sector (targets and
baseline under development).
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions
(MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar
in the transportation sector.
Pounds of pollution reduced treated or
eliminated
Change in behavior to use Improved
Management practices.
Reduction in recidivism
Reduction in recidivism
Change in behavior to use Improved
Management practices.
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated or
eliminated
Pollutant Impact
The aggregate amount of pollution reduced,
eliminated or treated, characterized as to risk.
This measure indicates the long term success of
the enforcement program in expanding the use
of improved environmental management
practices to promote long term compliance.
Measures change in criminal behavior.
This measures a change in behavior and shows
effectiveness of enforcement effort.
Indicates annual progress in meeting long term
goals.
To be characterized as to risk.
Annual aggregate amount (in millions of
pounds) of illegal pollution that is released into
the environment that cannot be remediated,
treated or reduced.
PPA-29
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Criminal
Enforcement
Annual
Efficiency
Lbs. Of Pollutant Reduction per FTE
Pollutant reductions/FTE need to ensure that the
temporal relationships of outcome to resource
use is aligned.
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Long-
term
Outcome
DWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level
($billions/yr)
Indicates the amount of funds available to be
disbursed from the DWSRF program. The
target is an average level of $1.2 B/year for the
period 2018-2035
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Long-
term
Outcome
Percent population served by
community water systems in
compliance with health-based drinking
water standards.
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Annual
Outcome
Percent community water systems in
compliance with drinking water
standards.
This measure tracks the compliance rate of the
nation's 53,000 community water systems with
drinking water standards. If systems are in
compliance, the population's exposure to
contaminants is reduced.
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Annual
Output
Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF.
Cumulative dollar amount of loan agreements
divided by cumulative funds available for
projects.
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Annual
Output
Number of additional projects initiating
operations.
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Long-
term
Efficiency
People receiving drinking water in
compliance with health-based drinking
water standards per million dollars
(Federal and State).
Dollars include all federal and state funding for
safe drinking water programs.
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Long-
term
Efficiency
Dollars per community water system in
compliance with health-based drinking
water standards.
Dollars include all federal and state funding for
safe drinking water programs.
PPA-30
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Long-
term
Efficiency
Average funding (in millions of dollars)
per project initiating operations.
Dollars include all federal and state DWSRF
funds made available to projects that have
initiated operations since inception of the
program.
Endocrine
Disrupters
Long-
term
Outcome
Determination of the extent of the
impact of endocrine disrupters on
humans, wildlife, and the environment
to better inform the federal and
scientific communities (Targets and
baseline under development).
This is an Office of Research and Development
(ORD) and Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances (OPPTS) shared goal. The
measure explicitly links research program to
screening program's decisions and to
environmental outcomes. Scientific progress of
research will be determined through external
independent expert panels that will assess the
appropriateness of the measure and extent to
which it has been met.
Endocrine
Disrupters
Long-
term
Outcome
Reduction in uncertainty regarding the
effects, exposure, assessment, and
management of endocrine disrupters so
that EPA has a sound scientific
foundation for environmental decision-
making.
ORD measure. This long-term measure is a
short-term outcome that explicitly links
endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) research to
OPPTS decisions and environmental outcomes.
Progress in reducing scientific uncertainty will
be determined qualitatively through the use of
external independent expert panels that will
assess the appropriateness of the measures and
the extent to which they have been met.
Endocrine
Disrupters
Long-
term
Outcome
Improved protocols for screening and
testing.
ORD measure. Provides annual picture of
research progress to develop screening and
testing protocols for OPPTS to use. Additional
annual milestones for 2007 and 2008 are
described in the EDC Multi-Year Plan (MYP).
Endocrine
Disrupters
Annual
Output
Assessment Milestones Met
ORD Measure. Targets include products such as
guidelines for assessing endocrine disrupters.
Endocrine
Disrupters
Annual
Output
Risk Management Milestones Met
ORD Measure. Targets include products such as
a Risk management Evaluation of EDCs and a
report on optimizing wastewater treatment plan
operations to remove certain EDCs to be used by
PPA-31
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
the Office of Water. Additional milestones for
2007 through 2012 are described in the MYP.
Endocrine
Disrupters
Annual
Output
Effects and Exposure Milestones Met
ORD Measure. Targets below include products
that will help determine the extent of ED impact,
such as reports identifying androgenic
compounds in paper mill effluent; assessing
children's exposure to pesticides, EDCs and
other persistent organic pollutants; and potential
effects of flame retardants on human thyroid
function. Additional milestones for years 2007
and 2008 are described in MYP.
Endocrine
Disrupters
Annual
Output
Cumulative number of screening assays
that have been validated. (Targets
under development)
OPPTS measure. EPA reports progress in terms
of generally accepted milestones for the
validation process for biological assays. The
screening program intends to make these
milestones performance measures. This new
measure will replace the screening program's
existing measure.
Endocrine
Disrupters
Annual
Efficiency
Cost per labor hour of contracted
validation studies (Target and baseline
under development).
OPPTS. Measure provides a way to begin
quantitative tracking of efficiency as the
program moves from a single level of effort
prime contract to a more flexible multiple award
contract with both fixed price and level of effort
features. The baseline will be hourly labor costs
incurred for comparable efforts during FY 2002
and FY 2003 under the programs current
validation support approach.
Environmental
Education
Long-
term
Outcome
Percent of all students and teachers
targeted demonstrate increased
environmental knowledge, as measured
by the Guidelines for Learning for K-
12,developed by the North American
Association for Environmental
Education.
Measures the performance of OEE programs to
strengthen the use of environmental education in
formal settings. (See OEE Revised Draft
Strategic Plan (2005-2008), Long-Term Goal 1).
Measure is a pre-cursor to a future measure of
student achievement and/or teacher aptitude.
PPA-32
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Environmental
Education
Long-
term
Number of states adopting or aligning
Guidelines for Learning curricula and
standards to state academic standards or
number of states developing new
environmental education standards
based on Guidelines for Learning.
Measures the performance of OEE programs to
strengthen the use of environmental education in
formal settings. (See OEE Revised Draft
Strategic Plan (2005-2008), Long-Term Goal 1)
Environmental
Education
Annual
Number of NNEMS fellows who
pursue environmental careers.
Measures the performance of OEE programs to
promote and support environmental careers.
(See OEE Revised Draft Strategic Plan (2005-
2008), Long-Term Goal 5)
Environmental
Education
Long-
term
Efficiency
Ratio of number of students/teachers
that have improved environmental
knowledge per total dollars expended.
Measure is currently under development. Future
efficiency measure(s) may consider academic
achievement or teacher aptitude.
Existing Chemicals
Long-
term
Outcome
Percent cumulative reduction of chronic
human health risk from environmental
releases of industrial chemicals in
commerce since 2001.
Target is 2008. Goal is 7%. Baseline is 2001
levels, as measured by EPA's Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model. 1999
and 2000 are being investigated as anomalies
and are not believed to be reflective of future
performance.
Existing Chemicals
Annual
Annual Measure:
Percent reduction in current year
production-adjusted Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI)
chemical risk based index
(New measure)
Existing Chemicals
Annual
Outcome
Reduction in the current year
production-adjusted risk-based score of
releases and transfers of toxic
chemicals.
Baseline is prior year's data (for 2000, baseline
is 1999). Currently, 1999 data is under review.
Chemicals are those reported to the Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) from the level of
previous year (reported two years after current
year due to TRI data lag.
PPA-33
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Existing Chemicals
Annual
Outcome
Reduction in the current year
production-adjusted hazard-based score
of releases and transfers of toxic
chemicals.
Baseline is prior year's data. For 2000, the
baseline is 1999. Chemicals are those reported
to TRI from the level calculated for the previous
year (reported two years after current year due to
TRI data lag). EPA uses RSEI model to
determine hazard.
Existing Chemicals
Long-
term
Output
Percentage of high-priority chemicals
for which EPA has developed short-
term exposure limits.
Target is 2008. Goal is 85%. Baselines under
development. From the chemicals identified as
priority by the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
(AEGL) Program and representing a wide range
of acutely toxic substances.
Existing Chemicals
Annual
Output
Cumulative number of chemicals with
proposed, interim, and/or final values
for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
(AEGL).
The numbers represented are cumulative.
Supports AEGL Long-Term Goal.
Existing Chemicals
Long-
term
Efficiency
(Outcome)
A companion efficiency measure for RSEI is
under development for possible inclusion in the
FY 2005-2008 Strategic Plan based on the
concept of increasing the efficiency of achieving
RSEI risk reductions through improved targeting
of program activities.
Existing Chemicals
Annual
Efficiency (Output)
Cost and time to establish AEGL value
per chemical (Targets and baseline are
under development).
Analyses currently being conducted into
feasibility of demonstrating how program has
found ways to make the process more efficient.
Support AEGL Long-Term Goal.
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tanks
Long-
term
Outcome
Reduce the number of cleanups that
exceed state risk- based standards for
human exposure and groundwater
migration by 105,000 by 2008.
This measure focuses on the LUST program's
sole mission, which is to cleanup LUST sites,
and is in-line with their annual GPRA goal of
cleaning up 21,000 LUST sites per year.
PPA-34
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tanks
Long-
term
Outcome
Reduce the number of cleanups that
exceed state risk- based standards for
human exposure and groundwater
migration on Indian Country by 150 by
2008
Tracks EPA's performance of directly cleaning
up sites, rather than tracking EPA's oversight of
state cleanup programs.
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tanks
Annual
Outcome
Reduce the number of cleanups that
exceed state risk- based standards for
human exposure and groundwater
migration
This annual goal of 21,000 cleanups completed
tracks the program's progress in achieving its
long-term goal of reducing the backlog of
cleanups not meeting state-set and risk-based
health and/or environmental standards.
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tanks
Annual
Outcome
Reduce the number of cleanups that
exceed state risk- based standards for
human exposure and groundwater
migration on Indian Country
Tracks EPA's performance of directly cleaning
up sites, rather than tracking EPA's oversight of
state cleanup programs as is covered in the first
measure.
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tanks
Annual
Efficiency
Cleanups Complete (3-year rolling
average) per total cleanup dollars
This efficiency measure compares the total cost
of LUST site cleanups to the number of sites
cleaned up. Total costs include Federal, State
and private costs. A three year rolling average of
cleanups complete is used in order to account for
the fluctuation
Mobile Source
Standards and
Certification
Long-
term
Outcome
Millions of tons of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) reduced from
mobile sources.
Measures reduction in millions of tons of VOC
emissions from mobile sources against a 2000
baseline, as estimated by EPA models and
emissions inventories.
Mobile Source
Standards and
Certification
Long-
term
Outcome
Millions of tons of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) reduced from mobile sources
Measures reduction in millions of tons of NOx
emissions from mobile sources against a 2000
baseline, as estimated by EPA models and
emissions inventories.
Mobile Source
Standards and
Certification
Long-
term
Outcome
Tons of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
reduced from mobile sources
Measures reduction in tons of PM2.5 emissions
from mobile sources against a 2000 baseline, as
estimated by EPA models and emissions
inventories.
PPA-35
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Mobile Source
Standards and
Certification
Annual
Outcome
Millions of tons of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) reduced from
mobile sources.
Measures reduction in millions of tons of VOC
emissions from mobile sources against a 1995
baseline, as estimated by EPA models and
emissions inventories.
Mobile Source
Standards and
Certification
Annual
Outcome
Millions of tons of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) reduced from mobile sources
Measures reduction in millions of tons of NOx
emissions from mobile sources against a 1995
baseline, as estimated by EPA models and
emissions inventories.
Mobile Source
Standards and
Certification
Annual
Outcome
Tons of particulate matter (PM10)
reduced from mobile sources
Measures reduction in tons of PM10 emissions
from mobile sources against a 1995 baseline, as
estimated by EPA models and emissions
inventories.
Mobile Source
Standards and
Certification
Annual
Outcome
Tons of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
reduced from mobile sources
Measures reduction in tons of PM2.5 emissions
from mobile sources against a 1995 baseline, as
estimated by EPA models and emissions
inventories.
Mobile Source
Standards and
Certification
Annual
Outcome
Tons of carbon monoxide (CO) reduced
from mobile sources
Measures reduction in millions of tons of CO
emissions from mobile sources against a 1995
baseline, as estimated by EPA models and
emissions inventories.
Mobile Source
Standards and
Certification
Long-
term
Efficiency
Tons of pollutants (VOC, NOx, PM,
CO, and SOx) reduced per total
emission reduction dollars spent.
Measures cumulative reduction in tons of
pollution from mobile sources divided by total
dollars spent on related mobile source programs
by EPA and private industry.
Mobile Source
Standards and
Certification
Annual
Efficiency
Percent reduction in time (days) per
certificate approval for large engines
(Nonroad CI, Heavy duty gas and diesel
engines)
Measures average time in days from receipt of
certification application to approval for three
categories of large engines. Program cost will
be monitored by a supplemental measure of
program dollars per heavy duty certificate.
New Chemicals
Long-
term
Outcome
Risks avoided to workers and the
general population from prevention of
the entry of new chemicals into
commerce (under development).
PPA-36
Will show releases and exposures (to worker and
general population) that otherwise would have
occurred had the program not been in place,
which would have threatened human health and
environmental quality.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
New Chemicals
Long-
term
Outcome
Cumulative reduction of releases of
industrial hazardous chemicals to the
environment and in industrial wastes in
millions of pounds.
Baseline is 0 in 1996.
New Chemicals
Long-
term
Outcome
Cumulative conservation of millions of
BTUs of energy and gallons of water.
Timeline is 2008. Goal is 30/650/160. Baseline
is 0 in 1996. NA denotes that BTUs of energy
cannot be targeted until 2007.
New Chemicals
Annual
Outcome
Cumulative reduction of industrial
hazardous chemical releases to the
environment and hazardous chemicals
in industrial wastes, in millions of
pounds.
New Chemicals
Annual
Outcome
Annual cumulative quantity of water
conserved (millions of gallons).
New Chemicals
Annual
Output
Number of TSCA 8(e) notices received
for PMN-reviewed chemicals.
These notices are submitted to EPA by industry
identifying potential risks associated with PMN-
reviewed chemicals (chemicals for which zero
risk was previously determined). A proxy
measure is to show zero risk.
New Chemicals
Long-
term
Efficiency (Output)
Review costs per chemical (for EPA
and industry) (under development).
Timeline is 2008. Baseline is 2002. Goal to be
determined from Phase II of OPPT PMN
Program Evaluation, completed in September
2003.
New Chemicals
Annual
Efficiency (Output)
Annual number of pre-screened new
chemical alternatives generated through
industry's participation during the
earliest stages of research and
development.
New Chemicals
Long-
term
Reduction of hazardous substances
from products and processes in millions
ofpounds
PPA-37
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
(Targets under development)
New Chemicals
Annual quantity of hazardous
substances eliminated through the
Green Chemistry Challenge Awards
Program from 1996 levels, in millions
of pounds.
Nonpoint Source
Grants
Long-
term
Outcome
Number of primarily nonpoint source
impaired waters that will partially or
fully attain designated uses.
Will report progress every reporting cycle
(currently every 2 years)
Nonpoint Source
Grants
Long-
term
Outcome
Number of waterbodies identified by
States (on the 2000 303(d) list) as being
primarily NPS-impaired partially or
fully attaining designated uses.
The 2000 Baseline of primarily NPS-impaired
waters is estimated to be 5,967 waterbodies.
"Partially attain" means that the waterbody will
cease to be impaired by a particular pollutant
that has caused a 303(d) listing.
Nonpoint Source
Grants
Annual
Output
Additional pounds (in millions) of
reduction to total phosphorus loadings
This measure tracks the amount of phosphorus
loading reduced through CWA section 319
funded projects. (FY 2002 baseline is 0, FY
2003 actual results are a partial two-year
composite, reflecting an initial lag in data
collection).
Nonpoint Source
Grants
Annual
Output
Additional pounds (in millions) of
reduction to total nitrogen loadings
This measure tracks the amount of nitrogen
loading reduced through CWA section 319
funded projects. (FY 2002 baseline is 0, FY
2003 actual results are a partial two-year
composite, reflecting an initial lag in data
collection).
Nonpoint Source
Grants
Annual
Output
Additional tons of reduction to total
sediment loadings.
This measure tracks the amount of sediment
loading reduced through CWA section 319
funded projects. (FY 2002 baseline is 0, FY
2003 actual results are a partial two-year
composite, reflecting an initial lag in data
collection).
PPA-38
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Nonpoint Source
Grants
Long-
term
Efficiency
Section 319 funds (Smillion) expended
per partially or fully restored
waterbody.
Pesticide
Enforcement Grant
Program
Long-
term
Outcome
Percent of compliance actions taken as
a result of inspection/ enforcement.
Pesticide
Enforcement Grant
Program
Long-
term
Outcome
Percent of violators committing
subsequent violations
Pesticide
Enforcement Grant
Program
Annual
Outcome
Percent of violators committing
subsequent violations
Pesticide
Enforcement Grant
Program
Annual
Outcome
Percent of compliance actions taken as
a result of inspection/enforcement.
Pesticide
Enforcement Grant
Program
Annual
Efficiency
Number of enforcement actions per
million dollars of Federal and State
dollars spent.
Pesticide Field
Program
Long-
term
Outcome
Cumulative reduction in the number of
occupational poisoning incidents
associated with exposure from
pesticides. (Baseline and targets under
development)
This measure applies to the Worker
Protection/Certification and Training activities
covered by this PART. This measures the
enhanced safety of pesticide use by improving
occupational competency in the application and
use of pesticides.
Pesticide Field
Program
Long-
term
Outcome
Percentage of listed threatened and
endangered species highly vulnerable to
pesticides which are protected from
harm by pesticide use.
This measure represents the Endangered Species
Act requirement that use of registered pesticides
do not harm threatened or endangered species.
Pesticide Field
Program
Long-
term
Outcome
Cumulative percentage of water bodies
protected from adverse effects due to
the use of the 31 active ingredients in
pesticides with high potential to
contaminate water.
This measure represents the statutory mandate
that registered pesticides are safe for ecological
protection when used in accordance with the
packaging label.
PPA-39
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Pesticide
Registration
Long-
term
Outcome
Percent reduction in terrestrial and
aquatic wildlife mortality incidents
involving pesticides
The baseline is 80 reported bird incidents
involving 1150 mortalities and 65 reported fish
incidents involving 632,000 mortalities averaged
for the period 1994-1996. The data is available
annually from Ecological Incident Information
System (EIIS).
Pesticide
Registration
Annual
Output
Percentage of agricultural acres treated
with reduced-risk pesticides
Indirectly measures the increase in registration
of pesticides that are lower risk than
conventional pesticides by measuring the use,
availability, and effectiveness (demand) for
them.
Pesticide
Registration
Long-
term
Efficiency (Output)
Percent reduction in review time for
registration of conventional pesticides.
Measures reduction in decision-making time for
new active ingredient registration actions. From
2002 baseline.
Pesticide
Registration
Annual
Number of new reduced risk active
ingredients registered
Pesticide
Reregistration
Annual
Output
Cumulative percent of Reregistration
Eligibility Decisions Completed.
Percent of Reregistration Eligibility
Decisions (REDs) completed
Measure tracks progress toward 2008 deadline
for completing all reregistration eligibility
decisions (REDs). REDs help ensure existing
pesticides already in use are safe based on
current science .A RED document summarizes
the reregistration conclusions and outlines any
risk reduction measures necessary for the
pesticide to continue to be registered in the U.S.
Pesticide
Reregistration
Annual
Output
Cumulative percentage of Tolerance
Reassessments completed.
Measure tracks statutorily-required reviews of
pesticide tolerances to ensure that they meet the
most current safety standards to adequately
protect human health and the environment.
Tolerances are maximum pesticide residue limits
allowed in or on food.
PPA-40
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Pesticide
Reregistration
Annual
Output
Cumulative percentage of tolerance
reassessments completed for top 20
foods eaten by children.
Measures help track progress toward statutorily-
required deadline to complete all tolerance
reassessments by 2006. Measure focuses on
high priority pesticides - ones that are used on
foods commonly eaten by children.
Pesticide
Reregistration
Long-
Term
Outcome
Cumulative reduction in the number of
systemic poisoning incidents associated
with exposure from organophosphate
pesticides as reported to Poison Control
Centers. (Baseline Under Development)
EPA has purchased incident data from the
Poison Control Centers which maintains records
of all poisoning cases reported. Preliminary
analysis shows significant reduction in
poisoning associated with organophosphate
exposures.
Pesticide
Reregistration
Long-
Term
Outcome
Percent reduction in terrestrial and
aquatic wildlife incidents and
mortalities caused by certain high-risk
pesticides (baseline under
development).
Measure provides information on the effect of
EPA's regulatory actions on the well being of
fish and wildlife. Pesticides tracked for this
measure will be top 15 that cause such incidents:
carbofuran, diazinon, azinphos-methyl,
chlorpyrifos, endosulfan, terbufos, fenthion,
brodifacoum, parathion, methyl parathion,
atrazine, profenofos, famphur, 2,4-D, and
permethrin.
Pesticide
Reregistration
Annual
Efficiency
Reduction in time required to issue
Reregistration Eligibility Decisions
Measure tracks reductions in the time it takes to
issue Reregistration Eligibility Decisions
(REDs). Timeline is measured from the
initiation of public participation to the signed
RED.
Pesticide
Reregistration
Annual
Efficiency
Reduction in cost per Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (baseline under
development).
Measure tracks average cost of Reregistration
Eligibility Decisions (REDs). Calculation is
based on actual Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
expended to produce a reregistration decision.
The baseline year for this measure will be the
actual average cost for FY 01-03.
PPA-41
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Public Water
System Supervision
Grant Program
Long-
term
Outcome
Percent population served by
community water systems in
compliance with health-based drinking
water standards.
Public Water
System Supervision
Grant Program
Annual
Outcome
Percent community water systems in
compliance with drinking water
standards.
This measure tracks the compliance rate of the
nation's 53,000 community water systems with
drinking water standards. If systems are in
compliance, the population's exposure to
contaminants is reduced.
Public Water
System Supervision
Grant Program
Annual
Output
Percent of States conducting sanitary
surveys at community water systems
once every three years
Each year, all States are must be in compliance
with the requirement to conduct sanitary surveys
at community water systems once every three
years, as documented by file audits of a random
selection of water systems.
Public Water
System Supervision
Grant Program
Long-
term
Efficiency
People receiving drinking water in
compliance with health-based drinking
water standards per million dollars
(Federal and State).
Dollars include all federal and state funding for
safe drinking water programs.
Public Water
System Supervision
Grant Program
Long-
term
Efficiency
Dollars per community water system in
compliance with health-based drinking
water standards.
Dollars include all federal and state funding for
safe drinking water programs.
RCRA Corrective
Action
Long-
term
Outcome
Current human exposures under control
Goal measures the percentage of sites at which
stabilization and/or final cleanup efforts have
been sufficient to ensure that people are not
being exposed to unacceptable levels of
contamination that could be reasonably expected
under current conditions.
RCRA Corrective
Action
Long-
term
Outcome
Migration of contaminated groundwater
under control
Goal measures the percentage of sites at which
stabilization and/or final cleanup efforts have
been sufficient to ensure plumes of
contaminated groundwater are not expanding
above levels of concern or are not adversely
affecting surface water bodies.
PPA-42
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
RCRA Corrective
Action
Annual
Outcome
Migration of contaminated groundwater
under control
New 2006-2008 targets are needed to support
revised baseline for associated long-term
measure.
RCRA Corrective
Action
Annual
Outcome
Current human exposures under control
New 2006-2008 targets are needed to support
revised baseline for associated long-term
measure.
RCRA Corrective
Action
Efficiency
Total number of remedies constructed
per total RCRA Corrective Action
budget
RCRA Corrective
Action
Long-
term
Output
Number of site assessments at RCRA
facilities using 2005 baseline.
New measure developed in FY 2005
RCRA Corrective
Action
Long-
term
Output
Number of final remedies (cleanup
targets) selected at RCRA sites using
2005 baseline.
New Measure developed in FY 2005
RCRA Corrective
Action
Long-
term
Output
Percent of RCRA construction
completions using 2005 baseline.
New Measure developed in FY 2005
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
(RCRA) Base
Program, Permits
and Grants
Long-
term
Outcome
By 2008, reduce hazardous waste
combustion facility emissions of
dioxins and furans by 90% and
particulate matter by 50% from 1994
levels of 880 grams/year and 9500
tons/year respectively.
Awaiting promulgation of a final rule in 2005
before the program can begin working toward
these goals. No annual targets. This measure is
applicable for the RCRA base hazardous waste
program.
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
(RCRA) Base
Program, Permits
and Grants
Long-
term
Outcome
By 2008, increase recycling of the total
annual municipal solid waste produced
to 35% from 31% in 2002.
This measure is applicable for the RCRA base
municipal solid waste program.
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
Long-
term
Outcome
By 2008, reduce by 10% priority list
chemicals in hazardous waste streams
reported by businesses to the Toxic
OSW is making final decisions and expects to
have final annual measures this summer. This
measure is applicable for the RCRA base
PPA-43
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
(RCRA) Base
Program, Permits
and Grants
Release Inventory.
hazardous waste program.
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
(RCRA) Base
Program, Permits
and Grants
Annual
Outcome
Maintain the national average
municipal solid waste generation rate at
no more than 4.5 pounds per person per
day.
This measure is applicable for the RCRA base
municipal solid waste program.
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
(RCRA) Base
Program, Permits
and Grants
Long-
term
Output
By 2008, update controls for preventing
releases at the 150 facilities that are due
for permit renewal by the end of 2006
(estimated 450 facilities through 2008).
Permit renewals is a new function for the
permitting program therefore there is no
baseline.
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
(RCRA) Base
Program, Permits
and Grants
Annual
Output
By the end of 2008, prevent releases
from 2,750 RCRA hazardous waste
management facilities by increasing the
number of facilities with permits or
other approved controls from 79% (FY
2002) to 95%.
The targets are the percentage of the baseline
that needs to get done in order to meet the 2008
cumulative goal of 95%. This measure is
applicable for the permitting program.
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
(RCRA) Base
Program, Permits
and Grants
Annual
Efficiency
Facilities Under Control (permitted)
per total Permitting Costs
This measure is applicable only for the RCRA
hazardous waste permitting program.
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
(RCRA) Base
Program, Permits
and Grants
Annual
Efficiency
Reductions of priority chemicals
contained in industrial waste streams
per federal and private sector cost
(targets and baselines under
development)
PPA-44
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Stratospheric
Ozone Protection
Long-
term
Outcome
Elimination of US consumption of
Class II ozone depleting substances,
measured in tons/yr of ozone depleting
potential (OOP).
Does not include critical and essential use
exemptions approved by the Montreal Protocol
Parties
Stratospheric
Ozone Protection
Long-
term
Outcome
Reductions in melanoma and
nonmelanoma skin cancers, measured
by millions of skin cancer cases
avoided.
EPA will use Facts and Figures from the
American Cancer Society and CDC's Morbidity
and Mortality Reports (MMR), to assess the
number of cases of skin cancer (melanoma and
non-melanoma).
Stratospheric
Ozone Protection
Long-
term
Outcome
Percent reduction in equivalent
effective stratospheric chlorine loading
rates, measured as percent change in
parts per trillion of chlorine per year
(ppt/yr).
Based on US production and importation
reported to EPA annually and concurrent with
periodic WMO Scientific Assessments, which
are every 4 years. Baseline is 2000.
Stratospheric
Ozone Protection
Annual
Outcome
Remaining U.S. consumption of
HCFCs, measured in tons of ozone
depleting potential (OOP).
Does not include critical and essential use
exemptions approved by the Montreal Protocol
Parties.
Stratospheric
Ozone Protection
Long-
term
Efficiency
Cost (industry and EPA) per OOP-ton
phase-out targets.
Denominator is consumption avoided compared
to estimated consumption without the program.
Superfund
Remedial Action
Long-
term
Outcome
Additional Superfund sites with human
exposures under control
Environmental indicator tracking the elimination
or control of human exposure pathways at NPL
sites. The 2002 baseline is 1199 sites
representing 80% of NPL sites.
Superfund
Remedial Action
Long-
term
Outcome
Additional Superfund sites with
groundwater migration under control
Environmental indicator tracking the elimination
or control of migration of groundwater at NPL
sites. The 2002 baseline is 772 sites
representing 61% of NPL sites.
Superfund
Remedial Action
Long-
term
Outcome
Acres of land ready for reuse
PPA-45
Declaring any parcel of land at a Superfund site
to be available for reuse is a site-specific
determination made by field personnel as a
result of a review of the particular conditions at
the site and the risk posed to human health and
the environment.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Superfund
Remedial Action
Superfund
Remedial Action
Superfund
Remedial Action
Superfund Removal
Tribal General
Assistance
Tribal General
Assistance
Tribal General
Assistance
Tribal General
Assistance
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Long-
term
Long-
term
Long-
term
Annual
Outcome
Output
Efficiency
Output
Outcome
Outcome
Outcome
Output
Annual number of Superfund sites with
remedy construction completed.
Final Site Assessment Decisions
completed
Percentage of Superfund appropriation
that is obligated site-specifically each
year.
Number of removals completed
% decrease in the number of
households in Indian Country with
inadequate wastewater sanitation
systems.
% decrease in the number of
households on tribal lands lacking
access to safe drinking water.
Show at least a 10 percent improvement
for each of four parameterstotal
nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved
oxygen, and fecal coliforms--at not
fewer than 90 monitoring stations in
tribal waters for which baseline data are
available.
% of tribes with delegated and non-
delegated programs, (new targets under
development)
Tracks NPL sites at which physical construction
of all cleanup actions is complete, all immediate
threats to human health have been mitigated and
all long-term threats are under control.
By measuring the percentage of resources that
are annually obligated site-specifically, EPA is
able to gauge the efficiency of its use of
resources to achieve cleanups on a yearly basis.
Targets are provisional until baseline
development is completed.
Number of tribe-as-state (TAS) approvals for
program authorization delegation or approval,
implementation or direct implementation tribal
cooperative agreements (DITCAs).
PPA-46
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Tribal General
Assistance
Annual
Output
% of tribes with EPA-approved
multimedia workplans.
Number of Tribes with MOUs, EAs, PPGs,
DITCAs or grant eligible TAS approvals
Tribal General
Assistance
Annual
Percent of tribes with delegated and
non-delegated environmental programs
(New measure, targets under
development).
Tribal General
Assistance
Annual
Output
% of tribes with EPA-reviewed
monitoring and assessment occurring
(targets under development).
Number of Tribes with EPA-approved QAPPs
Tribal General
Assistance
Long-
term
Efficiency
(Outcome)
Number of environmental programs
implemented in Indian Country per
million dollars (targets under
development).
U. S.-Mexico
Border Water
Infrastructure
Long-
term
Outcome
By 2012, achieve a majority of water
quality standards currently being
exceeded in shared and transboundary
surface waters.
The baseline is the shared and transboundary
surface waters as defined, identified, and
evaluated for the United States in the Clean
Water Act Sec. 305(b) reports and Mexico by
the Secretariat for the Environment and Natural
resources. Baseline is under development.
U. S.-Mexico
Border Water
Infrastructure
Annual
Output
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 Environment
Infrastructure Fund. (Cumulative.)
Per Border 2012, this measure will be phased
out in 2006 and replaced with No. 3 below.
2002 Baseline: 790,000 people provided with
access to potable water and wastewater
collection and treatment systems.
PPA-47
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
U. S.-Mexico Border
Water Infrastructure
Annual
Output
Increase in the number of homes
connected to potable water supply and
wastewater collection and treatment
systems.
Baseline under development.
U. S.-Mexico Border
Water Infrastructure
Long-
term
Efficiency
Additional people served per million
dollars (US and Mexico)
Baseline and targets are under development.
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC) Grant Program
Long-
term
Outcome
Percent population served by community
water systems in compliance with health-
based drinking water standards.
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC) Grant Program
Long-
term
Output
Percentage of source water areas (both
surface and ground water) for community
water systems will achieve minimized
risk to public health.
This overall measure of the source water protection
program tracks the percentage source water areas for
community water systems that will achieve minimized
risk to public health through source water protection
strategic actions.
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC) GrantProgram
Annual
Output
Percentage of prohibited Class IV and
high-priority, identified, potentially
endangering Class V wells closed or
permitted in ground water-based source
water areas.
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC) Grant Program
Annual
Output
Percentage of Class I, II, and III wells
that maintain mechanical integrity
without a failure that releases
contaminants to underground sources of
drinking water.
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC) Grant Program
Annual
Output
Percentage of identified Class V motor
vehicle waste disposal wells closed or
permitted.
PPA-48
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC) Grant Program
Long-
term
Efficiency
People receiving drinking water in
compliance with health-based drinking
water standards per million dollars
(Federal and State).
Dollars include all federal and state funding for safe
drinking water programs.
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC) Grant Program
Annual
Efficiency
Dollars per well to move Class V wells
back into compliance.
Measure includes only those Class V wells that are in
significant violation of regulations
PPA-49
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
GOAL: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity
by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.
OBJECTIVE: HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR
Through 2010, working with partners, protect human health and the environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality
standards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
Reduce Air Toxic Emissions
In 2006 Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be reduced by an additional 2% of the
updated 1993 baseline of 6.0 million tons for a cumulative reduction of 40%.
In 2006 Complete the phase out of leaded gasoline in 20 countries in Africa through the partnership for clean fuels and vehicles.
In 2005 Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be reduced by an additional 1% of the
updated 1993 baseline of 6.0 million tons for a cumulative reduction of 38%.
In 2004 The Agency is currently working on updating the NEI and expects to have FY 2004 results in the last quarter of FY 2012.
In 2003 End-of-year- FY 2003 data will be available in late 2009 to verify that air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and
mobile sources combined will be reduced by an additional 1% of the updated 1993 baseline of 6.0 million tons for a
cumulative reduction 35%.
In 2002 End-of-year FY 2002 data will be available in late 2004 to verify that air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and
mobile sources combined will be reduced by 1.5% from 2001 for a cumulative reduction of 33.5% from the 1993 baseline
of 6.0 million tons per year.
In 2001 End-of-year FY 2001 data will be available in late 2004 to verify that air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and
mobile sources combined will be reduced by 5% from 2000 (for a cumulative reduction of 35% from the 1993 level of 4.3
million tons.)
PPA-50
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Number of countries completing phase out of leaded
gasoline
Total Cumulative reductions in Air Toxics
Emissions (% reductions from baseline).
Annual percentage of combined stationary and
mobile source reductions in air toxic emissions.
Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
Major Stationary Source Air Toxics Emissions
Reduced
Area and All Other Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003
Actuals
Data Lag Data Lag Data Lag
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
20 countries
1 40 Percent
2 Percent
.80 .89 Million Tons
1.59 1.64 Million Tons
+.14 +.15 Million Tons
Baseline: The baseline begins in 1993. This is the year before the first MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) and
mobile source regulations developed under the Clean Air Act were to be implemented. Air toxics emissions data are
revised every three years to generate inventories for the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which replaced the National
Toxics Inventory (NTI). In intervening years between updates of the NEI, the model EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling
System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to estimate and project annual emissions of air toxics. As new inventories
are completed and improved inventory data is added, the baseline (or total tons of air toxics) is adjusted. The next run of
the EMS-HAP, using the final 1999 NEI data, is scheduled for Fall 2004. After that, actual numbers will be available for
FY 2000 and 2001 respectively. The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will also utilize the NEI for air toxics along
with the Agency's compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated
and tracked on an annual basis. The baseline is based on emission inventory data from 1990-1993.
Air Toxicity-Weighted
In 2006 Reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted for cancer and non-cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
PPA-51
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6- YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Reduction in tons toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk)
emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
Reductiion in tons of toxicity-weighted (for
noncancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
22 Percentage
55 Percentage
Baseline: The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will also utilize the NEI for air toxics along with the Agency's compendium of
cancer and noncancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated and tracked on an annual basis.
The baseline is based on emission inventory data from 1990-1993.
Reduce SO2 Emissions
In 2006 Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress towards achieving the year 2010
S02 emissions cap for utilities. Annual emissions reduction target is 7.0million tons from the 1980 baseline.
In 2005 Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress towards achieving the year 2010
S02 emissions cap for utilities. Annual emissions reduction target is 6.9 million tons from the 1980 baseline.
In 2004 Although data is not available for FY 2004, EPA has continued to meet and exceed this goal for the previous 3 years. FY
2004 data will be available in the last quarter of 2005 to verify that annual emissions reduction of approximately 5
millions tons from utility sources were maintained or increased during 2004.
In 2003 SO2 emissions were reduced by approximately 39 percent (6.8 million tons) from the 1980 level of 17.4 million tons,
approaching the 50 percent reduction goal from 1980 level by 2010.
In 2002 SO2 emissions were reduced by approximately 40 percent (7 million tons) from the 1980 level of 17.4 million tons,
approaching the 50 percent reduction goal from 1980 level by 2010.
In 2001 Approximately 5 million tons of SO2 emissions from utility sources were reduced from the 1980 baseline.
PPA-52
-------
FY2001
Actuals
6,670,000
FY 2002
Actuals
7,000,000
FY2003
Actuals
6,800,000
FY2004
Actuals
Data avail.
05
FY 2005
Pres.
Bud.
6,900,000
FY 2006
Request
7,000,000
Tons
Reduced
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
SO2 Emissions Reduced
Baseline: The base of comparison for assessing progress on the annual performance goal is the 1980 emissions baseline. The 1980
SO2 emissions inventory totals 17.4 million tons for electric utility sources. This inventory was developed by National
Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) and used as the basis for reductions in Title IV of the Clean Air Act
Amendments. This data is also contained in EPA's National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Report. Statutory SO2
emissions cap for year 2010 and later is at 8.95 million tons which is approximately 8.5 million tons below 1980
emissions level. "Allowable S02 emission level" consists of allowance allocations granted to sources each year under
several provisions of the Act and additional allowances carried over, or banked, from previous years.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM-10
In 2006 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM-10
standard will increase by 4% (relative to 2005) for a cumulative total of 11% (relative to 1992).
In 2005 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM-10
standard will increase by 1% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to 1992).
In 2004 EPA is not on track to meet its goal.
In 2003 Maintained healthy air quality for 6.1 million people living in monitored areas attaining the PM standards; increased by
228 thousand the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.
In 2002 Maintained healthy air quality for 3.4 million people living in monitored areas attaining the PM standards; and increased
by 2.7 million the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.
In 2001 EPA maintained healthy air quality for 1.189 million people living in 9 areas attaining the PM standards and increased by
2.249 million the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.
PPA-53
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of
People who Live in Areas with Ambient PM-10
Concentrations Below the Level of the NAAQSas
Compared to 1992
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of Areas
with Ambient PM-10 Concentrations Below the
Level of the NAAQSas Compared to 1992
Total number of people who live in areas measuring
clean air for PM-10
Areas measuring clean air for PM-10
Additional people living in new areas measuring
clean air for PM-10
Total Number of People who Live in Areas
Designated in Attainment with Clean Air Standards
forPM
Areas Designated to Attainment for the PM-10
Standard
Additional People Living in Newly Designated
Areas with Demonstrated Attainment of the PM
Standard
PM-10 Reduced from Mobile Sources
PM-2.5 Reduced from Mobile Sources
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud.
6% Data avail. 7
05
50% Data avail.
05
50
3,438,000 6,086,500 6,200,000 120,700,000 122,308,000
2,249,000 2,686,500 228,000 126,000 1,549,648
FY2006
Request
11
Percent
130 Percent
126,400,000 People
38 Areas
5,500,000 People
People
Areas
People
22,000 23,000 25,000 18,000 62,161 74,594 Tons
16,500 17,250 18,000 13,500 61,217 Tons
Baseline: The 1992 baseline for population is the population in areas not classified or designated as attainment for the clean air
national ambient air quality standards. The 1992 baseline for areas is those areas that are designated as non-attainment of
the NAAQs but not meeting the standard (50 areas). Through FY 2003, 120,279,036 are living in areas designated to
attainment; 5 areas are designated to attainment for this/these pollutants. The 1995 baseline for PM-10 reduced from
PPA-54
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
mobile sources is 880,000 tons. Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile
source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM-10 from mobile source is 613,000 tons.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy CO, SO2, NO2, Lead
In 2006 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient CO, NO2, SO2, or Pb concentrations below the NAAQS
will increase by less than 13% (relative to 2005) for a cumulative total of 66% (relative to 1992).
In 2005 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient CO, NO2, SO2, or Pb concentrations below the NAAQS
will increase by less than 1% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 53% (relative to 1992).
In 2004 Based on available data, EPA is not on track to meet its goal. EPA maintained healthy air quality for 173M people living
in 122 monitored areas attaining the CO, SO2, NO2 or Pb standards falling slightly short of its goal of 174M.
In 2003 Maintained healthy air quality for 53 million people living in monitored areas attaining the CO, SO2. NO2, and Lead
standards; increased by .74 million the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained
the standard.
In 2002 Maintained healthy air quality for 36.7 million people living in monitored areas attaining the CO, SO2, NO2, and Lead
standards; and increased by 16.5 million, the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly
attained the standard.
In 2001 EPA maintained healthy air quality for 36.3 million people living in 56 areas attaining the CO, SO2, NO2, and Lead
standards and increased by 418,000 the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained
the standard.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of Data avail 53 66 Percent
People who Live in Areas with Ambient CO, SO2, 05
NO2, or Pb Concentrations Below the Level of the
NAAQS as Compared to 1992
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of Areas Data avail. 77 111 Percent
with Ambient CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb Concentrations 05
PPA-55
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Below the Level of the NAAQS as Compared to
1992
Total number of people who live in areas measuring 189.7 People
clean air for CO, SO2,NO2, or Pb.
Areas measuring clean air for CO,S02,N02 or Pb 4 Areas
Additional people living in new areas measuring 15,500,000 People
clean air for CO, SO2,NO2, or Pb
Total Number of People Living in Areas Designated 36,721,000 53,190,000 53,700,000 173,300,000 174,222,000 People
in Attainment with Clean Air Standards for CO,
SO2, NO2, and Pb
Areas Designated to Attainment for the CO, S02, 912 148 Areas
NO2, and Pb Standards
Additional People Living in Newly Designated 418,000 16,490,000 740,000 5,400,000 209,991 People
Areas with Demonstrated Attainment of the CO,
S02, N02, and Pb Standards
CO Reduced from Mobile Sources 10,672,000 11,002,000 12,636,000 -841,971 -1.01 M Tons
Total Number of People Living in Areas with 14,944,000 14,944,000 n/a People
Demonstrated Attainment of the NO2 Standard
Baseline: The 1992 baseline for population is the population in areas not classified or designated as attainment for the clean air
national ambient air quality standards. The 1992 baseline for areas is those areas that are designated as non-attainment of
the NAAQS but not meeting the standard (119 areas). Through FY 2003, 167 million people are living in areas
designated to attainment: 108 areas are designated to attainment for this/these pollutants. The 1995 baseline for mobile
source CO emissions was 70.9M tons. Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for
mobile source emission. The 2000 baseline was 79.2M tons for mobile source CO emissions. While on-road CO
emissions continue to decrease, there is an overall increase in mobile source CO emissions due to a growth in nonroad
CO.
PPA-56
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels - 8 Hour
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
In 2002
Performance Measures
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS for the 8-hour
ozone standard will increase by 1% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to 2001).
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS for the 8-hour
ozone standard will increase by 4% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to 2001).
EPA designated the attainment status in FY 2004 for areas meeting the 8-hour ozone standard, thereby establishing the
baseline to monitor progress.
EPA met its goal of approximately 834,400 additional people living in healthier residential indoor environments, based on
information from the Indoor Environment Partner Network, which includes traditional partners and grantees; analysis of
various results data efforts including public service announcements and outreach, and information from the National
Association of Home Builders and radon mitigation fan sales.
EPA met its goal of approximately 834,400 additional people living in healthier residential indoor environments, based on
information gathered from homebuilders and manufacturers outreach.
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of
People who Live in Areas with Ambient 8-hour
Concentrations Below the Level of the NAAQS as
Compared to 2001
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of Areas
with Ambient 8-hour Ozone Concentrations Below
the Level of the NAAQS as Compared to 2001
VOCs Reduced from Mobile Sources
NOx Reduced from Mobile Sources
FY2001
Actuals
FY2002
Actuals
834,400
FY2003
Actuals
834,400
FY2004
Actuals
Data avail
05
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
FY 2006
Request
Data
Avail 05
<1
1.03M
2.03 M
Percent
Percent
Tons
Tons
Baseline: EPA will designate the attainment status for areas in April 2004. With that data, we will have the population baseline as
well as the number of areas that are not in attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The 1995 baseline was 8.1M tons for
PPA-57
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
mobile source VOC emissions, and 12.OM tons for mobile source NOx emissions. Beginning in FY 2005, the Mobile6
inventory is used as the baseline year for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline was 7.7M tons for mobile source
VOC emissions, and 11.8M tons for mobile source NOx emissions. The 1-hour ozone standard is in the process of being
phased out and revoked.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels -1 Hour
In 2005 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS for the 1-hour
ozone standard will increase by 4% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 53% (relative to 1992).
In 2004 EPA is not on track to meet this goal based on available data. EPA maintained healthy air quality for 165.4 million
people living in 53 areas designated as attaining the 1-hour ozone standard (falling short of its goal by 1.9 M people) and
certified that 3 out of a target of 5 of the remaining 48 non-attainment areas have attained the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone,
thereby increasing the number of people living in areas with healthy air by 3.9M in lieu of the 5.8M target.
In 2003 Maintained healthy air quality for approx. 41.7 million people living in monitored areas attaining the ozone std; certified
that 5 areas of the remaining 54 nonattainment areas have attained the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone thus increasing the no. of
people living in areas with healthy air by 5.8 million.
In 2002 Maintained healthy air quality for 41.7 million people living in monitored areas attaining the ozone standard; and certified
1 area of the remaining 55 nonattainment areas attained the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone, thus increasing the number of
people living in areas with healthy air by 326,000.
In 2001 EPA maintained healthy air quality for 38.2 million people living in 43 areas attaining the ozone standard, increased by
3.5 million the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard by
certifying that 3 new areas have attained the 1-hour standard.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of 42% Data Avail 53 Percent
People who Live in Areas with Ambient 1-hour 05
Ozone Concentrations Below the Level of the
NAAQS as Compared to 1992
PPA-58
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of Data Lag Data avail 40 Percent
Areas with Ambient 1-hour Ozone Concentrations 05
Below the Level of the NAAQS as Compared to
1992
Total Number of People who Live in Areas 41,679,000 42,026,000 173.30 174,562,000 People
Designated to Attainment of the Clean Air
Standards for Ozone
Areas Designated to Attainment for the Ozone 31 36 Areas
Standard
Additional People Living in Newly Designated 3,475,000 326,000 3,900,000 7,276,790 People
Areas with Demonstrated Attainment of the Ozone
Standard
VOCs Reduced from Mobile Sources 1,659,000 1,755,000 1,900,000 2,040,000 855,624 Tons
NOx Reduced from Mobile Sources 1,189,000 1,319,000 1,400,000 1,653,000. 1,693,259 Tons
Baseline: The 1992 baseline for population is the population in areas not classified or designated as attainment for the clean air
national ambient air quality standards. The 1992 baseline for areas is those areas that are designated as non-attainment of
the NAAQs but meeting the standard (54 areas). Through FY 2003, 161.5 M are living in areas designated to attainment;
51 areas are designated to attainment for this/these pollutants. The 1995 baseline was 8.1M tons for mobile source VOC
emissions, and 12.OM tons for mobile source NOX emissions. Beginning in FY 2005, the Mobile6 inventory is used as
the baseline year for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline was 7.7M tons for mobile source VOC emissions, and
11.8M tons for mobile source NOx emissions. The 1-hour ozone standard will be revoked in FY 2005 due to the
designation of all areas with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM- 2.5
In 2006 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM-2.5
standard will increase by 1% (relative to 2005) for a cumulative total of less than 1% (relative to 2001).
PPA-59
-------
In 2005
In 2004
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM-2.5
standard will increase by 1% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of less than 1% (relative to 2001).
EPA designated attainment status for PM2.5 in December.
Performance Measures
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of
People who Live in Areas with Ambient PM-2.5
Concentrations Below the Level of the NAAQS as
Compared to 2001
Percent Increase in the Number of Areas with
Ambient PM-2.5 Concentrations Below the Level of
the NAAQS as Compared to 2001
PM-2.5 Reduced from Mobile Sources
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Data 1 <1
avail. 05
Data 1
avail. 05
<1
Percent
Percent
73,460 Tons
Baseline:
Acid Rain
In 2006
In 2006
In 2005
EPA will designate the attainment status for areas in FY 2005. With that data, we will have the population baseline as
well as the number of areas that are not in attainment for the PM-2.5 standard. Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 Mobile6
inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM 2.5 from mobile sources is
613,000 tons.
Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient nitrate concentrations 5% from baseline. Baseline for
annual targets up through 2010 is 1990 monitored levels.
Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate concentrations 27% from baseline. Baseline for annual
targets up through 2010 is 1990 monitored levels.
Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient nitrate concentrations 5% from baseline. Baseline for
annual targets up through 2010 is 1990 monitored levels.
PPA-60
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2005 Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate concentrations 27% from baseline. Baseline for annual
targets up through 2010 is 1990 monitored levels.
In 2004 The new Acid Rain measure was developed as a result of the OMB PART analysis of the program in FY 2005 budget
process. Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient nitrate concentrations 5% from baseline. Baseline
for annual targets up through 2010 is 1990 monitored levels.
In 2004 The new annual Acid Rain measure was developed as a result of the OMB PART analysis of the program in FY 2005.
Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate concentrations 27% from baseline. Baseline for annual
targets up through 2010 is 1990 monitored levels.
Performance Measures
Total annual average nitrogen deposition and mean
ambient nirtate concentrations reduced.
Total annual average sulfur deposition and mean
ambient sulfate concentrations reduced.
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003
Actuals
FY2004
Actuals
Data
avail. 05
Data
avail. 05
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
5
27
FY 2006
Request
5
27
Percentage
Percentage
Baseline: Sulfur and nitrogen deposition contribute to acidification of lakes and streams, making them unable to support fish and
other aquatic life. Reductions in both total sulfur and nitrogen deposition are critical to reducing the number of
chronically acidic water bodies. Ambient sulfate and ambient nitrate ("acid rain" particulate") contributes to unhealthy
air and respiratory problems in humans, especially children and other sensitive populations. The baseline is established
from monitored site levels based on consolidated map of 1989-1991 showing a three year of deposition levels produced
from the CASTNET sites (http://www.epa.gov/castnet/sites.html).
OBJECTIVE: HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR
By 2008, 22.6 million more Americans than in 1994 will be experiencing healthier indoor air in homes, schools, and office buildings.
Healthier Residential Indoor Air
In 2006 850,000 additional people will be living in homes with healthier indoor air.
In 2005 843,300 additional people will be living in homes with healthier indoor air.
PPA-61
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2004 EPA is currently analyzing the information gathered through the survey instrument.
In 2003 End-of-year FY 2003 data will be available in late 2004 to verify that 834,400 additional people were living in healthier
residential indoor environments.
In 2002 On track to ensure that 834,400 additional people will be living in healthier residential indoor environments.
In 2001 An additional 890,000 additional people are living in healthier residential indoor environments.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
People Living in Healthier Indoor Air 890,000 Data Lag Data Lag Data 843,300 850,000 People
avail. 05
Baseline: This performance measure includes EPA radon, ETS, and asthma work. 1. By 2006, increase the number of people living
in homes built with radon reducing features to 4,785,612 from 1,826,280 in 1994 (cumulative). * 2. By 2006, decrease the
number of children exposed to secondhand smoke from 7.4 million (27% of children ages 6 and under) in 1994 to an
estimated 4.0 million (14.5% of children ages 6 and under) (cumulative). 3. By 2006, increase by 500,000 the number of
people with asthma and their caregivers who are educated about indoor air asthma triggers.
Healthier Indoor Air in Schools
In 2006 630,000 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality (IAQ) in their schools.
In 2005 1,312,500 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.
In 2004 The Agency expects to meet its goal by reaching 3000 schools with an average of approximately 525 students/staff per
school in adopting an indoor air quality management plans.
In 2003 Based on review and analysis of partner/grantees' reports and consulting with partners of EPA's Indoor Environment
Network, EPA is confident that more than 1 million students and staff are experiencing improved IAQ in schools.
In 2002 Based on information gathered from a number of schools and school systems/districts that receive Tools for Schools kits,
EPA met the goal of improved air quality for approximately an additional 1.2 million students, faculty, and staff.
PPA-62
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2001 An additional 1,930,000 students, faculty and staff are experiencing improved indoor air quality in their schools.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Students/Staff Experiencing Improved IAQ in 1,930,000 1,200,000 1,050,000 Data 1,312,500 630,000 Students/Staff
Schools avail. 05
Baseline: The nation has approximately 117,000* schools with an average of 525 students, faculty, and staff for a total baseline
population of 61,425,000. The IAQ "Tools for Schools" Guidance implementation began in 1997. For FY 2006, the
program projects an additional 1200 schools will implement the guidance. Results from a 2002 IAQ practices in schools
survey suggest that approximately 20% of U.S. schools report an adequate IAQ management plan that is in accordance
with EPA guidelines.
Healthier Indoor Air in Workplaces
In 2006 240,000 additional office workers will experience improved air quality in their workplaces.
In 2005 150,000 additional office workers will experience improved air quality in their workplaces.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Additional office workers will experience improved 150,000 240,000 People
air quality in their workplaces.
Baseline: There are approximately 750,000 office buildings with 12 billion square feet. There are approximately 24 million office
workers with the mean worker density at 1 office worker per 500 square feet. Our 2008 goal is to get an additional 3% of
all office buildings to adopt good IAQ measures translating to 720,000 office workers.
OBJECTIVE: PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER
By 2010, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun the process of
recovery, and the risk to human health from overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, particularly among susceptible subpopulations,
such as children, will be reduced.
PPA-63
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs
In 2006 Restrict domestic annual consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP MTs) and
restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 10,000 ODP MTs.
In 2005 Restrict domestic annual consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP MTs) and
restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 10,000 ODP MTs.
In 2004 Progress on restricting domestic exempted consumption of Class I CFCs and halons is tracked by monitoring industry
reports of compliance with EPA's CAA phase out regulations and US obligations under the Montreal Protocol.
In 2003 End of year FY 2003 data will be available in late 2004 to verify restriction of domestic consumption of class II HCFCs
below 9,906 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP MTs) and restriction of domestic exempted production and import of
newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 10,000 ODP MTs.
In 2002 On track to restrict domestic consumption of class II HCFCs below 15,240 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP MTs) and
restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 60,000 ODP MTs.
In 2001 Restricted domestic consumption of class II HCFCs below 15,240 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP MTs) and
restricted domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 60,000 ODP MTs.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs 12,087 On Track Data Lag Data <9,906 <9,906 ODP MTs
avail. 05
Domestic Exempted Production and Import of 3,062 On Track Data Lag Data <10,000 <10,000 ODP MTs
Newly Produced Class I CFC s and Halons avail. 05
Baseline: The base of comparison for assessing progress on the 2005 annual performance goal is the domestic consumption cap of class II
HCFCs as set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) is weighted based on the damage it does to
the stratospheric ozone - this is its ozone-depletion potential (ODP). Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set at the sum of 2.8
percent of the domestic ODP-weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989 plus the ODP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989. Consumption
equals production plus import minus export.
PPA-64
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
OBJECTIVE: RADIATION
Through 2008, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts to human health
and the environment should unwanted releases occur.
Ensure WIPP Safety
In 2006 Certify that 45,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing approximately 135,000 curies) shipped by DOE to
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of safely and according to EPA standards.
In 2005 Certify that 40,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing approximately 120,000 curies) shipped by DOE to
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of safely and according to EPA standards.
In 2004 Through FY 2004, EPA has certified as properly disposed approximately 109,000 drums of transuranic waste equivalent
to approximately 321,000 millicuries.
In 2003 36,041 drums (55 gallon) of radioactive waste shipped by DOE to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant were permanently
disposed of safely and according to EPA standards.
In 2002 EPA certified that 22,800 55 gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing approximately 68,400 curies) shipped by DOE
to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of safely and according to EPA standards.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Number of 55-Gallon Drums of Radioactive Waste 22,800 36,041 36,500 40,000 45,000 Drums
Disposed of According to EPA Standards
Baseline: The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, NM was opened in May 1999 to accept radioactive transuranic
waste. By the end of FY 2004, approximately 109,000 (cumulative) 55 gallon drums will be safely disposed. In FY
2006, EPA expects that DOE will ship an additional 45,000 55- gallon drums of waste. Through FY 2006, EPA expects
that DOE will shipped safely and according to EPA standards, approximately 23% of the planned waste volume, based on
disposal of 860,000 drums over the next 40 years. Number of drums shipped to the WIPP facility on an annual basis is
PPA-65
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
dependent on DOE priorities and funding. EPA volume estimates are based on projecting the average shipment volumes
over 40 years with an initial start up.
Build National Radiation Monitoring System
In 2006 EPA will purchase 51 additional state of the art monitoring units and initiate deployment to sites selected based on
population and geographical coverage.
In 2005 EPA will purchase 60 additional state of the art monitoring units and initiate deployment to sites selected based on
population and geographical coverage. All old sampling will be replaced and population coverage will be expanded to
60%.
In 2004 EPA did not meet its FY 2004 target of purchasing and deploying 60 state of the art radiation monitoring units.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Purchase and Deploy State-of-the Art Monitoring 0 60 51 Units
Units Purchased
Baseline: The current fixed monitoring system, part of the Environment Radiation Ambient Monitoring System, was developed in
the 1960s for the purpose of monitoring radioactive fallout form nuclear weapons testing. The system currently consists
of 52 old low-tech air participate samplers which provide coverage in cities which represent approximately 24% of the
population. The current system air samplers will be retired from service due to age. As the system comes on line, EPA's
schedule for estimated monitor deployment and population coverage is as follows: FY 2005: 11 monitors deployed -
22.8%; FY 2006; 71 monitors deployed- for population coverage of approximately 67.7%; FY 2009: 172 cumulative
monitors deployed - for population coverage of approximately 69.4%. The purchase schedule is based primarily upon
contract pricing terms and the deployment schedule reflects a best estimate of our ability to get the monitors sited and out
in the field.
Homeland Security - Readiness & Response
In 2006 Verify that 60 percent of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) members meet scenario-based response
criteria.
PPA-66
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2005 Verify that 50 percent of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) members meet scenario-based response
criteria.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Percentage of EPA RERT members that meet 50 60 Percent
scenario-based criteria
Baseline: EPA assesses RERT readiness based on the ability of the RERT to: 1. provide effective field response, as defined today,
2. support coordination centers; and 3. provide analytical capabilities throughout as needed to support a single small-to-
medium scale incident. These evaluation criteria will be reevaluated and revised in response to the Department of
Homeland Security development of criteria for the Nuclear Incident Response Team established under the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, which includes EPA RERT assets.
OBJECTIVE: REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY
Through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 45 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the
President's 18 percent greenhouse gas intensity improvement goal by 2012. (An additional 75 MMTCE to result from the sustained
growth in the climate programs are reflected in the Administration's business-as-usual projection for greenhouse gas intensity
improvement.)
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2006 Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 102 MMTCE per year through EPA
partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.
In 2005 Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 90 MMTCE per year through EPA
partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.
In 2004 Data will be available in FY 2005.
In 2003 EPA met its goal for its Climate Change Programs by GHG emissions by 82.4 MMTCE.
PPA-67
-------
In 2002
In 2001
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
EPA's Climate Change programs reduced GHG emissions by 71 MMTCE in 2002 which is the equivalent of eliminating
emissions from more than 28 million cars.
EPA's Climate Protection Programs reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 65 million metric tons of carbon equivalent in
2001. EPA estimates that due to investments already made through EPA's technology deployment programs, greenhouse
gas emissions will be reduced by more than 500 MMTCE through 2012.
Performance Measures
FY FY 2002 FY 2003
2001
Actuals Actuals Actuals
65 71,000,000 82,400,000
Annual Greenhouse Gas Reductions - All EPA
Programs
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's Buildings 16.6 19,600,000 23,000,000
Sector Programs (ENERGY STAR)
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's Industrial 5.8 6,900,000 7,400,000
Efficiency /Waste Management Programs
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
90.2 102 MMTCE
26.5 MMTCE
9.0 MMTCE
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's Industrial 16
Methane Outreach Programs
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's Industrial 22.8
HFC/PFC Programs
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's 1.9
Transportation Programs
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's State and 1.9
Local Programs
15,900,000 17,900,000
24,500,000 29,800,000
2,100,000 2,300,000
2,000,000 2,000,000
19.1
34.4
2.9
2.0
20.1
41.0
3.3
2.0
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMTCE
Baseline: The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the
U.S. climate change programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate
change programs in 2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon
emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's Integrated
PPA-68
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including
nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at
length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 (www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html), which
provides a discussion of differences in assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update, including which
portion of energy efficiency programs are included in the estimates. EPA develops the non-CO2 emissions baselines and
projections using information from partners and other sources. EPA continues to develop annual inventories as well as
update methodologies as new information becomes available.
Reduce Energy Consumption
In 2006 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 145 billion kilowatt hours (kWh), contributing to over
$8.5 billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses.
In 2005 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 120 billion kilowatt hours, contributing to over $8.5
billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses.
In 2004 Data will be available in 2005.
In 2003 EPA's Climate Change Programs significantly exceeded its goal by reducing energy use by 122.8 billion kWh. EPA
estimates that from investments made due to EPA's technology deployment programs, businesses and consumers will
realize energy bill savings of more than $85 billion through 2012 (net of investment in energy-efficiency technologies).
In 2002 EPA's Climate Change Programs reduced energy use by 100 billion kWh hours. EPA estimates that from investments
made due to EPA's technology deployment programs, businesses and consumers will realize energy bill savings of more
than $70 billion through 2012 (net of investment in energy- efficient technologies).
In 2001 EPA's Climate Protection Programs reduced energy use by 84 billion kilowatt hours in 2001.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Annual Energy Savings - All EPA Programs 84 100 B 122.8 B Data 120 145 Billion kWh
kWh kWh avail. 05
Baseline: The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the
U.S. climate change programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate
PPA-69
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
change programs in 2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon
emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's Integrated
Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including
nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at
length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 (www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html), which
provides a discussion of differences in assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update, including which
portion of energy efficiency programs are included in the estimates. EPA develops the non-CO2 emissions baselines and
projections using information from partners and other sources. EPA continues to develop annual inventories as well as
update methodologies as new information becomes available.
OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2010, provide and apply sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by conducting leading-edge research and developing a
better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 1.
Clean Automotive Technology
In 2006 Transfer hybrid powertrain components, originally developed for passenger car applications, to meet size, performance,
durability, and towing requirements of Sport Utility Vehicle and urban delivery vehicle applications with an average fuel
economy improvement of 35% over the baseline.
In 2005 Transfer hybrid powertrain components, originally developed for passenger car applications, to meet size, performance,
durability, and towing requirements of Sport Utility Vehicle and urban delivery vehicle applications with an average fuel
economy improvement of 30% over the baseline.
In 2004 The average fuel economy of the typical SUV with EPA-developed hybrid technology represents a 25% increase over the
baseline of 20.2 mpg.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Fuel Economy of typical SUV with EPA-developed 25.20 26.3 27.3 MPG
hybrid technology over EPA Driving Cycles Tested
PPA-70
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Baseline: The average fuel economy of all SUVs sold in the US in 2001 is 20.2 mpg. Values for 2004, 2005, and 2006 represent
25%, 30%, and 35% improvements over this baseline, respectively.
Research
PM Effects Research
In 2006 BY 2006, develop and report on new data on the effects of different PM sizes or components to improve understanding of
the health risks associated with short-term exposure to PM in healthy and select susceptible populations so that, by 2010,
OAR has improved assessments of health risks to develop PM standards that maximize protection of human health, as
determined by independent expert review.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Integrated report on the health effects of different 1 Report
particle sizes or particle components in healthy and
select susceptible subgroups.
Background: The physical attributes of PM ~ size, surface area and number ~ influence PM deposition, penetration, and persistence in
the lung, as well as the potential for transport within the body and the inherent toxicity of the particle itself. Composition
also varies by particle size, with products of combustion usually concentrated in fine PM. Evidence from epidemiological
studies suggest that small or "fine" particles (PM with diameters less than 2.5 microns, or PM2.5) are strongly associated
with cardiovascular and respiratory effects. Other studies have shown that larger, "coarse" particles (PM with diameters
less than 10 microns, or PM10) may not contribute significantly to an increased risk of adverse health effects. In addition,
a few studies show correlations between health outcomes and ultrafine (< 100 nm) ambient PM. EPA is conducting
research to determine the extent to which adverse health effects can be attributed to PM belonging to a particular size
class or chemical composition of PM. This APG will report on and integrate information on the influence of particle size
and certain compositions on health effects in healthy and select susceptible subgroups. Specific emphasis will be placed
on differential effects - in kind or intensity - for less studied particle sizes (i.e. ultrafmes and coarse particles). This
information will reduce uncertainties in risk assessment, be used in the development of future PM standards, and inform
decision makers implementing PM reduction strategies.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research
programs' relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, and will determine whether EPA has been successful in
PPA-71
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research. Recommendations and results from these reviews will
improve the design and management of EPA research programs and help to measure their progress under the Government
Performance and Results Act.
PM Measurement Research
In 2006 Develop and transfer new data and tools needed by OAR and the states to predict, measure, and reduce ambient PM and
PM emissions to attain the existing PM NAAQS, as determined by independent expert review.
In 2005 By FY 2005, deliver and transfer improved receptor models and data on chemical compounds emitted from sources so
that, by 2006, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation and the states have the necessary new data and tools to predict, measure,
and reduce ambient PM and PM emissions to attain the existing PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for the protection of public health.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Improved receptor models and data on chemical 09/30/05 models/data
compounds emitted from sources
Synthesis report with improved information on PM 1 Report
emissions and ambient concentrations for use in
preparation and evaluation of state implementation
plan development, application, and compliance
Background: The designation of non-attainment areas for the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in
2005 will mean that states will need to immediately begin developing State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs
incorporate source emission reduction rules that once implemented lead to cleaner air and standards attainment. They are
due to EPA three years after designation. SIP development is predicated on the availability of recent and credible
information on state-wide and regional air quality, atmospheric chemistry, and processes that transport and transform
source emissions leading to PM concentrations in excess of the PM NAAQS. The national PM Supersites program has
been applying the most sophisticated instruments and methods available over the past four years in seven areas across the
country to fully characterize PM, its composition and contributing sources and atmospheric processes. Supersites have
been located in Fresno, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Houston, TX; St. Louis, MO; Baltimore, MD; Pittsburgh, PA; and New
York, NY. These locations include those with the highest annual and daily PM concentrations nationally. The
observational insights from these Supersites will provide specialized information not otherwise available for their host and
PPA-72
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
adjoining states. Information will be provided both as detailed area-specific information and as synthesis of findings on
multiple scales. This information will provide inputs for receptor models, and confirm the emissions and chemical
process information used in air quality models as part of a weight of evidence approach to be used by states to tag specific
sources with reduction targets.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research
programs' relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, and will determine whether EPA has been successful in
meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research.
PPA-73
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
GOAL: Clean and Safe Water
Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic
and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.
OBJECTIVE: PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH
Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish,
and in recreational waters.
Safe Drinking Water
In 2006 75% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets health-based standards with a compliance date of
January 2002 or later.
In 2006 75% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets health-based standards
with a compliance date of January 2002 or later.
In 2006 90% of the population served by community water systems in Indian country will receive drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based drinking water standards.
In 2006 93% 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.
In 2006 94% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets health-based standards with which systems need
to comply as of December 2001.
In 2006 94% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets health-based standards
with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
In 2005 75% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets health-based standards with a compliance date of
January 2002 or later.
PPA-74
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2005 75% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets health-based standards
with a compliance date of January 2002 or later.
In 2005 90% of the population served by community water systems in Indian country will receive drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based drinking water standards.
In 2005 93% 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.
In 2005 94% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets health-based standards with which systems need
to comply as of December 2001.
In 2005 94% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets health-based standards
with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
In 2004 Data available in 2005.
In 2004 Data available in 2005.
In 2003 96% of the population served by community water systems received drinking water meeting health-based standards
promulgated in or after 1998.
In 2003 90% of the population served by community water systems received drinking water meeting all health-based standards in
effect as of 1994, up from 83% in 1994.
In 2002 94% of the population served by community water systems received drinking water meeting all health-based standards in
effect as of 1994.
In 2001 91 percent of the population served by water systems received drinking water meeting all health-based standards that were
in effect as of 1994.
PPA-75
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY 2001
Actuals
Percent of population served by community drinking 91
water systems with no violations during the year of
any Federally enforceable health-based standards
that were in place by 1994.
Population served by community water systems
providing drinking water meeting health-based
standards promulgated in or after 1998.
Population served by community water systems that
receive drinking water that meets health-based
standards with which systems need to comply as of
December 2001
Population served by community water systems that
receive drinking water that meets health-based
standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or
later
Percentage of community water systems that provide
drinking water that meets health-based standards
with which systems need to comply as of December
2001
Percentage of community water systems that provide
drinking water that meets health-based standards
with a compliance date of January 2002 or later
Percent of the population served by community
water systems in Indian country that receive
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards
FY2002 FY2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
94 90 Available
2005
96 Available
2005
94
75
94
75
90
94
75
94
75
90
% Population
% Population
% Population
% Population
% CWSs
% CWSs
% Population
PPA-76
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
%of population served by community water systems 93 93 % population
that receive drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards through
effective treatment and source water protection
Baseline: In 1998, 85% of the population that was served by community water systems and 96% of the population served by non-
community, non-transient drinking water systems received drinking water for which no violations of federally enforceable
health standards had occurred during the year. Year-to-year performance is expected to change as new standards take
effect. Covered standards include: Stage 1 disinfection by-products/interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-
term enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic.
Drinking Water Small Systems
In 2006 Reduce the number of households on Tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Number of household on Tribal lands lacking access 30,800 Households
to safe drinking water.
Baseline: 2003 Baseline: In 2003, Indian Health Service indicates that 39,000 homes lack access to safe drinking water (12% of
tribal homes nationwide).
River/Lake Assessments for Fish Consumption
In 2006 91% of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states are approved or conditionally approved for use.
In 2006 At least 1% of the water miles/acres identified by states or tribes as having a fish consumption advisory in 2002 will have
improved water and sediment quality so that increased consumption offish and shellfish is allowed.
In 2005 80% of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states are approved or conditionally approved for use.
PPA-77
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6- YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2005 At least 1% of the water miles/acres identified by states or tribes as having a fish consumption advisory in 2002 will have
improved water and sediment quality so that increased consumption offish and shellfish is allowed.
In 2004 24%
In 2003 Reduced consumption of contaminated fish by increasing the information available to States, Tribes, local governments,
citizens, and decision-makers.
In 2002 14% of the nation's river miles and 28% of nation's lake acres have been assessed to determine if they contain fish and
shellfish that should not be eaten or should be eaten in only limited quantities.
In 2001 9% of the nation's river miles and 23% of nation's lake acres have been assessed to determine if they contain fish and
shellfish that should not be eaten or should be eaten in only limited quantities.
Performance Measures
Lake acres assessed for the need for fish advisories
and compilation of state-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies, (cumulative)
River miles assessed for the need for fish
consumption advisories & compilation of state-
issued fish consumption advisory methodologies.
(cumulative)
Percent of water miles/acres, identified by states or
tribes as having fish consumption advisories in
2002, where increased consumption offish is
allowed.
Percent of the shellfish growing acres monitored by
states that are approved or conditionally approved
for use
FY2001
Actuals
23
FY 2002
Actuals
28
14%
FY2003
Actuals
33
15
FY2004
Actuals
35%
24%
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
FY 2006
Request
80
91 (FY
08)
% Lake
acres
% River
miles
Miles/Acres
% Areas
Baseline: In 1999, 7% of the Nation's rivers and 15% of the Nation's lakes were assessed to determine if they contained fish that
should not be eaten or should be eaten in only limited quantities. In September 1999, 25 states/tribes are monitoring and
PPA-78
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
conducting assessments based on the national guidance to establish nationally consistent fish advisories. In the 2000
Report to Congress on the National Water Quality Inventory, 69% of assessed river and stream miles; 63% of assessed
lake, reservoir, and pond acres; and 53% of assessed estuary square miles supported their designated use for fish
consumption. For shell fish consumption, 77% of assessed estuary square miles met this designated use.
Increase Information on Beaches
In 2006 Coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach safety programs will be open and safe for swimming in over
94% of the days of the beach season.
In 2006 Restore water quality to allow swimming in not less than 3% of the stream miles and lake acres identified by states in
2000 as having water quality unsafe for swimming.
In 2005 Coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach safety programs will be open and safe for swimming in over
94% of the days of the beach season.
In 2005 Restore water quality to allow swimming in not less than 2% of the stream miles and lake acres identified by states in
2000 as having water quality unsafe for swimming.
In 2004 Beach closure data for calendar year 2003 was provided by 277 state agencies for 1,857 beaches. The goal to have closure
data for 2,823 beaches was not met due to software compatibility issues with the old and new database systems. EPA
expects the new system to be fully operational in early 2005 so all states can report beach closure information.
In 2003 Reduced human exposure to contaminated recreation waters by increasing the information available to the public and
decision-makers.
In 2002 Reduced exposure to contaminated recreation waters by providing monitoring and closure data on 2,455 beaches to the
public and decision-makers.
In 2001 Reduce exposure to contaminated recreation waters by providing information on 2,354 beaches for which monitoring and
closure data is available to the public and decision-makers.
PPA-79
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Beaches for which monitoring and closure data is
available to the public at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/.
(cumulative)
Restore water quality to allow swimming in stream
miles and lake acres identified by states
Days (of beach season) that coastal and Great Lakes
beaches monitored by State beach safety programs
are open and safe for swimming.
FY2001
Actuals
2,354
FY2002 FY2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
2,445 2,823 1,857 Beaches
2
94
94
Miles/Acres
Days/Season
Baseline: By the end of FY 1999, 33 states had responded to EPA's first annual survey on state and local beach monitoring and
closure practices and EPA made available to the public via the internet. An average of 9 recreational contact waterborne
disease outbreaks reported per year by the Centers for Disease Control for the years 1994-1998, based on data housed in
EPA/ORD internal database. In 2002, monitored beaches were opened 94% of the days during the beach season.
Source Water Protection
In 2006 20% of source water areas for community water systems will achieve minimized risk to public health.
In 2005 20% of source water areas for community water systems will achieve minimized risk to public health.
In 2004 13,891 community water systems (representing 42% of the population served by these systems) implemented best
management practices to address potential sources of contamination and further protect drinking water supplies.
In 2003 6,570 community water systems (representing 25% of the population served by these systems) implemented source water
protection programs.
PPA-80
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Number of community water systems and percent of 6,5707 13,8917 %
population served by those CWSs that are 25% 42% pop/systems
implementing source water protection programs.
Percent of source water areas for community water 20 20 % Areas
systems that achieve minimized risk to public health
Baseline: EPA defines "achieve minimized risk" as substantial implementation of source water protection actions, as determined by
a State's source water protection strategy. Approximately 268 million people are estimated to be served by Community
Water Systems (CWSs) in 2002.
OBJECTIVE: PROTECT WATER QUALITY
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
Watershed Protection
In 2006 472 of the Nation's watersheds have water quality standards met in at least 80% of the assessed water segments.
In 2006 Water quality standards are fully attained in over 25% of miles/acres of waters by 2012, with an interim milestone of
restoring 5% of these waters - identified in 2000 as not attaining standards - by 2005.
In 2005 500 of the Nation's watersheds have water quality standards met in at least 80% of the assessed water segments.
In 2005 Water quality standards are fully attained in over 25% of miles/acres of waters by 2012, with an interim milestone of
restoring 2% of these waters - identified in 2000 as not attaining standards - by 2005.
In 2004 Available in 2005.
In 2003 End of year FY 2003 data will be available in 2005 to verify if FY 2003, Water quality has improved on a watershed basis
such that 600 of the Nation's 2,262 watersheds will have greater than 80 percent of assessed waters meeting all water
quality standards, up from 500 watersheds in 1998.
PPA-81
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2002
In 2001
Performance Measures
This measure reflects states' biennial reporting under CWA 305(b), and is not intended to be reported against again until
the FY2003 reporting cycle.
Water quality improved on a watershed basis such that 510 of the Nation's 2,262 watersheds will have greater than 80
percent of assessed waters meeting all water quality standards, up from 500 watersheds in 1998.
Watersheds that have greater than 80% of assessed
waters meeting all water quality standards.
Waterbodies (river miles and lake acres) identified
in 2000 as not attaining Water quality standards, are
fully attained.
FY2001
Actuals
510
FY 2002
Actuals
510
(FYOO)
FY2003
Actuals
453
FY2004
Actuals
Available
2005.
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
500
FY 2006
Request
472
8-digit HUCs
Miles/Acres
Baseline: As of 2002 state reports 453 watersheds had met the criteria that greater than 80% of assessed waters met all water quality
standards. For a watershed to be counted toward this goal, at least 25% of the segments in the watershed must be assessed
within the past 4 years consistent with assessment guidelines developed pursuant to section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act. In 2002, 0% of the 255,408 miles/and 6,803,419 acres of waters identified on 1998/2000 lists of impaired waters
developed by States and approved by EPA under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
Dredged Material/Ocean Disposal
In 2006 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 point; contamination of sediments in coastal waters by at least 0.7 point; benthic quality by at
least 0.5 point; & eutrophic condition by at least 1.2 point
In 2006 Scores for overall aquatic system health of coastal waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is improved on the
(good/fair/poor) scale of the National Coastal Condition Report by at least 0.1 point
In 2005 Improve ratings reported on the national "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report for: coastal
wetlands loss by at least 0.1 point; contamination of sediments in coastal waters by at least 0.1 point; benthic quality by at
least 0.1 point; & eutrophic condition by at least 0.1 point
PPA-82
-------
In 2005
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Scores for overall aquatic system health of coastal waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is improved on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report by at least 0.1 point
Performance Measures
Score for overall aquatic system health of coastal
waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is
improved (cumulative).
Maintain water clarity and dissolved oxygen in
coastal waters at the national levels reported in the
2002 National Coastal Condition Report
Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report for coastal wetlands loss
Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report for contamination of sediments in
coastal waters
Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report for benthic quality
Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report for eutrophic condition
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
2.5 2.7 Scale score
4.3 / 4.5 4.3 / 4.6 Scale score
1.5
1.4
1.5
l.f
1.7 Scale score
2.1 Scale score
2.0 Scale score
3.0 Scale score
Baseline: National rating of "fair/poor" or 2.4 where the rating is based on a 5-point system where 1 is poor and 5 is good and is
expressed as an aerially weighted mean of regional scores using the National Coastal Condition Report indicators [i.e.,
water clarity, dissolved oxygen, coastal wetlands loss, eutrophic conditions, sediment contamination, benthic health, and
fish tissue contamination]. The 2002 National Coastal Condition Report indicated 4.3 for water clarity and 4.5 for
dissolved oxygen, 1.4 for coastal wetlands loss; 1.3 for contamination of sediments in coastal waters; 1.4 for benthic
quality; & 1.7 for eutrophic condition.
PPA-83
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
State/Tribal Water Quality Standards
In 2006 In coordination with other federal partners reduce, by 17%, households on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation.
In 2006 Water quality in Indian country will be improved at not less than 50 monitoring stations in tribal waters for which baseline
data are available (i.e., show at least a 10% improvement for each of four key parameters: total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliforms.)
In 2005 In coordination with other federal partners reduce, by 11%, households on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation.
In 2005 Water quality in Indian country will be improved at not less than 35 monitoring stations in tribal waters for which baseline
data are available (i.e., show at least a 10% improvement for each of four key parameters: total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliforms.)
In 2004 25
In 2003 Assured that States and Tribes had effective, up-to-date water quality standards programs adopted in accordance with the
Water Quality Standards regulation and the Water Quality Standards program priorities.
In 2002 Assure that 25 States and 22 Tribes have effective, up-to-date water quality standards programs adopted in accordance
with the Water Quality Standards regulation and the Water Quality Standards program priorities.
In 2001 21 States and 19 Tribes have effective, up-to-date water quality standards programs adopted in accordance with the Water
Quality Standards regulation and the Water Quality Standards program priorities.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
States with new or revised water quality standards 21 25 28 27 States
that EPA has reviewed and approved or disapproved
and promulgated federal replacement standards.
Tribes with water quality standards adopted and 19 22 23 25 Tribes
approved (cumulative).
PPA-84
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Number of monitoring stations (for which baseline
data on 4 key parameters are available) where water
quality is improved.
Number of households on tribal lands lacking access
to basic sanitation.
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003
Actuals
FY2004
Actuals
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
35
11
FY 2006
Request
50
17
Stations
%
Households
Baseline: The performance measure of state submissions (above) thus represents a "rolling annual total" of updated standards acted
upon by EPA, and so are neither cumulative nor strictly incremental. EPA must review and approve or disapprove state
revisions to water quality standards within 60-90 days after receiving the state's package. In 2002, there will be four key
parameters available at 900 sampling stations in Indian country. In 2002, Indian Health Service indicates that 71,000
households on Tribal lands lack access to basic sanitation.
OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Provide and apply a sound scientific 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.
Research
Scientific Rationale for Surface Water Criteria
In 2006 By 2006, provide demonstrations of bioassessment methods for Mid-Western U.S. rivers, so that, by 2010, the Office of
Water, states, and tribes have approaches and methods to develop and apply criteria for habitat alteration, nutrients,
suspended and bedded sediments, pathogens, and toxic chemicals that will support designated uses for aquatic
ecosystems, as determined by independent expert review.
In 2005 By 2005, provide methods for developing water quality criteria so that, by 2008, approaches and methods are available to
States and Tribes for their use in developing and applying criteria for habitat alteration, nutrients, suspended and bedded
sediments, pathogens and toxic chemicals that will support designated uses for aquatic ecosystems and increase the
scientific basis for listing and delisting impaired water bodies under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
PPA-85
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Methods for developing water quality criteria based
on population-level risks of multiple stressors to
aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife.
Report on bioassessment methods for a range of
designated uses in freshwater systems within Mid-
Western U.S. rivers
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
09/30/05
methods
Report
Background: Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Office of Water is charged with setting criteria for states and tribes to use in
establishing standards for identifying and restoring impaired waters and maintaining designated uses. Biological criteria
have proven to be a more accurate way to measure ecological condition of waterbodies compared to traditional chemical
and physical criteria. Bioassessment methods are used to develop and apply biocriteria. The historical focus of detection
and monitoring has been on smaller, wadeable streams and rivers (where inputs are likely to have noticeable impacts), but
the rise in awareness of the substantial role of non-point-source pollution has led to an increased interest in assessment of
large rivers. Biological communities and habitats change with increasing stream size, so this research will provide river
assessors with clear and consistent methods for conducting bioassessments for large rivers. Since different assessment
methods use different scales of biological data (e.g., bioassays use species data and various bioassessments use
community level data), this research will also compare the different levels of protection provided by different assessment
methods. States and tribes are also faced with limited monitoring resources to meet their obligations for CWA 305b and
303d reporting and to meet Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements. Until recently, the majority of state
biomonitoring datasets were generated from targeted sampling designs and thus may have introduced a level of bias in
some analyses. This research will provide states and tribes with guidance on balancing potential bias associated with the
site selection approach with the monitoring objectives and the costs associated with a purely random sampling
design.Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA
research programs' relevance, quality, and successful performance to date.
Drinking Water Research
In 2006 By 2006, provide results of full-scale treatment demonstration projects and evaluations of other approaches for managing
arsenic in drinking water, so that by 2010, the Office of Water, states, local authorities and utilities have scientifically
PPA-86
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
sound data and approaches to manage risks to human health posed by exposure to arsenic, as determined by independent
expert review.
Performance Measures
Final reports of full-scale demonstrations of arsenic
treatment technologies
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Reports
Background: A final drinking water standard for arsenic often parts per billion (10 ppb) was established by EPA in 2001, with an
effective date for compliance of 2006. Nearly 97 percent of the water systems affected by this rule are small systems that
serve less than 10,000 people each. These small systems have limited resources and need more cost-effective
technologies to meet the new standard. To assist small communities, EPA has conducted a series of full-scale, long-term,
on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal technologies, process modifications and engineering approaches. In addition,
EPA has provided technical assistance and training to operators of small water treatment systems. Accomplishment of the
FY 2006 APG will provide states, local authorities, and utilities across the country with cost-effective technologies and
technical information that can be used to successfully implement the new arsenic standard.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research
programs' relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, and will determine whether EPA has been successful in
meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research. Recommendations and results from these reviews will
improve the design and management of EPA research programs and help to measure their progress under the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
PPA-87
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
GOAL: Land Preservation and Restoration
Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by
releases of harmful substances.
OBJECTIVE: PRESERVE LAND
By 2008, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and
petroleum products at facilities in ways that prevent releases.
Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction
In 2006 Divert 33.4% (80 million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita
generation of RCRA municipal solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day.
In 2005 Divert an additional 1% (for a cumulative total of 35% or 81 million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and
combustion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day.
In 2004 End of year 2004 data will be available in 2006 to verify diversion of 33.4% (80 million tons) of municipal solid waste
from land filling and combustion, and maintain the national average municipal solid waste generation rate at no more than
4.5 pounds per person per day.
In 2003 End of year FY 2003 data will be available in 2006 to verify that an additional 1% (for a cumulative total of 32% or 74
million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA
municipal solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day was diverted.
In 2002 FY 2002 data is currently not available for the diversion of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion or
maintaining per capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste. Analysis of FY 2002 data is anticipated by September
2004.
In 2001 FY 2001 data is not available for the diversion of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion or maintaining
per capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste. Analysis of FY 2001 data is anticipated by September 2003.
PPA-88
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY 2001
Actuals
Millions of tons of municipal solid waste diverted. 68
Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste. 4.5
FY 2002
Actuals
Not
available
Not
available
FY2003
Actuals
Data Lag
Data Lag
FY2004
Actuals
0
0
FY 2005 FY 2006
Pres. Bud. Request
81 80
4.5
4.5
million tons
Ibs. MSW
Baseline: An analysis conducted in FY 2001 shows approximately 68 million tons (29.2%) of municipal solid waste diverted and
4.4 Ibs of MSW per person daily generation. While data indicates that the growth in recycling rates has slowed, EPA has
maintained the goal of a 35% recycling rate as part of the FY 2003-2008 Strategic Plan.
Waste and Petroleum Management Controls
In 2006 Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
In 2005 Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
In 2004 In FY 2004, 72% of UST facilities were in significant operational compliance with release detection requirements (a
decrease of -4% from the target of 76%) and 79% of UST facilities were in significant operational compliance with
release prevention requirements (a decrease of -6% from the target of 83%). In FY 2004, States and regional offices
reported that 64% of UST facilities were in compliance with the new UST measure. Between FY 1999 and FY 2004,
confirmed UST releases averaged 12,641, and the annual number of confirmed releases in FY 2004 was 7,848. The
RCRA program exceeded its FY 2004 goal by establishing permits or approved controls at an additional 3.7% of
regulated facilities.
In 2003 For UST facilities, 72% are in operational compliance with leak detection, and 79% are in operational compliance with
spill prevention requirements. An additional 4.1% of the RCRA facilities have permits or approved controls, and 600 oil
facilities are in compliance with spill requirements.
In 2002 1.8% of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities received permits or other approved controls, and 580 oil facilities
were in compliance with spill prevention, control and countermeasure provisions of the oil pollution regulations.
In 2001 9.1% of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities received permits or other approved controls, and 593 oil facilities
were in compliance with spill prevention, control and countermeasure provisions of the oil pollution regulations.
PPA-89
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Percent increase of RCRA hazardous waste
management facilities with permits or other
approved controls.
Number of confirmed UST releases nationally.
Percentage of UST facilities in significant
operational compliance with release detection
requirements.
Percentage of UST facilities in significant
operational compliance with release prevention
(spill, overfill and corrosion protection) regulations.
Percent increase of UST facilities that are in
significant operational compliance with both release
detection and release prevention (spill, overfill, and
corrosion protection requirements).
FY2001
Actuals
9.0%
FY 2002
Actuals
4.5%
FY2003
Actuals
4.1%
-8%
-6%
FY2004
Actuals
3.7%
7,848
-4%
FY 2005 FY 2006
Pres. Bud. Request
2.8% 2.5%
Not
applicable
-6% Not
applicable
1%
percentage
pts.
<10,000 <10,000 UST releases
1%
percentage
pts.
percentage
pts.
percent
Baseline: FY 2004 marked the first baseline year that states and regional offices reported the percentage of UST facilities, out of a
total estimated universe of approximately 256,000 facilities, that are in significant operational compliance with both
release detection and release prevention (spill, overfill, and corrosion protection) requirements. At the end of FY 2004,
the national compliance rate was 77 percent for release prevention, 72 percent for release detection, and 64 percent for the
combined compliance measure. Between FY 1999 and FY 2004, confirmed UST releases averaged 12,641, and the
annual number of confirmed releases in FY 2004 was 7,848. The RCRA program exceeded its FY 2004 goal by
establishing permits or approved controls at an additional 3.7% of regulated facilities.
OBJECTIVE: RESTORE LAND
By 2008, control the risks to human health and the environment by mitigating the impact of accidental or intentional releases and by
cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites or properties to appropriate levels.
PPA-90
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Superfund Cost Recovery
In 2006 Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from PRPs when EPA
expends trust fund monies. Address cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations (SOL) on
total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
In 2005 Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from PRPs when EPA
expends trust fund monies. Address cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations (SOL) on
total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
In 2004 EPA achieved its goal of addressing through enforcement, settlement or compromise/write-off all of the pending cost
recovery cases with outstanding unaddressed past costs greater than $200,000 and pending SOL concerns.
In 2003 Ensured trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from PRPs when EPA
expends trust fund monies. Addressed cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations (SOL) on
total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
In 2002 The goal was met. Cost recovery was addressed at 204 NPL and non-NPL sites of which 101 had total past costs greater
than or equal to $200,000 and potential statute of limitations (SOL) concerns. EPA secured cleanup and ocst recovery
commitments from private parties in excess of $645 million.
In 2001 None Provided
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Refer to DOJ, settle, or write off 100% of Statute of 97.8 100 100 100% 100 100 Percent
Limitations (SOLs) cases for SF sites with total
unaddressed past costs equal to or greater than
$200,000 and report value of costs recovered.
Baseline: In FY 98 the Agency will have addressed 100% of Cost Recovery at all NPL & non-NPL sites with total past costs equal
or greater than $200,000.
PPA-91
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Superfund Potentially Responsible Party Participant
In 2005 Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the time of the Remedial Action start at 90 percent of non-Federal
Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties.
In 2004 EPA reached a settlement or took an enforcement action by the start of remedial action at more than 98% of those
Superfund sites having known non-Federal, viable, liable parties.
In 2003 Maximized all aspects of PRP participation which included maintaining PRP work at 87% of the new remedial
construction starts at non-Federal Facility Superfund, and emphasized fairness in the settlement process.
In 2002 In FY 2002 the percentage of remedial construction starts initiated by responsible parties exceeded the target by one
percent.
In 2001 None Provided
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
PRPs conduct 70% of the work at new construction 67.3 71 87 Percent
starts
Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement or 98% 90 90 Percent
enforcement action taken before the start of RA.
Baseline: In FY 98 approximately 70% of new remedial work at NPL sites (excluding Federal facilities) was initiated by private
parties. In FY2003, a settlement was reached or an enforcement action was taken with non-Federal PRPs before the start
of the remedial action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund sites.
Assess and Cleanup Contaminated Land
In 2006 Control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization,
or other action, and make land available for reuse.
In 2005 Control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization,
or other action, and make land available for reuse.
PPA-92
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2004 In FY 2004, Superfund controlled human exposures at 83% (1,242 of 1,493) of eligible NPL sites and controlled
groundwater migration at 67% (875 of 1,306) of eligible NPL sites, completed construction at 62% (926 of 1,498) of the
eligible NPL sites, selected final remedies at 67% (1,003 of 1,498) of the eligible NPL sites. Of the 1,714 RCRA
Corrective Action high priority facilities, 84% (1,440) have human exposures controlled and 70% (1,199) have
groundwater migration controlled, reflecting the strong EPA/state partnership in this program. EPA completed 317,405
leaking underground storage tank cleanups by the end of FY 2004. The Agency has worked with state partners to
evaluate multi-year cleanup goals in light of new pressures that have slowed the pace of cleanup in recent years. The
result of this process has been a reduction of multi-year goals to a target number that better reflects the current challenges.
In 2003 917 final Superfund site assessment decisions were made.
In 2003 Superfund accomplished 380 removals, control of human exposures at 28 sites and groundwater migration at 54 sites, and
40 construction completions. The RCRA program controlled human exposures at 230 sites and groundwater migration at
175 sites. There were 18,518 LUST cleanups.
In 2002 Human exposures to toxins were controlled at 172 RCRA facilities and toxic releases to groundwater were controlled at
171 RCRA facilities. 15.769 leaking underground storage tank cleanups were completed, and 42 Superfund construction
completions were achieved.
In 2002 Superfund initiated 426 removal actions and recorded 587 site assessment decisions, and the Brownfields program
assessed 983 properties.
In 2001 Human exposures to toxins were controlled at 179 RCRA facilities and toxic releases to groundwater were controlled at
154 RCRA facilities, 19,074 leaking underground storage tank cleanups were completed, and 47 Superfund construction
completions were completed.
In 2001 Superfund initiated 302 removal response actions and recorded 931 site assessment decisions, and the Brownfields
program assessed 730 properties.
PPA-93
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Number of leaking underground storage tank
cleanups completed.
Number of Superfund final site assessment
decisions.
Number of Superfund construction completions.
Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with
human exposures controlled.
Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with
groundwater migration controlled.
Number of final remedies (cleanup targets) selected
at Superfund sites.
Number of high priority RCRA facilities with
human exposures to toxins controlled.
Number of high priority RCRA facilities with toxic
releases to groundwater controlled.
Number of final remedies (cleanup targets) selected
at RCRA sites using 2005 baseline.
Percent of RCRA construction completions using
2005 baseline.
Number of high priority RCRA facilities with
human exposures to toxins controlled using 2005
baseline.
Number of high priority RCRA facilities with toxic
releases to groundwater controlled using 2005
baseline.
FY2001
Actuals
19,074
931
47
179
154
FY2002 FY2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
15,769 18,518 14,285 21,000 18,300 cleanups
587
42
207
174
917
548
500
500 assessments
40
28
54
230
175
40
15
18
30
195
150
40
10
10
20
225
203
40
10
10
20
89
13
completii
sites
sites
remedies
facilities
facilities
remedies
percent
under facilities
dev't
under facilities
dev't
PPA-94
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Baseline: In FY 2004, Superfund controlled human exposures at 83% (1,242 of 1,493) of eligible NPL sites and controlled
groundwater migration at 67% (875 of 1,306) of eligible NPL sites, completed construction at 62% (926 of 1,498) of the
eligible NPL sites, selected final remedies at 67% (1,003 of 1,498) of the eligible NPL sites. Of the 1,714 RCRA
Corrective Action high priority facilities, 84% (1,440) have human exposures controlled and 70% (1,199) have
groundwater migration controlled, reflecting the strong EPA/state partnership in this program. The new performance
measures for the RCRA program (with targets under development) reflect a new facility baseline (1,968 facilities)
established in October 2004. In FY 2004, EPA completed 317,405 leaking underground storage tank cleanups by the end
of FY 2004. The Agency has worked with state partners to evaluate multi-year cleanup goals in light of new pressures
that have slowed the pace of cleanup in recent years. The result of this process has been a reduction of multi-year goals to
a target number that better reflects the current challenges.
Prepare/Respond to Accidental/Intentional Release
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
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.
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.
By the end of FY 2004, there have been cumulative total of over 8,280 Superfund removal response actions initiated since
1980. EPA exceeded its FY 2004 expectations for readiness by reducing the core emergency response readiness deficit by
56%. EPA was involved in 308 oil spill responses in FY 2004. The Agency typically responds to or monitors 300 oil
spill cleanups per year.
Performance Measures
Number of Superfund removal response actions
initiated.
Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA.
Number of inspections and exercises conducted at
oil storage facilities that are required to have Facility
Response Plans.
FY2001
Actuals
302
527
FY 2002
Actuals
426
203
FY2003
Actuals
380
322
FY2004
Actuals
385
308
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
350
300
360
FY 2006
Request
350
300
100
removals
spills
inspects/exer
PPA-95
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Percentage of emergency response and homeland 56% 10% 10% percent
security readiness improvement.
Baseline: By the end of FY 2004, there have been cumulative total of over 8,280 Superfund removal response actions initiated since
1980. EPA exceeded its FY 2004 expectations for readiness by reducing the core emergency response readiness deficit by
56%. EPA was involved in 308 oil spill responses in FY 2004. The Agency typically responds to or monitors 300 oil
spill cleanups per year.
OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2008, provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge research and developing a
better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 3.
Research
Scientifically Defensible Decisions for Site Clean
In 2006 Document the performance, including cost savings, of innovative characterization and remediation options, so that newer
approaches with cost or performance advantages are applied for Superfund and other cleanup projects.
In 2005 In FY 2005, complete at least four SITE demonstrations, with emphasis on NAPLs and sediments, in order to, by 2010,
develop or evaluate 40 scientific tools, technologies, methods, and models, and provide technical support that enable
practitioners to 1) characterize the nature and extent of multimedia contamination; 2) assess, predict, and communicate
risks to human health and the environment; 3) employ improved remediation options; and 4) respond to oil spills
effectively.
In 2004 Provided risk assessors and managers with site-specific data sets on three applications detailing the performance of
conventional remedies for contaminated sediments to help determine the most effective techniques for remediating
contaminated sites and protecting human health and the environment.
PPA-96
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2003 Delivered state-of-the-science report and methods to EPA and other stakeholders for risk management of fuel oxygenates;
organic and inorganic contamination of sediments, ground water and/or soils; and oil spills to ensure cost-effective and
technically sound site clean-up.
In 2002 EPA provided evaluation information on six innovative approaches that reduce human health and ecosystem exposure
from dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) and methly tertiary butyl-ether (MTBE) in soils and groundwater, and
from oil and persistent organics in aquatic systems.
In 2001 EPA provided technical information to support scientifically defensible and cost-effective decisions for clean-up of
complex sites, hard-to-treat wastes, mining, oil spills near shorelines, and Brownfields to reduce risk to human health and
the environment.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Deliver the Annual SITE Program Report to 0 report
Congress.
Complete draft of the FY 2002 Annual SITE Report 1 1 draft report
to Congress.
Reports on performance data for conventional 3 reports reports
sediment remedies for three sites.
SITE demonstrations completed 4 demonstrations
Draft of FY05 Annual SITE Report to Congress 1 Report
Background: Barriers to cleaning up contaminated sites include uncertainty and high cost in either characterizing the site or
implementing a remedy. Problematic issues include dense non-aqueous phase liquids, contaminated sediments, and
contaminated ground water. Underestimation of the extent of contamination can lead to cost overruns or significant
technical changes during remediation. For some sites, the available remedies are not able to achieve cleanup targets or
costs are high. Site managers are reluctant to try new approaches without an independent assessment of their
performance. Documenting the results of SITE demonstrations can accelerate the application of new technologies in the
field, resulting in improvements in quality, timeliness, and/or cost of clean up.
PPA-97
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
GOAL: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
OBJECTIVE: CHEMICAL, ORGANISM, AND PESTICIDE RISKS
Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides
In 2006 Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) meet new health standards and are
environmentally safe.
In 2006 Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of reduced-risk pesticides
In 2005 Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) meet new health standards and are
environmentally safe.
In 2005 Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of reduced-risk pesticides
In 2004 Decreased adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1995 levels.
In 2003 Adverse risk from agricultural pesticides was decreased to ensure that new pesticides entering the market are safe for
humans and the environment.
In 2002 In FY 2002, EPA continued to register pest control products, including "safer" pesticides, thus ensuring that growers have
an adequate number of pest control options available to them.
In 2001 The Agency registered 9 new chemicals, exceeding its target by 2, and 267 new chemicals, underperforming its target by
83.
PPA-98
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Register safer chemicals and biopesticides
New Chemicals (Active Ingredients)
New Uses
Percentage of acre-treatments with reduced risk
pesticides
Maintain timeliness of S18 decisions
Reduce registration decision times for new
conventional chemicals
Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk
chemicals
FY2001
Actuals
53
1896
FY 2002
Actuals
107
60
2329
7.5%
FY2003
Actuals
124
72
425
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
143 135
79
3,142
Data Lag
84
3479
8.7%
45
7%
3%
143
94
3879
9%
45
10%
Regist.
(Cum)
Regist.
(Cum)
Actions
(Cum)
Acre-
Treatments
Days
Reduction
3.5%
Reduction
Baseline: The baseline for registration of reduced risk pesticides, new chemicals, and new uses, is zero in the year 1996 (the year
FQPA was enacted). Progress is measured cumulatively since 1996. The baseline for acres-treated is 3.6% of total
acreage in 1998, when the reduced-risk pesticide acres-treatments was 30,332,499 and total (all pesticides) was
843,063,644 acre-treatments. Each year's total acre-treatments, as reported by Doane Marketing Research, Inc.serves as
the basis for computing the percentage of acre-treatments using reduced risk pesticides. Acre-treatments count the total
number of pesticide treatments each acre receives each year. As of 2003, there are no products registered for use against
other potential bio-agents (non-anthrax). Conventional pesticides FY 2002 baseline for reducing decision time is 44
months; reduced risk pesticides FY 2002 baseline for reducing time is 32.5 months. The 2005 baseline for expedited new
active ingredient pesticides is 4. The S18 2005 baseline is 45 days.
Reduce use of highly toxic pesticides
In 2006 Decrease occurrence of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase-inhibiting neuortic pesticides on foods eaten by
children from their average 1994-1996 levels
PPA-99
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2005 Decrease occurrence of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase-inhibiting neuortic pesticides on foods eaten by
children from their average 1994-1996 levels
In 2004 34% of samples of foods eaten by children showed occurrence of residues for carcinogenic or cholinestherase-inhibiting
pesticides.
In 2003 34.3% of samples of foods eaten by children showed occurrence of residues of carcinogenic or cholinesterase inhibiting
neurotoxic pesticides.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Reduce occurrence of residues on a core set of 19 34.3% 34% 27% 14% Red.
foods eaten by children relative to detection levels Occurrence
for those foods reported in 1994-1996.
Baseline: Percent occurrence of residues of FQPA priority pesticides (organophosphates and carbamates) on samples of children's
foods in baseline years 94-96. Baseline percent is 33.5% of composite sample of children's foods: apples, apple juice,
bananas, broccoli, carrots, celery, grapes, green beans (fresh, canned, frozen), lettuce, milk, oranges, peaches, potatoes,
spinach, sweet corn (canned and frozen), sweet peas (canned and frozen), sweet potatoes, tomatoes, and wheat.
Reassess Pesticide Tolerances
In 2006 Ensure that through ongoing data reviews, pesticide active ingredients, and products that contain them are reviewed to
assure adequate protection for human health and the environment, taking into consideration exposure scenarios such as
subsistence lifestyles of the Native Americans
In 2005 Ensure that through ongoing data reviews, pesticide active ingredients, and products that contain them are reviewed to
assure adequate protection for human health and the environment, taking into consideration exposure scenarios such as
subsistence lifestyles of the Native Americans
In 2004 Ensured that through on-going data reviews, pesticide active ingredients and the products that contain them are reviewed
to assure adequate protection for human health and the environment, taking into consideration exposure scenarios such as
subsistence lifestyles of Native Americans.
PPA-100
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2003 Assured that pesticides active ingredients registered prior to 1984 and the products that contain them were reviewed to
assure adequate protection for human health & the environment. Also considered the unique exposure scenarios such as
subsistence lifestyles of Native Americans in regulatory decisions.
In 2002 Reregistration efforts delayed to focus on reviewing and testing pesticides against anthrax.
In 2001 EPA reassessed 40% of tolerances requiring reassessment under FQPA and issued a cumulative 72% of total REDs
required, achieving both targets.
Performance Measures
Tolerance Reassessment
Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs)
Product Reregistration
Tolerance reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by
children
Number of inert ingredients tolerances reassessed
Reduce decision time for REDs
FY2001
Actuals
40%
43.5%
FY 2002
Actuals
66.9
72.7%
307
65.6
FY2003
Actuals
68
75
306
65.6
FY2004
Actuals
73%
77.6%
127
68.9%
28
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
87.7%
88.2%
400
93%
100
7%
FY 2006
Request
100%
92.7%
400
100%
100
10%
Tolerances
(Cum)
Decisions
(Cum)
Actions
Tolerances
(Cum)
tolerances
Reduction
Baseline: The baseline value for tolerance reassessments is the 9,721 tolerances that must be reassessed by 2006 using FQPA health
and safety standards. The baseline for REDS is the 612 REDs that must be completed by 2008. The baseline for inerts
tolerances is 870 that must be reassessed by 2006. The baseline for the top 20 foods eaten by children is 893 tolerances
that must be reassessed by 2006. Reregistration decision time baseline 38-40 months.
Testing of Chemicals in Commerce for Endocrine Disruptors
In 2006 Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program will continue its progress toward completing the validation of endocrine test
methods.
In 2005 Standardization and validation of screening assays
PPA-101
-------
In 2004
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
EPA did not meet its goal for standardization and validation of screening assays as described in FY 2004 and will begin
tracking a more meaningful set of measures in FY 2006.
Performance Measures
Screening Assays Completed
Detailed Review Papers Completed.
Prevalidation Studies Completed.
Validation Studies Completed.
Peer Reviews.
Assays Ready for Use.
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003
Actuals Actuals Actuals
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
0
11
18
58
80
10
11
Screening
assay
Papers
Pre-val
Studies
Valid.
Studies
Peer Reviews
Assays
Baseline: Baseline - The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) requires EPA to use validated assays to screen chemicals for
their potential to affect the endocrine system. The development and validation of assays is currently the principal effort
in implementing the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP). The validation process consists of several discrete
steps:
Detailed Review Paper is the first stage of the overall validation process. It is a review of the scientific literature relevant
to an assay and discusses the scientific principles on which the assay is based, reviews candidate protocols and makes
recommendations as to which is most suitable as a starting point for assay refinement and validation.
Prevalidation consists of studies to optimize and standardize the protocol and verify the ability of the protocol to
accurately measure the endpoints of concern.
Validation by Multiple Labs determines the transferability of the protocol to other laboratories and determines inter-
laboratory variability.
Peer review is review by an independent group of experts of the scientific work establishing the validity of the protocol.
PPA-102
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Assays Ready for Use are methods whose validation have been successfully completed and peer reviewed, and therefore
are judged by the Agency to be suitable for use in the EDSP either as primary or alternative tests establishing the validity
of the protocol.
Process and Disseminate TRI Information - OEI
In 2006 The increased use of the Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy (TRI-ME) will result in a total burden reduction of 5% for
FY 2005 from FY 2004 levels.
In 2005 The increased use of the Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy (TRI-ME) will result in a total burden reduction of 5% for
FY 2004 from FY 2003 levels.
In 2004 Comparing FY 2004 to FY 2003, there was a 73 percent increase in the number of reports on chemical releases and other
waste management data submitted to EPA via the internet and EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). However, even with
this sizable increase, only 38 percent of all chemical forms were submitted using CDX. short of the FY 2004 goal of 50
percent.
In 2003 8,000 facilities reported expanded information on releases and waste management of lead and lead compounds in TRI in
Reporting Year 2001 and increased usage of TRI-ME which resulted in total burden reduction of 5% for Reporting Year
2002.
In 2002 EPA reduced reporting burden, improved data quality, lowered program costs, and speeded data publication by increasing
the amount of TRI electronic reporting from 70% to 92%.
In 2001 120,000 chemical submissions and revisions processed; published annual summary of TRIS database in April 2001; and
TRI Public Data Release published in April 2001.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Total electronic reporting of all chemical 92 Percent
submissions processed. (Includes diskette
submissions created by ATRS, TRI-ME, and other
reporting software programs, as well as web-based
submissions.)
PPA-103
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
TRI Public Data Release
Chemical submissions and revisions processed.
TRIS database complete and report issued
Facilities reporting releases and waste management
of lead and lead compounds.
Percentage of TRI chemical forms submitted over
the Internet using TRI -ME and the Central Data
Exchange.
Percentage increase of TRI chemical forms
submitted over the Internet using TRI-ME and the
Central Data Exchange.
FY2001
Actuals
Published
120,000
Published
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003 FY2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
8561
25 38%
10
10
Published
Forms
Published
Facilities
Percent
Percent
Baseline: In FY 2001, TRI electronic reporting was 70%.
Reduce Wildlife Incidents and Mortalities
In 2006 Reduce from 1995 levels the number of incidents involving mortalities to nontargeted terrestial and aquatic wildlife
caused by pesticides
In 2005 Reduce from 1995 levels the number of incidents involving mortalities to nontargeted terrestial and aquatic wildlife
caused by pesticides
In 2004 The amount of data for wildlife incidents and mortalities was insufficient for analysis.
PPA-104
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Number of incidents and mortalities to terrestrial and 0% 11 14% reduction
aquatic wildlife caused by the 15 pesticides
responsible for the greatest mortality to such wildlife
Baseline: 80 reported bird incidents (involving 1150 estimated bird casualties); 65 reported fish incidents (involving 632,000
estimated fish casualties) as reported in 1995.
Managing PBT Chemicals Internationally
In 2006 Collect mercury use and emission inventory data for key sectors in China and India.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Emission inventory for power sectors in China and 20 power plants
India.
Baseline: Global mercury use and emissions estimates indicate that China and India are among the world's largest emitters and users
of mercury. While a 2002 United Nations report indicates that over 50% of anthropogenic atmospheric mercury
emissions are from Asia, accurate measures do not exist for quantifying emissions and uses for specific source sectors.
Targeting EPA emissions reduction efforts requires accurate information on sources.
Exposure to Industrial / Commercial Chemicals
In 2006 Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial/commercial chemicals
In 2005 Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial / commercial chemicals
In 2004 Data available in 2006.
In 2001 4,885 transformers and 9,494 capacitors were safely disposed of in 2001.
PPA-105
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Annual number of Large Transformers Safely
Disposed
Annual number of Large Capacitors Safely Disposed
Number of children aged 1-5 years with elevated
blood lead levels (>10 ug / dl)
Annual reduction in the number of children aged 1-
5 years with elevated blood lead levels (>10 ug /dl)
FY2001
Actuals
4,885
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003
Actuals
FY2004
Actuals
Data lag.
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
5000
FY 2006
Request
5,000
9,494
Data lag
Data lag
9000
225,000
9,000
Transformers
Capacitors
children
45,000 children
Baseline: 1999/2000 baseline released in January 2003: Approximately 400,000 cases of childhood lead poisoning cases according
to NFIANES data. In 2004 a larger data set was included as we will be expanding to include more EPA Regional efforts
that will include all federally administered and State administered programs. The FY2003 data for a new baseline will not
be available until 2005. The baseline for PCB transformers is estimated at 2.2 million units and for capacitors is estimated
at 1.85 million units as of 1988 as noted in the 1989 PCB Notification and Manifesting Rule. From 1991-2001 there was
a declining trend in PCB disposal due to failing equipment and environmental liability: the total number of PCB large
capacitors safely disposed of is 436,485 and the total number of PCB transformers safely disposed of is 172,672 as of
2002.
Risks from Industrial / Commercial Chemicals
In 2006 Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial chemicals.
In 2005 Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial chemicals.
In 2004 98 High Production Volume chemicals with complete Screening Information Data Sets (SIDS) were submitted to the
OECD SIDS Initial Assessment Meeting.
In 2004 EPA reviewed all 1,377 Pre-manufacturing Notices reviewed during FY 2004, ensuring that those new chemicals
marketed were safe for humans and the environment.
PPA-106
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2003
In 2002
In 2001
In 2001
Performance Measures
Of the approximately. 1,633 applications for new chemicals and microorganisms submitted by industry ensured those
marketed are safe for humans and the environment. Increased proportion of commercial chemicals that have undergone
PMN review to signify they are properly managed and may be potential green alternatives to existing chemicals.
EPA reviewed all 1,943 Pre-manufacturing Notices received during FY 2002. At the end of 2002, 21.5 percent of all
chemicals in commerce had been assessed for risks. A large fraction of these chemicals also may be "green" alternatives
to existing chemicals in commerce.
Data was obtained from test plans submitted by industry for 724 chemicals already in commerce.
EPA reviewed 1,770 Premanufacturing Notices. By the end of 2001, 21 percent of all chemicals in commerce had been
assessed for risks.
FY2001
Actuals
Number of TSCA Pre-Manufacture Notice Reviews 1770
FY 2002 FY 2003
Actuals Actuals
1943 1,633
FY2004
Actuals
1,377
FY 2005 FY 2006
Pres. Bud. Request
Through chemical testing program, obtain test data
for high production volume chemicals on master
testing list.
Notice of Commencements
Make screening level health and environmental
effects data publicly available for sponsored HPV
chemicals
Reduction in the current year production-adjusted
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators risk-based
score of releases and transfers of toxic chemicals.
High Production Volume chemicals with complete
Screening Information Data Sets (SIDS) submitted
to OECD SIDS Initial Assessment Meeting
Percentage of chemicals identified as highest priority
by the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs)
724
21.0
843
1,309
Data lag 12%
98
52%
Notices
Chemicals
NOCs (Cum)
cum.
chemicals
Index
chemicals
60% Total
Chemicals
PPA-107
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Program with short-term exposure limits established.
Number of chemicals or organisms introduced into
commerce that pose unreasonable risks to workers,
consumers, or the environment.
Percentage of HPV chemicals identified as priority
concerns through assessment of Screening
Infromation Data Sets (SIDS) and other information
with risks eliminated or effectively managed.
Cumulative number of chemicals for which VCCEP
data needs documents are issued by EPA in response
to Industry sponsored Tier 1 risk assessments.
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003
Actuals
FY2004
Actuals
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
FY 2006
Request
0
100
Chemicals
% of HPV
Chems.
Cumul.
Chems.
Annual percent reduction in relative risk index for
chronic human health associated with environmental
releases of industrial chemicals in commerce as
measured by the RSEI Model.
% Reduction
Baseline: The baseline for TSCA PMNs in FY2004 is zero. (EPA receives about 1,700 PMNs per year for chemicals about to enter
commerce. From 1979-2002, EPA reviewed about 40,000 PMNs. Of the 78,000 chemicals potentially in commerce,
16,618 have gone through the risk-screening process of Notice of Commencement.) The baseline for HPV measure is
zero chemicals in 1998. The baseline for the RSEI measure is the index calculated for 2001. Baseline is 2002;
calculation methodology by addition of AEGL values (10 minute, 1 hour, 4 hour and 24 hour exposure periods) and
numbers of chemicals addressed. There is a list maintained by the AEGL FACA committee of highest priority chemicals:
99 chemicals are on List 1 which was generated at the program's inception in 1996 and 137 chemicals are highest priority
on List 2 which was generated in 2001. Therefore the total of highest priority chemical currently stands at 236 chemicals,
however chemicals can be added or deleted from the list to fit stakeholder needs which is why percentage targets have
been provided. 2001 levels will serve as the baseline reference point for the percent reduction in relative risk index for
chronic human health associated with environmental releases of industrial chemicals in commerce as measured by Risk
Screening Environmental Indicators Model analyzing results to date. Measurement Development Plans exist for HPV,
VCCEP, and New Chemicals.
PPA-108
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Chemical Facility Risk Reduction
In 2006 Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility risk reduction
efforts and building community infrastructures.
In 2005 Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility risk reduction
efforts and building community infrastructures.
In 2004 Over 2,200 risk management plan audits were completed between FY 2000 and FY 2004.
In 2003 EPA audited 300 risk management plans.
In 2002 Data not available.
In 2001 5 states implemented accident prevention programs and 438 risk management plan audits were completed.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Number of risk management plan audits completed. 438 Not 300 730 400 400 audits
Available
Number of states implementing chemical accident 5 1 states
prevention programs.
Baseline: 1,059 Risk Management Plan audits were completed between FY 2000 and FY 2003.
OBJECTIVE: COMMUNITIES
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
World Trade Organization - Regulatory System
In 2006 Assist key trade partner countries in assessing environmental effects of trade liberalization
PPA-109
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2005
Assist trade partner countries in completing environmental reviews
Performance Measures
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003
Actuals
Number of environmental reviews initiated by
FTAA countries following the enactment of the
2002 Trade Promotion Act (TPA).
Latin American countries initiating environmental
assessments of trade liberalization
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
3 3
countries
countries
Baseline: As of the end of FY 2003, two environmental reviews (Chile and Singapore) have been initiated since the enactment of
the 2002 Trade Promotion Act.
Mexico Border Outreach
In 2006 Develop air quality assessments and programs to improve air quality standards in border communities.
Performance Measures
Border communities monitoring for a pollutant that
has not previously been monitored in that
community
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
1
community
Baseline: In 2004, there are no border communities monitoring for pollutants that have not previously been monitored in their
community. There are 17 monitoring stations along the US-Mexico Border (source: US-Mexico Border XXI Program:
Progress Report 1996-2000). Monitoring for: carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate
matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter U.S. only, particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter, total
suspended particulate matter Mexico only, lead.
Revitalize Properties
In 2006 Assess, clean up and promote the reuse of Brownfields properties, and leverage jobs and cleanup/redevelopment funding.
PPA-110
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2005 Leverage jobs by assessing, promoting the cleanup and reuse of Brownfields properties.
In 2004 Data will be available in mid-year 2005 to verify assessment of 1,000 properties, awarding of 25 cleanup grants, cleanup
of 60 properties, leveraging of 5,000 jobs, training of 200 job training participants, placement of 65% of trainees, and
leveraging of $1.0 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funds.
In 2003 $1.49B in cleanup and redevelopment funds were leveraged through brownfiled revitalization efforts.
In 2003 By the end of FY 2003, the Brownfields program leveraged 5,023 jobs, achieving a 62% placement rate for Brownfields
Job Training Program participants, and leveraged of $1.49 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
In 2002
In 2002
In 2001
In 2001
Performance Measures
$0.7 billion of cleanup and redevelopment was leveraged.
2,091 jobs were generated from Brownfields activities.
$0.9 billion of cleanup and redevelopment was leveraged.
3,030 jobs were generated from Brownfields activities.
Number of Brownfields properties assessed.
Number of Brownfields cleanup grants awarded.
Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields
funding.
Number of acres of Brownfields property available
for reuse.
Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields
activities.
Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees
placed.
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
730
983
3,030
2091
1,052
5,023
62%
Data lag
75
Data lag
Data lag
Data lag
Data lag
1,000
25
60
no target
5,000
65%
1,000
25
60
no target
5,000
65%
assessments
grants
properties
acres
jobs
trainees
placed
PPA-111
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds $0.9B $0.7B $1.49B $1.0B $1.0B funds
leveraged at Brownfields sites.
Baseline: By the end of FY 2003, the Brownfields program assessed 1,052 properties, leveraged 5,023 jobs, achieved a 62%
placement rate for Brownfields job training program participants, and leveraged $1.49B in cleanup and redevelopment
funding.
OBJECTIVE: ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
Protecting and Enhancing Estuaries
In 2006 Working with NEP partners, protect or restore an additional 25,000 acres of habitat within the study areas for the 28
estuaries that are part of the National Estuary Program (NEP).
In 2005 Working with NEP partners, protect or restore an additional 25,000 acres of habitat within the study areas for the 28
estuaries that are part of the National Estuary Program (NEP).
In 2004 Restored and protected 107,000 acres of estuary habitat through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans (CCMPs).
In 2003 Restored and protected 118,171 acres of estuary habitat through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans (CCMPs).
In 2002 Restored and protected over 137,000 acres of estuary habitat through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plans (CCMPs).
In 2001 Restored and protected 70,000 acres of estuaries through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans (CCMPs).
PPA-112
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide 70,000 137,710 118,171 107,000 25,000 25,000 Acres
as part of the National Estuary Program.
(incremental)
Baseline: As of January 2000, there were over 600,000 acres of habitat preserved, restored, and/or created.
Gulf of Mexico
In 2006 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico.
In 2005 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico.
In 2004 Assisted the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration actions in 71.2 impaired coastal river and estuary
segments.
In 2003 Assisted the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration actions in 95 impaired coastal river and estuary segments.
In 2002 Assisted the Gulf States in implementing restoration actions by supporting the identification of place-based projects in
137 State priority coastal river and estuary segments.
In 2001 Assisted the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration action strategies (WRAS) or their equivalent in 37 priority
coastal river and estuary segments.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Impaired Gulf coastal river and estuary segments 37 137 95 71.20 Segments
implementing watershed restoration actions
(incremental).
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems 2.4 Scale
so that overall aquatic system health of coastal
waters of the Gulf of Mexico is improved
PPA-113
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the 14,128 14,128 KM2
Mississippi River Basin to reduce the size of the
hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, as measured by
the five year running average
Baseline: There are 95 coastal watersheds at the 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) scale on the Gulf coast. The Gulf of Mexico
Program has identified 12 priority coastal areas for assistance. These 12 areas include 30 of the 95 coastal watersheds.
Within the 30 priority watersheds, the Gulf States have identified 354 segments that are impaired and not meeting full
designated uses under the States' water quality standards. 71 or 20% is the target proposed to reinforce Gulf State efforts
to implement 5-yea basin rotation schedules. The target of 71 is divided by 5 to achieve the goal for assistance provided
in at least 14 impaired segments each year for the next 5 years. The 1996-2000 running average size = 14,128 km2. In
2002, the Gulf of Mexico rating of fair/poor was 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 aerially weighted mean of regional scores using the National Coastal Condition Report
indicators.
Great Lakes Implementation Actions
In 2006 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.
In 2005 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved by at
least 1 point
In 2004 The reduction in the phosphorus concentration in Lake Erie was not met; the problem continues to be studied in
conjunction with the Canadian government.
In 2003 Phosphorus concentrations were exceeded.
In 2002 By removing or containing contaminated sediments, 100,000-200,000 pounds of persistent toxics which could adversely
affect human health will no longer be biologically available through the food chain. This contributes to decreasing fish
contaminants and advances the goal of removing fish advisories
PPA-114
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in
Great Lakes top predator fish.
Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemicals in
the air.
Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term) in the
Lake Erie Central Basin.
Average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout
and walleye samples will decline.
Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the air
in the Great Lakes basin will decline
Restore and delist Areas of Concern (AOCs) within
the Great Lakes basin
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
Declining
FY2003
Actuals
Data Lag
Declining Data Lag
Mixed
FY2004
Actuals
Available
2005
Available
2005.
18.40 21.2Ug/l
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
10
5%
5%
FY 2006
Request
5%
7%
Annual
decrease
Annual
decrease
Ug/1
Annual
Decrease
Annual
Decrease
AOC
Baseline: In 2003, 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, where 1 is poor and 5 is good. The trend (starting
with 1972 data) for toxics in Great Lakes top predator fish is expected to be less than 2 parts per million (the FDA action
level) but far above the Great Lakes Initiative target or levels at which fish advisories can be removed. The trend (starting
with 1992 data) for PCB concentrations in the air is expected to range from 50 to 250 picograms per cubic meter. In
2002, no Areas of Concern had been delisted. The 2.1 million yards of remediated sediments are the cumulative number
of yards from 1997 to 2001.
Wetland and River Corridor Projects
In 2006 Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands.
In 2005 Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands.
PPA-115
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Working with partners, achieve no net loss of No Net 200,000 Acres
wetland acres (cumulative) Loss
Annually, in partnership with the Corps of Engineers No Net No Net Acres
and States, achieve no net loss of wetlands in the Loss Loss
Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program
Baseline: Annual net loss of an estimated 58,500 acres. In partnership with the Corps of Engineers, a baseline and initial reporting
will begin in FY 2004 on net loss of wetlands in the CWA Section 404 regulatory programs.
Chesapeake Bay Habitat
In 2006 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is
improved enough so that there are 100,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation, (cumulative)
In 2006 Reduce nitrogen loads by 80 million pounds per year; phosphorus loads by 9.0 million pounds per year, and sediment
loads by 1.16 million tons per year from entering the Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels
In 2005 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is
improved enough so that there are 91,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation, (cumulative)
In 2005 Reduce nitrogen loads by 74 million pounds per year; phosphorus loads by 8.7 million pounds per year, and sediment
loads by 1.06 million tons per year from entering the Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels.
In 2004 Due to record wet weather in 2003, massive amounts of nutrients and sediments were washed into the Chesapeake Bay,
which resulted in a 30% decline in submerged aquatic vegetation in a single year.
In 2003 Improved habitat in the Chesapeake Bay.
In 2002 Meeting the annual performance goal to improve habitat in the Bay requires adherence to commitments made by the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement partners and monumental effort/resources from all levels of government (local, state, and a
range of Federal agencies) and from private organizations/citizens.
PPA-116
-------
In 2001
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Improved habitat in the Chesapeake Bay by reducing 48.1 million pounds of nitrogen, 6.84 million pounds of
phospherous and restored over 69,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation.
Performance Measures
Reduction, from 1985 levels, of nitrogen (M/lbs),
phosphorus (M/lbs), and sediment loads (tons)
entering Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative)
Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
present in the Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative)
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003
Actuals
FY2004
Actuals
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
74/8.7/1.0
6
FY 2006
Request
80/9.0/1.1
6
Lbs/Lbs/Tons
69,126
85,252
89,659
64,709
91,000
100,000 Acres
Baseline: In 1984, there were 37,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay. In 2002, baseline for nitrogen
loads was 51 million pounds per year; phosphorus loads was 8.0 million pounds per year; and sediment loads was 0.8
million tons per year.
OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems by conducting leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of
environmental outcomes under Goal 4.
Research
Human Health Risk Assessment Research
In 2006 By 2006, deliver at least 20 dose-response assessments, provisional values, or pathogen risk assessments so that by 2010,
at least 100 assessments have been made available through the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database and
other communications to EPA program offices, regions, states and Tribes providing the necessary information to predict
risk and make risk management decisions that protect public health.
PPA-117
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Completed dose-response assessments, provisional 20 Assessments
values, or pathogen risk assessments
Background: This FY2006 APG produces dose-response assessments and health risk assessment information to support regulatory
actions and risk management decisions by clients including EPA, other Federal partners, states, tribes, and local
governments. These assessments integrate relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature and assessment methods to
characterize the known or potential effects of specific contaminants on human health. Many of these dose-response
assessments will be posted on EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) when completed. IRIS is widely used
throughout EPA and the broader risk management community as the premiere source of hazard and dose-response
information for health risk assessment. The assessments conducted in this APG will serve to identify and characterize
environmentally-related human health problems and support evaluation of the effectiveness of risk management actions
aimed at improving public health and safeguarding the environment. In particular, these assessments will be used to
inform the decision-making process and provide scientific information to decision makers who must make regulatory,
enforcement, and remedial action decisions for chemical contaminant list microbes and chemicals in drinking water;
residual risk assessments for air pollutants; site-specific clean-up decisions at Superfund sites; pesticide registration; and
control of multi-media toxicants. EPA also uses risk assessment information as part of the Agency's risk communication
efforts to convey information on environmental hazards to the public. As a result, risk assessment information provided
by products under this APG, is an integral component of environmental decision-making and information transfer
processes under the statutes implemented by the Agency.
Research on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
In 2006 By 2006, develop and transfer standardized protocols for screening chemicals for their potential effects on the endocrine
system, so that EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances has the necessary protocols to validate for
use in the Agency's Endocrine Disrupters Screening Program, mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act, as
determined by independent expert review.
PPA-118
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Report on a protocol to screen environmental
chemicals for their ability to interact with the male
hormone receptor
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
1 Report
Background: The Endocrine Disrupters program provides EPA with the scientific information necessary for the Agency to reduce or
prevent potential unreasonable risks to human health and wildlife from exposures to chemicals that adversely affect the
endocrine system, called endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). In 1998, the Endocrine Disrupters Screening and
Testing Advisory Committee, a FACA convened by EPA to provide advice on the development and implementation of a
screening program, identified a few assays to use as starting points. However, as they affirmed, no assays were
considered to be "validated" at the time. EPA's endocrine disrupters research program refined these assays and developed
new ones when the starting point assays were found to be unreliable or inadequate. Between FY 2000 and FY 2006, EPA
will have completed 22 milestones associated with this APG, including reducing scientific uncertainty regarding the
mechanisms by which chemicals interfere with the endocrine system, developing reports on a variety of screening assays
in different animal species (e.g., fish, frogs, rats), and transferring protocols that have been standardized in our
laboratories and accompanying background documentation to OPPTS. OPPTS will have the protocols validated by an
external peer review panel and will implement a screening program using them. The data that will be developed from the
application of the validated protocols will enable the Agency to conduct risk assessments from which decisions can be
made that will reduce or prevent unreasonable risks to humans and wildlife from exposure to endocrine disrupters.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research
programs' relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, and will determine whether EPA has been successful in
meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research.
Homeland Security Research
In 2006 Provide methods, guidance documents, technologies and tools to first responders and decision-makers to enhance safety
and to mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical or biological materials into the
environment.
In 2005 By FY 2005, provide tools, case studies, and technical guidance so that, by FY 2006, first responders and decision-makers
will have the methods, guidance documents, and technologies to enhance safety and to mitigate adverse effects of the
purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical or biological materials into the environment.
PPA-119
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2004
In 2004
In 2004
Performance Measures
Provided a database of EPA experts on topics of importance to assessing the health and ecological impacts of actions
taken against homeland security that is available to key EPA staff and managers who might be called upon to rapidly
assess the impacts of a significant terrorist event.
Provided to building owners, facility managers, and others, methods, guidance documents, and technologies to enhance
safety in large buildings and to mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical or biological
materials into indoor air.
Verified two point-of-use drinking water technologies that treat intentionally introduced contaminants in drinking water
supplies for application by commercial and residential users, water supply utilities, and public officials.
Verify two treatment technologies for application in
buildings by commercial and residential users,
utilities, and public officials to treat contaminants in
drinking water supplies.
Prepare ETV evaluations on at least 5 new
technologies for detection, containment, or
decontamination of chemical/biological
contaminants in buildings to help workers select safe
alternatives.
Through SBIR awards, support as least three new
technologies/methods to decontaminate HVAC
systems in smaller commercial buildings or
decontaminate valuable or irreplaceable materials.
Prepare technical guidance for building owners and
facility managers on methods/strategies to minimize
damage to buildings from intentional introduction of
biological/chemical contaminants.
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
verifications
10
verification
4 techs/
method
guidance
FY2005
Pres.
Bud.
FY 2006
Request
verifications
verifications
techs/methods
guidance
PPA-120
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Request
Bud.
A restricted access database of EPA experts with
knowledge, expertise, and experience for use by
EPA to rapidly assess health and ecological impacts
focused on safe buildings and water security.
Risk assessment toolbox to predict and reduce the
consequences of chemical/biological attacks in U.S.
cities.
Technical guidance for water system owners and
operators on methods/strategies for minimizing
damage from intentional introduction of
biological/chemical contaminants
Water system-related case studies that provide a
spectrum of contingency planning situations and
responses, including one specifically focused on the
National Capital area
Comprehensive guidance document for building
owners and managers on restoration of buildings
after terrorist contamination with biological or
chemical hazards
Guidance document for emergency and remedial
response personnel and water utility operators for
the restoration of water systems after terrorist
contamination with biological or chemical hazards
Comprehensive guidance package including data,
methodologies, and other risk assessment tools that
will assist emergency responders in establishing
remediation goals at incident sites
1 database database
toolbox
09/30/05 tech. guidance
09/30/05 case studies
1 Guidance
1 Guidance
1 Guidance
PPA-121
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Background: EPA's homeland security research provides appropriate, effective, and rapid risk assessment guidelines and technologies
to help decision-makers prepare for, detect, contain, and decontaminate building and water treatment systems against
which chemical and/or biological attacks have been directed. The Agency intends to expand the state of the knowledge of
potential threats, as well as its response capabilities, by assembling and evaluating private sector tools and capabilities so
that preferred response approaches can be identified, promoted, and evaluated for future use by first responders, decision-
makers, and the public. This APG will provide guidance documents for the restoration of buildings and water systems
and the establishment of remediation goals. These products will enable first responders to better deal with threats to the
public and the environment posed by the intentional release of toxic or infectious materials.
PPA-122
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
GOAL: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Improve environmental performance through compliance with environmental requirements, preventing pollution, and promoting environmental
stewardship. Protect human health and the environment by encouraging innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the
public that promote environmental stewardship.
OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2008, strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting environmental policies and decisions on compliance, pollution
prevention, and environmental stewardship.
Research
New Technologies
In 2006 Provide appropriate and credible performance information about new, commercial-ready environmental technology that
influences users to purchase effective environmental technology in the U.S. and abroad.
In 2005 By FY 2005, complete thirty verifications and four testing protocols for a program cumulative total of 280 verifications
and 88 testing protocols for new environmental technologies so that, by 2009, appropriate and credible performance
information about new, commercial-ready environmental technology is available that influences users to purchase
effective environmental technology in the US and abroad.
In 2004 Verified 35 air, water, greenhouse gas, and monitoring technologies so that States, technology purchasers, and the public
will have highly credible data and performance analyses on which to make technology selection decisions.
In 2003 Developed 10 testing protocols and completed 40 technology verifications for a cumulative Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) program total of 230 to aid industry, states, and consumers in choosing effective technologies to
protect the public and environment from high risk pollutants.
In 2002 EPA formalized generic testing protocols for technology performance verification, and provided additional performance
verifications of pollution prevention, control and monitoring technologies in all environmental media.
PPA-123
-------
In 2001
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
EPA developed, evaluated, and delivered technologies and approaches that eliminate, minimize, or control high risk
pollutants from multiple sectors. Delivery of the evaluative report on the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
pilot program is delayed until FY 2002.
Performance Measures
Deliver a Report to Congress on the status and
effectiveness of the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program during its first five
years.
Complete 20 stakeholder approved and peer-
reviewed test protocols in all environmental
technology categories under ETV, and provide them
to testing organizations world-wide.
Verify and provide information to States, technology-
purchasers, and the public on 40 air, water, pollution
prevention and monitoring technologies for an ETV
programmatic total of 230 verifications.
Complete an additional 10 stakeholder approved and
peer-reviewed test protocols in all environmental
technology categories under ETV, and provide them
to international testing organizations.
Through the ETV program, verify the performance
of 35 commercial-ready environmental technologies.
Verifications completed
Testing protocols completed
Percent of respondents to survey of vendors of ETV-
verified technologies stating that ETV information
positively influenced sales and/or vendor innovation.
FY2001
Actuals
0
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003
Actuals
FY2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
FY 2006
Request
20
40
10
35
verification
15
2
report
protocols
verifications
protocols
verifications
verifications
protocols
60% Respondents
PPA-124
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Background: Actual environmental risk reduction can be directly related to performance and effectiveness of environmental
technologies purchased and used. Private sector technology developers produce almost all the new technologies
purchased in the U.S. and around the world. Purchasers and permitters of environmental technologies need an
independent, objective, high quality source of performance information in order to make more informed decisions; and
vendors with innovative, improved, faster, and cheaper environmental technologies need a reliable source of independent
evaluation to be able to penetrate the environmental technology market. EPA's Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) program develops testing protocols for, and verifies the effectiveness of, new environmental technologies. EPA has
designed surveys of vendors, purchasers, and permitters to determine ETV's impact on 1) vendor sales and technology
innovation, 2) purchase decisions, and 3) permitting/regulatory-related decisions. The surveys will also attempt to gather
information that can be used to assess vendor satisfaction with the verification process, the value placed on verification by
vendors and others, and that will quantify any added efficiencies or benefits (either cost or time) that verification provides
to innovative technologies entering the environmental marketplace. The information collected during the surveys will
allow the ETV program to further confirm its valuable role in encouraging the use of improved environmental
technologies, as well as provide information that can be used to refine or redirect future verification efforts. These surveys
are complemented by an ongoing Web site survey designed to assess customer satisfaction with ETV's web site, as well as
ongoing efforts to develop additional case studies highlighting various potential impacts, or outcomes, associated with the
use of verified technologies.
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE
By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and
enforcement by achieving a 5 percent increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5 percent
increase in the number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices. (Baseline to be determined for
2005.)
Non-Compliance Reduction
In 2006 Through monitoring and enforcement actions, EPA will increase complying actions, pollutant reduction or treatment, and
improve environmental management practices (EMP).
In 2005 Through monitoring and enforcement actions, EPA will increase complying actions, pollutant reduction or treatment, and
improve environmental management practices (EMP).
In 2004 EPA focused its enforcement actions in areas with the greatest potential to protect human health and the environment by
identifying significant environmental, public health, and compliance problems. The enforcement actions taken required
PPA-125
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
defendants to reduce, treat, or eliminate illegal emissions and discharges, establish improved EMPs that will help to detect
and prevent potential future non-compliance. The level of inspections and investigations maintained an effective deterrent
to violations of federal environmental laws.
In 2003
In 2002
In 2001
Performance Measures
EPA directed enforcement actions to maximize compliance and address environmental and human health problems.
Based upon one measure, this APG was not met.
EPA directed enforcement actions to maximize compliance and address environmental and human health problems.
Millions of pounds of pollutants required to be
reduced through enforcement actions settled this
fiscal year, (core optional)
Number of EPA inspections conducted (core
required)
Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated,
or eliminated as a result of concluded enforcement
actions.
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases
requiring that pollutants be reduced, treated, or
eliminated and protection of populations or
ecosystems.
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases
requiring implementation of improved
environmental management practices.
Number of inspections, civil investigations and
criminal investigations conducted.
Dollars invested in improved env. performance or
improved EMP as a result of concluded enforcement
FY2001
Actuals
660
17,812
FY 2002 FY 2003
Actuals Actuals
261
17668
600
18,880
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
1,000
21,000
300
30
60
300
30
60
M pounds
inspections
million
pounds
Percentage
percentage
18,500 18,500 insp&inv.
4 billion 3.8 billion Dollars
PPA-126
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
actions (i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs)
Percentage of regulated entities taking complying
actions as a result of on-site compliance inspections
and evaluations..
Percent of concluded enforcement actions that
require an action that results in environmental
benefits and/or changes in facility management or
information practices.
Number of Criminal Investigations
Number of Civil Investigations
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003
Actuals
FY2004
Actuals
FY 2005 FY 2006
Pres. Bud. Request
10
29
79
482
368
77
484
541
63
471
344
83
425
455
percentage
Percent
Investigation
s
Investigation
s
Baseline: Protecting the public and the environment from risks posed by violations of environmental requirements is basic to EPA's
mission. To develop a more complete picture of the results of the enforcement and compliance program, EPA has
initiated a number of performance measures designed to capture the results of monitoring and concluded enforcement
cases. These results address complying actions, pollutant reduction, and improved environmental management practices.
Baselines to be detemined in 2005.
Compliance Incentives
In 2006 Through self-disclosure policies, EPA will increase the percentage of audits or other actions reducing pollutants or
improving EMP.
In 2005 Through self-disclosure policies, EPA will increase the percentage of facilities reducing pollutants or improving EMP.
In 2004 EPA offered an incentive program of reduced or eliminated penalties for facilities that conduct voluntary self-audits, and
report and correct violations. These incentives are often used in targeted initiatives directed at specific industrial sectors
and are occasionally developed in collaboration with the industry or industry associations. Since 2001, the incentives
programs have helped return thousands of facilities to compliance, furthering environmental stewardship through the
provision of information, incentives and innovative approaches to reduce or eliminate pollution.
PPA-127
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2003
In 2002
In 2001
Performance Measures
Increased opportunities through new targeted sector initiatives for industries to voluntarily self-disclose and correct
violations on a corporate-wide basis.
The number of facilities that participated in voluntary self-audit programs, disclosed and corrected violations greatly
exceeded the target.
EPA increased opportunities through targeted sector initiatives for industries to use one of the self-disclosure policies.
Percentage of audits or other actions that result in
the reduction, treatment, or elimination of pollutants
and the protection of populations or ecosystems.
Percentage of audits or other actions that result in
improvements in environmental management
practices.
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated,
as a result of audits or other actions.
Dollars invested in improved environmental
performance or improved environmental
management practices as a result of audits or other
actions.
Facilities voluntarily self-disclose and correct
violations with reduced or no penalty as a result of
EPA self-disclosure policies.
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003
Actuals
FY2004
Actuals
1754
1467
848
969
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
5
10
0.25
million
FY 2006
Request
5
60
0.25
million
percentage
Percentage
Pounds
2 million 2 million dollars
Facilities
Baseline: EPA developed the Audit Policy to encourage corporate audits and subsequent correction of self-discovered violations.
The Small Business Policy and the Small Community Policy also promote voluntary self-disclosure and correction of
violations. These performance measures show the results of these incentive policies such as pollutant reductions and
improved environmental management practices. Baselines to be determined in 2005.
PPA-128
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Regulated Communities
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Performance Measures
Through compliance assistance, EPA will increase the understanding of regulated entities, improve Environmental
Management Practices, and reduce pollutants.
Through compliance assistance, EPA will increase the understanding of regulated entities, improve Environmental
Management Practices, and reduce pollutants.
EPA continues to increase the regulated community's understanding of environmental regulations and improve facility
environmental management practices by providing direct and practical assistance through the Compliance Clearinghouse,
Compliance Assistance Centers, and direct assistance at the facility level or through state and local workshops.
Increased the regulated community's compliance with environmental requirements through their expanded use of
compliance assistance. The Agency continued to support small business compliance assistance centers and developed
compliance assistance tools such as sector notebooks and compliance guides.
Number of facilities, states, technical assistance
providers or other entities reached through targeted
compliance assistance (core optional)
Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance
from EPA-sponsored CA centers and clearinghouse
reporting that they improved EMP as a result of their
use of the centers or the clearinghouse.
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct
compliance assistance from EPA reporting that they
improved EMP as a result of EPA assistance.
% of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-
sponsored CA centers and clearinghouse reporting
that they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution as
a result of that resource.
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
721,000 731,000
60
50
25
65
Entities
percentage
30 Percentage
40 Percentage
PPA-129
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
% of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-
sponsored CA centers and clearinghouse reporting
that they increased their understanding of env.
rqmts. as a result of their use of the resources.
% of regulated entities receiving direct CA from
EPA reporting that they increased their
understanding of env. rqmts. as a result of EPA
assistance.
% of regulated entities receiving direct assistance
from EPA reporting that they reduced, treated, or
eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA assistance.
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
75
65
25
75
80
10
Percentage
percentage
percentage
Baseline: EPA provides compliance assistance to the regulated community and partners. EPA supports initiatives targeted towards
compliance in specific industrial and commercial sectors with certain regulatory requirements. Compliance assistance
ranges from on-line Compliance Assistance Centers to direct on-site assistance. Baseline to be determined in 2005.
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH POLLUTION PREVENTION AND
INNOVATION
By 2008, improve environmental protection and enhance natural resource conservation on the part of government, business, and the public
through the adoption of pollution prevention and sustainable practices that include the design of products and manufacturing processes
that generate less pollution, the reduction of regulatory barriers, and the adoption of results-based, innovative, and multimedia approaches.
Reducing PBTs in Hazardous Waste Streams
In 2006 Reduce pollution in business operations.
PPA-130
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Number of pounds reduced (in millions) in 1.2 pounds
generation of priority list chemicals from 2001 million
baseline of 88 million pounds
Baseline: In FY 2001, the baseline of priority chemicals in waste streams was established at 88 million pounds. The FY 2008 goal
is a reduction of 8.8 million pounds (10%).
Innovation Activities
In 2006 Performance Track members collectively will achieve an annual reduction of: 600 million gallons in water use; 2.5
million MMBTUs in energy use; 15,000 tons of solid waste; 20,000 tons materials reduced; 6,000 tons of air releases; and
10,000 tons in water discharges, compared with 2001 results.
In 2005 Performance Track members collectively will achieve an annual reduction of: 600 million gallons in water use; 2.5
million MMBTUs in energy use; 15,000 tons of solid waste; 6,000 tons of air releases; and 10,000 tons in water
discharges, compared with 2001 results.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Specific annual reductions in 5 media/resource 5 6 media
areas: water use, energy use, solid waste, air reductions
releases, and water discharges.
Baseline: For Performance Track, the baseline year is 2001. Performance will be measured against the 2001 baseline annual
reduction of 475 M gallons of water use, 0.24 million MMBTUs of energy use, 150,000 tons of solid waste, 1,113 tons of
air releases, 6,870 tons of water discharges, and an increase of 2,154 tons of materials.
Reduction of Industrial / Commercial Chemicals
In 2006 Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and improve environmental stewardship practices.
PPA-131
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
In 2005 Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and improve environmental stewardship practices.
In 2004 FY 2004 data will be avail, in FY 2006 to verify whether the quantity of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) pollutants
released, disposed of, treated or combusted for energy recovery in 2004, (normalized for changes in industrial production)
was reduced by 200 million pounds, or 2%, from 2002.
In 2003 FY 2003 data will be avail, in 2005 to verify the quantity of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) pollutants released, disposed
of, treated or combusted for energy recovery in 2003, (normalized for changes in industrial production) will be reduced by
200 million pounds, or 2%, from 2002.
In 2002 The quantity of TRI pollutants released, disposed of, treated or combusted for energy recovery in 2002 (normalized for
changes in industrial production) increased by 366 million pounds of TRI pollutants, or 2% from 2001.
In 2001 No conclusions can be drawn regarding changes in TRI Non-recycled wastes from calendar year 2000 to calendar year
2001 without data.
Performance Measures
Reduction of TRI non-recycled waste (normalized)
Alternative feed stocks, processes, or safer products
identified through Green Chemistry Challenge
Award
Quantity of hazardous chemicals/solvents eliminated
through the Green Chemistry Challenge Awards
Program
For eco-friendly detergents, track the number of
laundry detergent formulations developed.
FY2001
Actuals
-464 M
Lbs
FY2002
Actuals
366 M
Lbs
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005 FY 2006
Pres. Bud. Request
429
460
38
Ibs
Prod/proc
(cum)
Ibs
formulations
Percent reduction in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
reported toxic chemical releases at Federal Facilities.
32%
40%
Releases
(Cum)
PPA-132
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Percent reduction in both Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) chemical releases to the environment from the
business sector per unit of production ("Clean
Index")
Percent reduction in TRI chemicals in production-
related wastes generated by the business sector per
unit of production ("Green Index").
Reduction in overall pounds of pollution.
Millions of dollars saved through reductions in
pollution.
Annual cumulative quantity of water conserved.
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
20% 28%
10%
Releases
(Cum)
14% Waste (Cum)
34 Billion 42 billion Pounds
(Cum)
134 $170 Dollars
Million million (Cum)
1.5 billion 1.5 billion Gallons
Billions of BTUs of energy conserved.
143
Billion
175
billion
BTUs (Cum)
Baseline: The baseline for the TRI non-recycled wastes measure is the amount of non-recycled wastes in 2001 reported FY2003.
The baseline for eco-friendly detergents is 0 formulations in 1997. The baseline for the alternative feed stocks / processes
measure is zero in 2000. The baseline for the quantity of hazardous chemicals / solvents measures is zero pounds in the
year 2000. The baseline for the hospitals measure is zero in FY2001. The baseline reference point for reductions of
pollution and conservation of BTUs and water will be zero for 2003. The baseline for money saved will be 2003. The
baseline for reduction in CO2 will be zero for 1996. The baseline for the Clean and Green Index would be 2001 levels.
The baseline for chemical releases is 2001 level. The baseline for chemical production related wastes is 2001 level. Note:
Several output measures were changed to internal-only reporting status in 2005. Annual Performance measures under
development for EPA's Environmentally Preferable Purchasing program for the FY2006 Annual Performance Plan.
PPA-133
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
OBJECTIVE: BUILD TRIBAL CAPACITY
Through 2008, assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment, help in building their capacity to
implement environmental programs where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and implement programs in Indian country
where needed to address environmental issues.
Tribal Environmental Baseline/Environmental Priority
In 2006 Assist federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment, help in building their capacity to
implement environmental programs where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and implement programs in
Indian country where needed to address environmental issues.
In 2005 Assist federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment, help in building their capacity to
implement environmental programs where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and implement programs in
Indian country where needed to address environmental issues.
In 2004 86% of Tribes have an environmental presence (e.g. one or more persons to assist in building Tribal capacity to develop
and implement environmental programs)
In 2003 In 2003, AIEO evaluated non-Federal sources of environmental data pertaining to conditions in Indian Country to enrich
the Tribal Baseline Assessment Project.
In 2002 A cumulative total of 331 environmental assessments have been completed.
In 2001 Baseline environmental assessments were collected for 207 Tribes.
Performance Measures
Increase tribes' ability to develop environmental
program capacity of federally recognized tribes that
have access to an environmental presence.
Develop or integrate EPA and interagency data
systems to facilitate the use of EPA Tribal Enterprise
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
90 89 % Tribes
10 Systems
PPA-134
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Performance Measures
Architecture information in setting environmental
priorities and informing policy decisions.
Eliminate data gaps for environmental conditions for
major water, land, and air programs as determined
through the availability of information in the EPA
Tribal Enterprise Architecture.
Increase implementation of environmental programs
in Indian country by program delegations, approvals,
or primacies issued to tribes and direct
implementation activities by EPA.
Increase the number of EPA-approved quality
assurance plans for tribal environmental monitoring
and assessment activities. (Baseline 243)
Increase the percent of tribes w/ multimedia
programs reflecting traditional use of natural
resources.
Environmental assessments for Tribes, (cumulative)
Non-federal sources of environmental data
pertaining to conditions in Indian Country.
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
FY2003
Actuals
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
207
331
20
17 % Data Gap
159 169 Programs
271 280 Plans
30 %
Agreements
Tribes, etc.
Data sources
Baseline: There are 572 tribal entities eligible for GAP program funding.
assessments of their lands will be conducted.
These entities are the ones for which environmental
PPA-135
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ENABLING/SUPPORT PROGRAMS
NPM: Office for Administration and Resources Management
Energy Consumption Reduction
In 2006 By 2006, EPA will achieve a 20% energy consumption reduction from 1990 in its 21 laboratories. A 20% energy
consumption reduction from 1990 represents progress towards the 2010 requirement of a 25% energy consumption
reduction from the 1990 base. The reductions include Green Power purchases.
In 2005 By 2005, EPA will achieve a 20% energy consumption reduction from 1990 in its 21 laboratories which is in line to meet
the 2005 requirement of a 20% reduction from the 1990 base. This includes Green Power purchases.
In 2004 (Actual data available in 2005.) By 2004, EPA will achieve a 16% energy consumption reduction from 1990 in its 21
laboratories which is in line to meet the 2005 requirement of a 20% reduction from the 1990 base. This includes Green
Power purchases.
In 2003 The Agency achieved 15.3% energy consumption reduction from 1990 in its 21 laboratories.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Cumulative percentage reduction in energy 15.3 Data 20 20 Percent
consumption (from 1990). avail. In
2005
Baseline: In FY 2000, energy consumption of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot is 320,000 BTUs per square foot.
PPA-136
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ENABLING/SUPPORT PROGRAMS
NPM: Office of Environmental Information
Information Exchange Network
In 2006 Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-making
through the Central Data Exchange (CDX).
In 2005 Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-making
through the Central Data Exchange (CDX).
In 2004 Significant progress has been made in developing the Exchange Network over the past three years. The numbers of
Exchange Network nodes and data flows have increased making it possible to exchange and integrate large volumes of
environmental data to enhance environmental decision-making. A key component to the Network is EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) and its ability to facilitate data exchange and information sharing. As a result, EPA has experienced a
tremendous growth in users of CDX and the Network.
In 2003 Continued to improve data access to ensure that decision makers have access to the environmental data that EPA collects
and manages to make sound environmental decisions while minimizing the reporting burden on data providers.
In 2002 The Central Data Exchange (CDX), a key component of the environmental information exchange network, became fully
operational and 45 states are using it to send data to EPA; thereby improving data consistency with participating states.
Performance Measures
States using the Central Data Exchange (CDX) to
send data to EPA.
CDX will fully support electronic data exchange
requirements for major EPA environmental systems,
enabling faster receipt, processing, and quality
checking of data.
States will be able to exchange data with CDX
through state nodes in real time, using new web-
FY2001
Actuals
FY2002
Actuals
45
FY 2003
Actuals
49
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
12
40
18
50
States
Systems
States
PPA-137
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ENABLING/SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Performance Measures
based data standards that allow for automated data-
quality checking.
States, tribes, laboratories, and others will choose to
use CDX to report environmental data electronically
to EPA, taking advantage of automated data quality
checks and on-line customer support.
Customer help desk calls are resolved in a timely
manner.
In preparation for increasing the exchange of
information through CDX, implement four data
standards in 13 major systems and develop four
additional standards in 2003.
Number of private sector and local government
entities, such as water authorities, will use CDX to
exchange environmental data with EPA.
CDX offers online data exchange for all major
national systems by the end of FY 2004.
Number of states using CDX as the means by which
they routinely exchange environmental data with
two or more EPA media programs or Regions.
FY2001 FY2002 FY 2003
Actuals Actuals Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005 FY 2006
Pres. Bud. Request
20,000 47,000 Users
96
96
7,050
13
49
Percent
Data
Standards
Entities
Systems
States
Baseline: The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001.
Data Quality
In 2006 EPA will improve the quality and scope of information available to the public for environmental decision-making.
In 2005 EPA will improve the quality and scope of information available to the public for environmental decision-making.
PPA-138
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ENABLING/SUPPORT PROGRAMS
In 2004 EPA developed a management report on options for enhancing access to the next Report on the Environment by making it
easily available electronically.
In 2003 The public had access to a wide range of Federal, state, and local information about local environmental conditions and
features in an area of their choice.
In 2002 100% of the publicly available facility data from EPA's national systems accessible on the EPA Website is part of the
Integrated Error Correction Process; thereby reducing data error.
Performance Measures
Publicly available facility data from EPA's national
systems, accessible on the EPA Website, will be part
of the Integrated Error Correction Process.
Establish an improved suite of environmental
indicators for use by EPA's programs and partners in
the Agency's strategic planning and performance
measurement process.
Responders to the baseline questionnaire on
customer satisfaction on the EPA Website report
overall satisfaction with their visit to EPA.GOV.
Window-to-My Environment is nationally deployed
and provides citizens across the country with
Federal, state, and local environmental information
specific to an area of their choice.
Establish the baseline for the suite of indicators that
are used by EPA's programs and partners in the
Agency's strategic planning and performance
measurement process.
FY2001
Actuals
FY 2002
Actuals
100
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
60
Nationally
Percent
Report
Percent
Deployed
Report
PPA-139
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ENABLING/SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Baseline: An effort to develop a State of the Environment report based on environmental indicators was initiated in FY 2002.
Information Security
In 2006 OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
In 2002
Performance Measures
EPA has made significant progress over the last 4 years in improving its information security program. For example, EPA
succeeded for a second year in achieving 100% intrusion detection, and the Agency's compliance with OMB's security
program criteria increased from 75% in FY 2003 to 91% in FY 2004.
OMB reported that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
Completed risk assessments on the Agency's critical infrastructure systems (12), critical financial systems (13), and
mission critical environmental systems (5).
FY2001
Actuals
Critical infrastructure systems risk assessment
findings will be formally documented and
transmitted to systems owners and managers in a
formal Risk Assessment document.
Critical financial systems risk assessment findings
will be formally documented and transmitted to
systems owners and managers in a formal Risk
Assessment document.
Mission critical environmental systems risk
assessment findings will be formally documented
and transmitted to systems owners and managers in
a formal Risk Assessment document.
FY2002
Actuals
12
13
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Systems
Systems
Systems
PPA-140
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ENABLING/SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Performance Measures
FY2001
Actuals
FY2002
Actuals
Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB to
assess Agency security programs reported annually
to OMB under Federal Information Security
Management Act/Govt. Information Security
Reform Act.
Percent of intrusion detection monitoring sensors
installed and operational.
FY 2003
Actuals
75
FY 2004
Actuals
91
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
75
FY2006
Request
90
Percent
75
100
Percent
Baseline:
In FY 2002, the Agency started planning an effort to expand and strengthen its information security infrastructure.
PPA-141
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ENABLING/SUPPORT PROGRAMS
NPM: Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Strengthen EPA's Management
In 2006 Strengthen EPA's management services in support of the Agency's mission while addressing the challenges included in
the President's Management Agenda
In 2005 Strengthen EPA's management services in support of the Agency's mission while addressing the challenges included in
the President's Management Agenda
In 2004 EPA met pre-established Agency or Government-wide performance goals.
In 2003 EPA made progress to strengthen its management services and support the President's Management Agenda in the areas of
workforce planning and financial management.
In 2002 EPA prepared and submitted its FY 2001 financial statements and received a clean audit opinion.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Agency audited Financial Statements are timely, and Goal Met 1111 Finan
receive an unqualified opinion. statement
The number of financial and resource performance 14 14 14 Metrics
metrics where the Agency has met pre-established
Agency or Government-wide performance goals.
Baseline: The Agency's audited FY 2004 Financial Statements will be submitted on time to OMB and receive an unqualified
opinion.
PPA-142
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ENABLING/SUPPORT PROGRAMS
NPM: Office of Inspector General
Fraud Detection and Deterrence
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
In 2002
Performance Measures
In 2006, the OIG will improve Agency business and program operations by identifying 240 recommendations, potential
savings and recoveries equal to 150 percent of the annual investment in the OIG, 108 actions for better business
operations, and 80 criminal, civil, or administrative actions reducing risk or loss of integrity.
In 2005, the OIG will improve Agency business and operations by identifying 240 recommendations, potential savings
and recoveries equal to 150 percent of the annual investment in the OIG, 102 actions for better business operations, and
80 criminal, civil, or administrative actions reducing risk or loss of integrity.
The OIG exceeded its annual targets except it only achieved a 48% potential dollar return on its budget.
In the Annual Performance Report, our results for this APG were combined with the results for the APG on Audit and
Advisory Services.
OIG is promoting partnering relationships across governmental entities for collaborative goal setting planning
performance measurement evaluation and resource sharing for greater economies of scale. OIG in collaboration w/PCIE
produced an environmental compendium a web enabled catalogue of federal
Number of improved business practices and systems.
Number of criminal, civil, and administrative
actions.
Number of business recommendations, risks, and
best practices identified.
Return on the annual dollar investment in the OIG.
FY2001
Actuals
FY2002
Actuals
120
FY 2003
Actuals
856
FY 2004
Actuals
133
108
390
48
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
102
80
240
150
FY2006
Request
108
80
240
150
Improvements
Actions
Recommenda-
tions
Percent
PPA-143
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6-YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA: ENABLING/SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Baseline: In FY 2002, the OIG established a baseline of 150 business recommendations, 70 improved business practices, and 50
criminal, civil, and administrative actions for improving Agency management; and a 100% potential dollar return on the
investment in the OIG from savings and recoveries.
Audit and Advisory Services
In 2006 In 2006, the OIG will contribute to improved environmental quality and human health by identifying 105 environmental
recommendations, risks, best practices, or opportunities for improvement; contributing to the reduction or elimination of
28 environmental or infrastructure security risks; and 50 actions influencing environmental improvements or program
changes.
In 2005 In 2005, the OIG will contribute to improved environmental quality and human health by identifying 95 environmental
recommendations, risks, best practices, or opportunities for improvement; contributing to the reduction or elimination of
23 environmental or infrastructure security risks; and 45 actions influencing environmental improvements or program
changes.
In 2004 The OIG exceeded the targets for this goal by including measures of results in promoting economy and efficiency and
preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in EPA programs and operation in addition to measures of environmental
recommendations and improvement.
In 2003 Improved environmental quality and human health by identifying 312 environmental recommendations, risks, and best
practices; contributing to the reduction of 92 environmental risks, and 185 actions influencing positive environmental or
health impacts.
Performance Measures FY2001 FY 2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Pres. Bud. Request
Number of environmental risks reduced. 92 45 23 28 Risks
Number of environmental actions. 185 49 45 50 Improvement
s
Number of environmental recommendations, risks, 312 116 95 105 Recommenda
and best practices identified. -tions
Baseline: In FY 2002, the OIG established a baseline of: 75 recommendations, best practices and risks identified contributing to
improved Agency environmental goals; 15 environmental actions; and the reduction of 15 environmental risks.
PPA-144
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Introduction
EPA continues to emphasize eefficiency and its measurement. Efficiency measures relate
program results to the resources invested or time spent to achieve those results. These measures
augment effectiveness measures, and are intended to provide additional information that can be
used for sound decision-making and program management. One of EPA's milestones under the
President's Management Agenda is to have at least one efficiency measure for each program that
has gone through the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process. Below are efficiency
measures that are in place or planned for FY 2006.
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Acid Rain: The program is following through on plans to develop "efficiency measures to track
overall program efficiency." We have been developing and evaluating various metrics for
assessing and tracking program efficiency. The efficiency measure will be anchored to the
annual and/or long-term program performance measures for the Acid Rain Program (e.g., SO2
emissions reduced, % change in sulfur and nitrogen deposition in acid sensitive regions, %
change in number of chronically acidic lakes and streams).
Air Toxics: As a result of the FY 2006 PART, EPA has developed a new efficiency measure
that will report cumulative reductions of toxicity-weighted emissions per EPA and industry
dollars spent. Reporting will include toxicity-weighted emission reductions, differentiating
between cancer and noncancer risk. Baseline and targets for the efficiency measure are under
development.
Mobile Sources: As a result of the FY 2006 PART, EPA has added two efficiency measures.
The first will measure the average time (in days) from receipt of certification application to
approval for three categories of large engines. Program costs will be monitored by a
supplemental measure of program dollars per heavy-duty certificate. The first milestone for this
measure is a 50% improvement by 2012. The second efficiency measure will calculate the
cumulative reduction in tons of pollution from mobile sources per dollars spent by EPA and
industry. Baseline and targets for the second measure are under development.
Climate Change: As a result of the FY 2006 PART, EPA has added an efficiency measure
MMTCE reduced per societal dollar spent. This measure will be reported for each of three
sectors: Buildings, Industry, and Transportation. We will assume that private spending is equal
to private savings, resulting in zero net private spending. Consequently, total societal spending
is equal to Federal spending.
PPA-145
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Stratospheric Ozone: For the stratospheric ozone program, an efficiency measure will be
estimated by reporting cumulative ozone depleting potential (ODP)-weighted tons of emissions
reduced per cumulative dollars spent.
Particulate Matter Research: An efficiency measure for this program is under development.
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): The DWSRF has three efficiency
measures. The first is shared with the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and
Underground Injection Control grants programs: People receiving drinking water in compliance
with health-based drinking water standards per million dollars. Dollars included in this measure
will be based on federal (grant and EPM) and state matching funds (required and additional).
The second measure is: Dollars per community water system in compliance with health-based
drinking water standards. The third measure is: Cumulative number of projects initiating
operations per cumulative dollars (in billions).
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Grants: The PWSS grant program has two
efficiency measures. The first is common with DWSRF and UIC Grants: People receiving
drinking water in compliance with health-based drinking water standards per million dollars.
Dollars included in the measure will be based on federal (grant and EPM) and state matching
funds (required and additional). The second is: Dollars per community water system in
compliance with health-based drinking water standards.
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Grants: The UIC program has two efficiency
measures. The first is a common measure with DWSRF and PWSS grants: People receiving
drinking water in compliance with health-based drinking water standards per million dollars.
Dollars included in the measure will be based on federal (grant and EPM) and state matching
funds (required and additional). The second is: Dollars per well to move Class V wells back into
compliance. This measure includes only those Class V wells that are in significant violation of
regulations. The total cost per state to move Class V wells back to compliance will be the cost of
all labor and materials. A Measure Development and Implementation Plan was also created.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): The program has developed two efficiency
measures. Measure Development and Implementation Plans have also been developed.
Number of waterbodies restored or improved per million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided.
Number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of CWSRF assistance provided.
Nonpoint Source: An efficiency measure has been developed in response to PART. The
measure is Section 319 funds expended per partially of fully restored waterbody. The target for
PPA-146
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
the long-term efficiency measure (including 319 funds and state match) is $4.7 million per
restored waterbody.
Alaska Native Villages: The efficiency measure presented is number of households served with
wastewater and drinking water systems per million dollars (EPA and State). A Measure
Development and Implementation Plan has also been developed.
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
RCRA program (base program, permits and grants): Efficiency will be tracked via the
comparison of facilities under control with private and public sector costs. Hazardous waste
permits and approved controls demonstrate that waste management facilities have met standards
or permit conditions that are based on human health or environmental standards (e.g., air
emissions are controlled to safe levels; controls against accidental waste releases are in place;
treatment of wastes is assured to the best levels that can be practically achieved; and disposal
sites meet performance standards to ensure long term isolation of the wastes.). The efficiency
measure compares the number of facilities that have permits or approved controls in place with a
three-year rolling average of public and private sector costs. EPA will begin reporting this
information in FY 2006.
Superfund Removal: Number of people protected from exposure per million dollars expended
on removal actions. This measure is still in the conceptual development phase. The current
proposal will determine how many people are protected per dollar spent on removal actions. The
number of people protected due to removal actions will be based on the proposed program
outcome measure. The number of people protected for this efficiency measure will then be
divided by the dollars spent on those removal actions.
The challenges posed by outliers and sample variability will be considered as this measure is
developed and assessed. First, a subset of removal actions may be selected for the efficiency
measure by eliminating statistical outliers; removal actions that are too small or too large may
skew the efficiency analysis. Second, removal actions may be subdivided by type or size for the
efficiency analysis.
Another option being considered for the numerator for this efficiency measure is a program-wide
index that is based on removal actions, protected populations, and preparedness activities. This
may more accurately reflect overall program activity and progress, but presents challenges in
trying to combine preparedness and response activities.
Further evaluation of these measures will continue through FY 2005. The program intends to
collect baseline information and begin measure implementation in FY 2006.
Superfund Remedial Action: The Superfund program has initiated efforts to develop one or
more outcome-oriented efficiency measures. Currently a feasibility study is underway to
PPA-147
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
determine the feasibility of using the measures Human Exposures Under Control, Contaminated
Groundwater Migration Under Control, or Construction Completions as the basis for both annual
and long-term outcome efficiency measures. During FY 2005, the program intends to complete
the feasibility study and use the results to determine which measures to study and develop
further. These efforts will:
X Focus on better defining both the numerator component and denominator components
X Assess the usefulness of each measure
X Assess the appropriateness of each measure
X Assess the simplicity (ease of understanding and communication) of each measure.
Implementation and collection of baseline data will occur in FY 2006.
The Superfund program is also monitoring the percentage of total Superfund appropriated
resources which are obligated site-specifically each year. The Superfund program has used
Agency accounting data to determine program obligations and then employ well-defined
algorithms to categorize whether obligations were site-specific or not. The baseline was set at
the end of FY 2004. In FY 2006 the program will initiate an evaluation of measure data and
methodology, run tests, determine out-year targets, and begin reporting accomplishments.
RCRA Corrective Action: A comparison of the number of final remedy components
constructed at RCRA Corrective Action facilities with public and private sector cleanup costs.
The RCRAinfo database currently includes a field associated with the successful construction of
stabilization measures (CA650). The program could either adapt this data field or create a new
field associated with tracking individual final remedy components that collectively would lead to
a site-wide construction completion measure. In FY 2006 the program will collect baseline
information on the number of final remedy components constructed nationally.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: The program will compare the number of leaking
underground storage tank cleanups completed over a three-year rolling average with public and
private sector cleanup costs in order to measure program efficiency. This measure is likely to be
near term and is subject to change as the status of state fund/deductibles, LUST Trust Fund
appropriations and cleanup trends/impediments change in the national program. The program
estimates that the number of cleanups completed are likely to become more difficult as the
remaining backlog of sites are more technically complex. The UST program has studies
underway with the state programs to analyze the impacts of this trend on the program. The
results of these studies may illustrate the need for an updated leaking UST program measure. In
FY 2006 the program intends to establish a new baseline that will incorporate the result of
ongoing studies and surveys, and report on results.
PPA-148
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Pesticides Registration and Reregistration Programs: The efficiency measures presented
for this program set targets for improving decision-making times. Already in place are measures
for reducing reregistration time (issuance of Re-registration Eligibility Decision, or RED) by
twenty percent from the FY 2002 baseline, from the initiation of public participation to the
signed RED. EPA has formalized a measure to track reductions in the registration time for new
active ingredients which meet the criteria for reduced risk pesticides by three percent. The
Agency is also working to implement a measure related to decision costs in FY 2006.
Pesticide Field Programs: EPA has identified three potential efficiency measures that cover the
main aspects of the pesticide field program. The first is the percentage reduction in agricultural
pesticide incidents per program dollar invested. The second is the number of endangered
species highly vulnerable to pesticides that are protected per dollar invested. The third is the
percentage reduction in the number of water sources contaminated by pesticides per dollar
invested.
Toxics Program: The Toxics program is working to develop a number of measures as well. The
emphasis is on efficiency measures, including both the new chemicals and the existing chemicals
programs. For the new chemicals program, Agency plans to reduce its per-chemical review costs
from 2002 levels. This will be accomplished 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 pre-manufacture notices per year. The next step will be to track trends associated with
the review of chemicals undergoing expedited review under the Sustainable Futures effort. This
program is intended to create cost savings for industry; however the "pre-screening" model
should also provide efficiencies for EPA processes. In the Voluntary Children's Chemical
Evaluation Program (VCCEP) the program is working to improve the efficiency of EPA's efforts
to review risks associated with chemicals to which children may be exposed by using a voluntary
VCCEP, which includes an independent scientific peer consultation. A similar efficiency
measure is under development for the High Production Volume Challenge Program (FtPV). By
FY 2006, EPA plans to develop and establish a monitoring system in support of these measures.
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program: The Agency will measure "dollars per labor-hour"
for contract efforts in validating assays for the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP).
The baseline measure will be data from work assignments under a current mission support
contract that expires in January 2006. EPA plans to issue a new multiple awards contract in an
effort to provide increased flexibility in both economic and scientific aspects of the contract. For
the FY 2006 milestone, the second phase of measurement for obtaining baseline data will occur.
This efficiency measure was identified through the FY 2006 PART assessment of the EDSP.
Mexico Border: The efficiency measure under development is "Additional people served per
million dollars (of U.S. and Mexico federal expenditures)." EPA will continue to work on this
PPA-149
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
efficiency measure for the Mexico Border program as part of the follow-up to the FY 2006
PART process.
Brownfields: The program is in the process of developing an improved efficiency measure.
Development of this new measure will be completed in FY 2005.
Ecosystems Protection Research: An efficiency measure for this program is under
development.
Pollution Prevention Research: An efficiency measure for this program is under development.
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Civil Enforcement and Criminal Enforcement: For FY 2006, EPA will continue to use
pounds of pollutants reduced per FTE for the civil and criminal enforcement programs'
efficiency measures.
Pesticide Enforcement Grant Program: The Agency is also developing an efficiency measure
relating the number of enforcement actions taken to their cost (Federal and State). The purpose
of the measure is to determine how efficiently State programs identify pesticide violations. In
FY 2006, EPA plans to work with States and Tribes to establish agreement to collect data and
costs for the measure, and begin the actual data collection. EPA plans to begin reporting on the
new measure starting in FY 2007. The measure will use both State and Federal funding, since
this is a grant program and it is hard to differentiate which State actions are undertaken solely
with Federal dollars.
RCRA program (base program, permits and grants): In addition to the efficiency measure
under Goal 3, the RCRA program will track reductions of priority chemicals contained in
industrial waste streams per federal and private sector cost. Reductions in priority chemicals are
considered to be reductions to potential exposure and risk because priority chemicals are defined
as persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic. Facilities that use one or more of the priority
chemicals commit to specific priority chemical reduction levels. The program will track actual
reductions as facilities progress toward their goals. In addition, the program will work to
develop a more comprehensive understanding of the costs associated with the reductions,
incorporating additional costs as identified, so as to continuously improve the measure. In the
near term, EPA will test a surrogate efficiency measure focusing on the efforts the National
Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP), a voluntary national waste minimization
program. NPEP members are a subset of the total universe of facilities contributing to national
priority chemical reduction trends identified through TRI data analysis. Existing reduction
commitments made by NPEP members will be used to set annual reduction targets, and
reductions achieved from the total universe of facilities contributing to reductions will be
reported annually.
PPA-150
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Tribal General Assistance Program: The number of environmental programs implemented in
Indian Country per million dollars will be used as an efficiency measure. EPA is currently
working with regional offices to evaluate several data sources and identify appropriate variables
in order to produce a measurement that best supports this efficiency measure. The Agency plans
to begin reporting on this measure in FY 2005. The Agency plans to begin data collection for
tribal programs to establish baseline numbers in FY 2006.
Other Programs:
Environmental Information:
EPA plans to track the costs incurred for the Central Data Exchange (CDX) relative to
production system, state node, and CDX user.
EPA plans to track the costs savings for the Central Data Exchange (CDX) relative to
production system, state node, and CDX user.
EPA plans to measure the reduction in staff time in responding to information requests
resulting from investments in the Electronic Content Management System (ECMS).
Regarding information security, the Agency will measure the number of incidents that
occurred from known threats that should have been anticipated relative to the number of
Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) advisories implemented within EPA's
infrastructure.
PPA-151
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
DESCRIPTIONS OF
MEASURE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Introduction
The Agency continues to focus on developing improved performance measures, and is using
tools known as Measure Development and Implementation Plans (MDIPs) to sustain progress.
MDIPs are short plans created in order to address performance measurement problems by
focusing and sustaining attention and resources over the number of years necessary to fully
implement a new measure. An MDIP can be written either for a performance measure that
tracks results (also known as an effectiveness measure), or for an efficiency measure. Brief
descriptions of those MDIPs that relate to FY 2006 are below. Efficiency measures that are
under development may appear both in the preceding Efficiency Measures section and in this
section. All measures under development are subject to change as the Agency completes further
program and data analysis, including the PART evaluation.
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
School Bus: EPA is collecting data from the FY 2003 and FY 2004 school bus retrofit grants.
In addition, we are assessing data from other school bus demonstration projects to develop
projections that relate funding levels to specific program measures such as number of buses
retrofitted or replaced; amount of outside resources leveraged; number of fleets participating in
anti-idling programs, etc. This assessment will allow us to develop specific, output-oriented
measures such as overall number of buses that will be retrofitted each year.
Stratospheric Ozone: As a result of the FY 2006 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
process, we have proposed the following new performance measures: Every five years, we will
report on chlorine loading. In 2050, EPA will report the number of reductions in melanoma and
nonmelanoma skin cancers. Lastly, we are considering an efficiency measure to report on
cumulative tons of ozone depleting pollutant phase-out targets per cumulative costs.
Climate Change: As a result of the FY 2006 PART, EPA has added an efficiency measure:
MMTCE reduced per dollar spent. We will assume that private spending is equal to private
savings, resulting in zero net private spending. Consequently, total societal spending is equal to
Federal spending. The Agency is also working on a Measure Development and Implementation
Plan with milestones.
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Waterborne Illnesses Attributable to Drinking Water: An Agency goal is to enhance and
supplement the waterborne disease surveillance system to enable a more comprehensive
measurement of the number of waterborne illnesses attributable to drinking water. The key
PPA-152
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
indicator of program effectiveness is whether or not fewer people are getting sick as a result of
waterborne illness. Enhanced surveillance data or surrogate indicators are necessary for
estimating more precisely the incidence of waterborne illness in the U.S. and to understand the
link between changes in the incidence of illnesses and the impact of regulations. The long-term
outcome measure used is the number of illnesses attributable to drinking water microbes.
This waterborne illness measure is being developed in response to a recommendation during the
FY 2006 PART process that EPA develop a long-term performance measure, which would track
waterborne illnesses caused by drinking water. While the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) currently tracks outbreaks, the voluntary nature of its reporting system creates
underreporting problems, which presents measurement challenges.
Rural and Native Alaska Water and Sewer Infrastructure Improvements program: The
program is implementing a measure that tracks the percentage of serviceable rural Alaska homes
that are served by drinking water systems that fully meet Safe Drinking Water Act requirements
and are served with wastewater disposal facilities that meet regulatory requirements. The plan is
to determine available data sources and whether additional data collection is needed in order to
establish outcome measure to establish the 2005 baselines. Once the 2005 baselines are
established, the State will be responsible for all data collection. In 2006, EPA will collect data
from the State of Alaska, calculate outcome measures, and report on progress toward targets.
In addition, over the coming year EPA will continue efforts recently begun with the State of
Alaska to refine the proposed efficiency measure, number of households served with wastewater
and drinking water systems per million dollars (EPA and State). EPA and the State will analyze
available data to determine a historical (three year) average of the number of homes served per
million dollars of assistance provided by the Program. Using this average as a baseline, EPA and
the State will negotiate target levels that are ambitious but realistic. Efficiency levels will be
reported independently on water and wastewater measures. Once a historic average has been
derived and target levels have been negotiated, the State will begin reporting efficiency measure
related data to EPA. Data to develop efficiency measure reports will be collected by the State
throughout the year. In 2006, EPA will collect data from the State of Alaska, calculate
efficiency measures, and report on progress toward efficiency target level.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund: The program has developed two efficiency measures.
Measure Development and Implementation Plans have also been developed for the measures
listed below:
Number of waterbodies restored or improved per million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided; and
Number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of CWSRF assistance provided.
Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Attributable to Recreational Water Exposure: By 2008, the
quality of recreational waters nationwide will be protected so that the number of waterborne
PPA-153
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in, or other recreational contact with, the ocean,
rivers, lakes, or streams will be reduced. Since 1971, CDC, EPA and the Council of State and
Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) have maintained a collaborative surveillance system for
tracking the occurrences and causes of waterborne-disease outbreaks. This surveillance system
is the primary source of data concerning the scope and effects of waterborne disease from
drinking water and recreational waters on persons in the United States. EPA will continue to
work with CDC and CSTE to develop an outreach plan to expand participation in the
surveillance system, and will work toward confirming a baseline and targets for 2008 regarding
numbers of outbreaks per year.
Nutrient Levels in Rivers and Streams: Measure development is underway for phosphorus
concentration trends. EPA is committed to reducing phosphorus levels in major rivers, urban
and farmland streams by 2008; progress will be measured via the percentage of USGS test sites
for major rivers, urban streams, and farmland streams at which phosphorus levels are below
levels of concern established by USGS.
Unintentional Introductions of Aquatic Nuisance Species: By 2007, a baseline will be
established against which measures will be made to determine the annual rate of unintentional
introductions of Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of
Mexico coasts. Establishing a baseline will enable EPA to assess the effectiveness of actions
taken to reduce the risk of unintentional ANS introductions.
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Resource Conservation Challenge: Historically, non-hazardous waste reduction efforts focused
heavily on municipal solid waste. In an effort to expand waste-reduction efforts, EPA launched
the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), a new national program to find flexible yet
protective life-cycle approaches to conserve valuable national resources through waste reduction,
recycling, and energy recovery. The program is designed to elicit a response from all
Americans, since we all have opportunities to reduce the waste we produce, increase recycling
and conserve energy. Through the RCC, EPA challenges Americans to make purchases and
disposal decisions that conserve our natural resources, saves energy, reduce costs, and preserve
the environment for future generations. In FY 2006, EPA will achieve baseline information for
development of RCC measures for newly generated scrap tire, existing scrap tire stockpiles, safe
use of coal ash in concrete, and the beneficial use of coal combustion products.
Implementation of the RCRA maximum achievable control technology standards for
combustion: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the management
of hazardous waste generated by industrial processes, and the Clean Air Act (CAA) governs the
control of air emissions from a range of sources. Hazardous waste is combusted for destruction
and/or energy recovery in incinerators, boilers, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns, and
HC1 Production Furnaces. Emissions from these sources have historically been controlled
pursuant to RCRA. EPA is currently transitioning from these RCRA emission requirements to
PPA-154
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
technology-based limitations that are required pursuant to the CAA. The EPA regional offices
work with the states to implement the combustion-related regulations, develop permits, and to
inspect facilities to ensure that emissions limits are not exceeded. A measure will be established
when the rule is promulgated in FY 2008.
Superfund: 1) Superfund Sites with Land Ready for Reuse, and 2) Acres of Land at
Superfund Sites Ready for Reuse. The Superfund program initiated efforts in FY 2003 to
develop two measures for documenting and reporting Superfund revitalization accomplishments.
The measures apply to all private and non-federal sites and all federal facility sites proposed for,
or listed on, the National Priorities List (NPL). The measures also apply to Superfund
Alternative (SAS), and NPL and non-NPL sites where non-time-critical removal actions have
been conducted. The Superfund program has issued guidance governing the documentation and
reporting of these measures at all sites except federal facility sites. The Federal Facilities
program is writing a companion guidance to take into account of the special needs in
documenting and reporting accomplishments at these sites. The Superfund program guidance
provides that a Superfund site is considered ready for reuse if any of the following apply:
The site or a portion of a site is already being used;
Superfund response actions are unnecessary for the site or portion of the site as a result of
an investigation of the property, and the Agency is not aware of other EPA, State, Tribal,
or local government environmental or land use restrictions for that property; or
The cleanup goals established for the site or portion of the site have been attained (i.e.,
engineering controls for the land component have been implemented and are operating as
intended).
In reporting the acres of land ready for reuse, EPA regions are asked to identify the number of
acres at the site ready for reuse and whether the acres are ready for residential or non-residential
use. Acres of land are designated as ready for non-residential (e.g., industrial, recreational) use if
the cleanup goals for those acres cannot support residential types of use.
Superfund: Number of Superfund NPL sites that achieve long term human health
protection. The program intends to develop a methodology and collect baseline data for
Superfund NPL sites that achieve long term human health protection during FY 2005. In FY
2006 the program will set targets beginning in FY 2007.
Superfund Removal: The number of people who are at risk (potential or actual) from exposure
to contamination that have been protected in a given year due to removal response actions. A
"population protected" indicator would measure the number of people that have been protected
from actual or potential exposure threats each year as a result of undertaking removal actions.
This measure is still under development. A large set of previous removal actions is under study
to explore a variety of options for the methodology for this measure. For instance, incidents
contaminating surface water, ground water, soil, and air all present different exposure potential
to the population and result in different types of removal actions. The program is evaluating how
PPA-155
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
to categorize removals for the purpose of estimating the populations at actual or potential risk by
assessing the current sample data. After finalizing the specifics of this measure based on the
sample data analysis, the program expects to begin implementation of this new measure in 2005.
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Pesticides Program: The Agency's Pesticides Program is identifying and planning for the
development of outcome measures and indicators for both human health and the environment.
For example, the program is identifying risk-based measures similar to those developed by the
Toxics program. Meaningful measures for pesticides often require coordination and cooperation
with other organizations for data and information. Measures for the Pesticides Field Program
activities in particular, such as certification and training, the endangered species program, and
others, require collaboration across several implementing partners. These include other federal
agencies, states, and in some cases local organizations. EPA has begun to shape measures for
these areas and will be working with our partners to establish them.
This year, new measures for human poisonings are under development. They include a measure
for the reregi strati on program, which works to reduce exposure to older pesticides that may
cause adverse effects. Draft language reads, the program will achieve a cumulative reduction in
the number of systemic poisoning incidents associated with exposure from organophosphate
pesticides as reported to Poison Control Centers. For the pesticides worker safety program, a
similar measure looks at reductions in the number of occupational poisoning incidents associated
with exposure from pesticides. Both of these potential measures require additional work on the
data sets and methodologies for analysis, along with data collection issues. In FY 2006, EPA
will continue to work with its partners to refine the measures, baselines and targets.
Toxics Program: The Toxics program is working to develop a number of measures as well. As
noted in the previous section, the emphasis is on efficiency measures, including both the new
chemicals and the existing chemicals programs. For the new chemicals program, Agency plans
to reduce its per-chemical review costs from 2002 levels. This will be accomplished 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. The next step will be to track trends
associated with the review of chemicals undergoing expedited review under the Sustainable
Futures effort. This program is intended to create cost savings for industry; however the "pre-
screening" model should also provide efficiencies for EPA processes. In the Voluntary
Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) the program is working to improve the
efficiency of EPA's efforts to review risks associated with chemicals to which children may be
exposed by using a voluntary VCCEP, which includes an independent scientific peer
consultation. A similar efficiency measure is under development for the High Production
Volume Challenge Program (HPV). By FY 2006, EPA plans to develop and establish a
monitoring system in support of these measures.
PPA-156
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Mexico Border: By 2012, assess significant shared and transboundary surface waters and
achieve a majority of water quality standards currently being exceeded in those waters. With the
assistance of the Regional Work Group water task forces, EPA will begin data collection and gap
analysis of those water bodies failing to achieve water quality standards or designated uses. By
2006, a re-assessment will begin by the States or federal authorities, of the water quality data for
watershed basins, sub-basins, and river segments to identify impaired water bodies.
Wetland Function: By 2008 and each year thereafter, in partnership with the Corps of
Engineers and States (COE), obtain no net loss in wetland function based on quantifying
functions gained and lost through mitigation for authorized wetlands impacts.
This measure derives from two broad efforts articulated in the 2002 interagency National
Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan (MAP)clarifying performance standards (including methods
to quantify and assess wetlands function) and improving data collection and availability
(including tracking and reporting on acreage and function gains and losses). EPA will work
with the Corps of Engineers and other agencies to develop a model mitigation plan checklist for
permit applicants, and will review and develop guidance adapting the National Academies of
Sciences' National Research Council-recommended guidelines for creating or restoring self-
sustaining wetlands to the Section 404 program. EPA will also analyze existing research to
determine the effectiveness of using biological indicators and functional assessments for
evaluating mitigation performance.
National Estuary Programs (NEP) Coastal Condition Report: By 2006, a baseline report will
be released using the same indicators as the National Coastal Condition Report (see Sub-
Objective 2.2.2). This NEP report will establish a uniform set of quantifiable indicators as well
as NEP-specific indicators that can be aggregated to a regional and national scale. The baseline
is to be determined in FY '06, when the report is released.
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program: As noted in the Efficiency Measures section, the
Agency will measure "dollars per labor-hour" for contract efforts in validating assays for the
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP). The baseline measure will be data from work
assignments under a current mission support contract that expires in January 2006. EPA plans to
issue a new multiple awards contract in an effort to provide increased flexibility in both
economic and scientific aspects of the contract. For the FY 2006 milestone, the second phase of
measurement for obtaining baseline data will occur. This efficiency measure was identified
through the FY 2006 PART assessment of the EDSP.
In addition to the developed efficiency measure, EDSP is developing two long-term measures as
recommended during the FY 2006 PART process: 1) the cumulative number of chemicals pre-
screened for potential endocrine disrupter effects; and, 2) the percentage of chemicals screened
for potential endocrine disrupter effects. Also, the current EDSP annual performance measure is
being modified to better describe ongoing progress in the program.
PPA-157
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Enforcement Programs, in general: The Agency is working to enhance the outcome measure
by adding a risk characterization that incorporates hazard and exposure as this relates to pollution
reduction. The planned new measure is: "Hazard and exposure (human health and
environmental) as it relates to pollutants estimated to be prevented, reduced, or eliminated as a
result of settled enforcement actions." In FY 2006 EPA plans to evaluate options for
implementing the new hazard and exposure measure, and, depending on the results of a
feasibility study, begin implementing it as an efficiency measure.
In the FY 2004 PART submission, EPA identified seven new measures as prospective GPRA
measures, which are currently under development. In addition to the two efficiency measures
described in the previous section, there are five measures under development to help assess how
the Pesticides Enforcement Grants Program and the Criminal Enforcement Program contribute to
the accomplishment of the Agency's strategic goals. Following are the measures with brief
summaries of plans for development:
Pesticides Enforcement Grant Program: Three measures are under development. One
measure is the decrease in rate of subsequent violations by previous violators. A second measure
is the increase in number of complying actions resulting from compliance activities. For both of
the above measures, in FY 2006 EPA plans to begin collecting data and develop the baseline,
and in FY 2007 to begin measuring and reporting data on them. A third measure is an efficiency
measure. An improved measure relating the number of enforcement actions taken to their cost
(Federal and State) is being examined. In FY 2006 EPA plans to work with states and tribes to
establish agreement to collect data for an improved measure, and begin the actual data collection.
EPA plans to begin reporting on the new measure, "number of enforcement actions per million
dollars of combined Federal and State dollars spent," starting in FY 2007.
Criminal Enforcement Program: Three measures are under development.
Measure: Number of criminal enforcement cases which require improvements of
environmental management practices. In FY 2005, EPA is revising the criminal
enforcement program's case conclusion data sheet to capture the data needed for this new
measure and to develop a baseline for future targets.
Measure: Level of recidivism among criminal violators. EPA plans to complete the
historical analysis to develop a baseline for this measure when the enhanced Criminal
Case Reporting System [CCRS, the successor to the current Criminal Enforcement
Docket (CRIMDOC)] goes on-line during the second half of FY 2005.
Measure: Pollutant impact of criminal enforcement cases. In FY 2005, EPA is revising
the criminal enforcement program's case conclusion data sheet to capture the data needed
for this new measure and to develop a baseline for future targets.
PPA-158
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In FY 2006, EPA plans to develop the baseline and targets for all three of these measures, and
begin reporting on them in FY 2007.
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing: To support the achievement of its strategic
objectives, EPA is developing measures of the results the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
program. Following are the measures with brief summaries of plans for development:
Measure: By 2008, all Federal Agencies will have defined Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing programs and policies in place, and be expanding their purchases of available
"green" products and services. In 2005, EPA will develop implementation plans,
including measures, for achieving objectives in each product/service area. In FY 2006,
EPA plans to collect and evaluate performance data and will begin reporting this
measure.
Measure: By 2008, EPA will go beyond compliance with laws and executive orders to
green Agency operations through the purchase of green products and services, from a
baseline year of 2002. In FY 2006, EPA will complete the collection and evaluation of
performance data for this measure and will begin reporting results in FY 2007.
Tribal General Assistance Program: The number of environmental programs implemented in
Indian Country per million dollars will be used as an efficiency measure. EPA is currently
working with regional offices to evaluate several data sources and identify appropriate variables
in order to produce a measurement that best supports this efficiency measure. The Agency plans
to begin reporting on this measure in FY 2005. The Agency plans to begin data collection for
tribal programs to establish baseline numbers in FY 2006.
PPA-159
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASSURES
Goal 1 Objective 1
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
SOi emissions reduced (tons/yr from 1980 baseline)
Total annual average sulfur deposition and mean ambient sulfate concentrations
reduced (% from baseline)
Total annual average nitrogen deposition and mean ambient nitrate concentrations
reduced (% from baseline)
Performance Database: Emissions Tracking System (ETS); SC>2 and NOX emissions
collected by Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) or equivalent continuous
monitoring methods. CEM-based emissions data have been recorded in the ETS and
reported annually since 1994 for 263 of the largest affected utility units and since 1996
for all affected units. Annual totals are calculated on a calendar year basis.
Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET)- dry deposition. Data have been compiled
into a central database since the late 1980s and published periodically. Site-specific data for
trend analysis can be retrieved for 20 years or more at the longest running sites. Annual totals
and averages are calculated on a calendar year basis.
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) - wet deposition. Data from the early 1980s
have been compiled and are available in published trend analyses. The first NADP sites were
established in 1978, so site-specific data may be retrievable for even longer time frames. Annual
totals and averages are calculated on a calendar year basis.
Data Source: On a quarterly basis, ETS receives and processes hourly measurements of SO2,
NOX, volumetric flow, CO2, and other emission-related parameters from more than 3,400 fossil
fuel-fired utility units affected under the Title IV Acid Rain Program. For the 5-month ozone
season (May 1 - September 30), ETS receives and processes hourly NOX measurements from
electric generation units (EGUs) and certain large industrial combustion units affected by NOX
Budget Programs under the NOX SIP Call. In 2004, the initial compliance year for the NOX SIP
Call, nearly 2,600 units reported seasonal NOX data to ETS. Over 900 units have been reporting
these data since 1999 under the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) NOX Budget Program.
CASTNET measures particle and gas acidic deposition chemistry. Specifically, CASTNET
measures sulfate and nitrate dry deposition and meteorological information at approximately 88
monitoring sites, primarily in the East. CASTNET is a long-term dry deposition network funded,
operated and maintained by the Clean Air Markets Division in EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR). The National Park Service operates approximately 30 of the monitoring
stations in cooperation with EPA.
PPA-160
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
NADP is a national long-term wet deposition network that measures precipitation chemistry and
provides long-term geographic and temporal trends in concentration and deposition of
precipitation components. Specifically, NADP provides measurements of sulfate and nitrate wet
deposition at approximately 230 monitoring sites. EPA, along with several other Federal
agencies, states, and other private organizations, provide funding and support for NADP. The
Illinois State Water Survey/University of Illinois maintains the NADP database.
The deposition monitoring networks have been in operation for over 25 years. They provide
invaluable measurements on long-term trends and episodes in acid deposition; such data are
essential for assessing progress toward the program's environmental goals. These networks are
aging and need to be modernized to ensure the continued availability of these direct
environmental measures. Maintaining a robust long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring
network is critical for the accountability of the current Acid Rain Program and for future efforts
under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (and/or Clear Skies if new legislation is enacted).
Methods, Assumption, and Suitability: Promulgated methods are used to aggregate emissions
data across all United States' utilities for each pollutant and related source operating parameters
such as heat input.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC requirements dictate performing a series of quality assurance tests
of CEMS performance. For these tests, emissions data are collected under highly structured,
carefully designed testing conditions, which involve either high quality standard reference
materials or multiple instruments performing simultaneous emission measurements. The
resulting data are screened and analyzed using a battery of statistical procedures, including one
that tests for systematic bias. If a CEM fails the bias test, indicating a potential for systematic
underestimation of emissions, the source of the error must be identified and corrected or the data
are adjusted to minimize the bias. Further information available at http://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/reporting/ index.html
CASTNET established a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in November 2001; The
QAPP contains data quality objectives and quality control procedures for accuracy and precision.
(U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Clean Air Status and Trends Network
(CASTNet) Quality Assurance Project Plan (Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. EPA, November
2001). In addition, the program publishes annual quality assurance reports. Both the CASTNET
QAPP and 2002 Annual Quality Assurance Report may be found at http://www.epa.gov/castnet/
library.html.
NADP has established data quality objectives and quality control procedures for accuracy,
precision and representation, available on the Internet: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/QA/. The
intended use of these data is to establish spatial and temporal trends in wet deposition and
precipitation chemistry.
PPA-161
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Quality Review: The ETS provides instant feedback to sources on data reporting
problems, format errors, and inconsistencies. The electronic data file QA checks are described at
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/reporting/index.html (see Electronic Data Report Review
Process, ETS Tolerance Tables, Active ETS Error Codes/Messages and Range Format Errors).
All quarterly reports are analyzed to detect deficiencies and to identify reports that must be
resubmitted to correct problems. EPA also identifies reports that were not submitted by the
appropriate reporting deadline. Revised quarterly reports, with corrected deficiencies found
during the data review process, must be obtained from sources by a specified deadline. All data
are reviewed, and preliminary and final emissions data reports are prepared for public release
and compliance determination.
CASTNET underwent formal peer review in 1997 by a panel of scientists from EPA and the
National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Findings are documented in
Examination ofCASTNet: Data, Results, Costs, and Implications (United States EPA, Office of
Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, February 1997).
The NADP methods of determining wet deposition values have undergone extensive peer
review, handled entirely by the NADP housed at the Illinois State Water Survey/University of
Illinois. Assessments of changes in NADP methods are developed primarily through the
academic community and reviewed through the technical literature process.
Data Limitations: In order to improve the spatial resolution of CASTNET, additional
monitoring sites are needed. CASTNET has no geographic coverage for the middle of the
country and very limited coverage in the Northwest.
Error Estimate: None
New/Improved Data or Systems: The program initiated a modernization project in 2004 to
update the current aging CASTNET network with advanced technology, to reconfigure
CASTNET for improved geographic coverage and to facilitate its use for additional coordinated
air quality monitoring strategy development. These actions will increase the Agency's
capabilities to effectively assess trends in acid deposition, transport of air pollutants, regional
haze, and ambient air quality over a broad geographic range. The refurbishment of CASTNET
will result in more comprehensive air quality data and information, made available faster by
enabling real-time access to air quality information and promoting integration with other
networks. In 2004, the program finalized the purchase of instruments for deployment at three
CASTNET sites in order to evaluate and test measurement and operational performance under
realistic field conditions. Refurbishment activities to be pursued in FY 2006 include: (1)
completion of a pilot study to evaluate options for upgrading CASTNET with new advanced
measurement instrumentation; (2) selection and procurement of advanced technology monitoring
equipment for up to 10 sites; and (3) development of new ecological indicators of air quality and
atmospheric deposition to expand the suite of environmental metrics available for measuring the
performance and efficiency of EPA's clean air programs.
PPA-162
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
References: For additional information about CASTNET, see http://www.epa.gov/castnet.html
and for NADP, see http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/.
For a description of EPA's Acid Rain program, see
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/arp/index.html/ and in the electronic Code of Federal Regulations
at http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-C.html (40 CFR parts 72-78.)
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in areas with ambient
criteria pollutant concentrations below the level of the NAAQS.
Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient criteria pollutant
concentrations below the level of the NAAQS.
Areas measuring clean air for NAAQS.
Performance Database:
AQS The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) stores ambient air quality data used to evaluate an
area's air quality levels relative to the NAAQS. The AQS database is updated daily, primarily
by the staff of state and local environmental agencies responsible for measuring ambient
concentrations of criteria air pollutants at several thousand monitoring sites in all states and
territories. EPA pulls the data on a calendar year basis.
FREDSThe Findings and Required Elements Data System is used to track progress of states
and Regions in reviewing and approving the required data elements of the State Implementation
Plans (SIP). SIPs are clean air plans and define what actions a state will take to improve the air
quality in areas that do not meet national ambient air quality standards. The data are collected on
a fiscal year basis.
Data Source:
AQS: State & local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS).
Population: Data from Census-Bureau/Department of Commerce
FREDS: Data are provided by EPA's Regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Air quality levels are evaluated relative to the level
of the appropriate NAAQS. Next the populations in areas with air quality concentrations above
the level of the NAAQS are aggregated. This analysis assumes that the populations of the areas
are held constant at year 2000 Census levels. Data comparisons over several years allow
assessment of the air program's success.
PPA-163
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
QA/QC Procedures: AQS: The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has several
major components: the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, reference and equivalent methods
program, EPA's National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), system audits, and network
reviews (Available on the Internet: www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.html). To ensure quality
data, the SLAMS are required to meet the following: 1) each site must meet network design and
site criteria; 2) each site must provide adequate QA assessment, control, and corrective action
functions according to minimum program requirements; 3) all sampling methods and equipment
must meet EPA reference or equivalent requirements; 4) acceptable data validation and record
keeping procedures must be followed; and 5) data from SLAMS must be summarized and
reported annually to EPA. Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the overall air
quality data collection activity for any needed changes or corrections. Further information
available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/programs/namslam.html and through
United States EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)
Populations: No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department of
Commerce.
FREDS: No formal QA/QC procedures.
Data Quality Review:
AQS: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal audits
are regularly conducted.
Populations: No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department of
Commerce.
FREDS: None
Data Limitations:
AQS: None known
Populations: Not known
FREDS: None known
Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. There is still too
much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to meteorological
conditions for example) exists.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
AQS: In January 2002, EPA completed the reengineering of AQS to make it a more user
friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data are more easily accessible via the
Internet. AQS has also been enhanced to comply with the Agency's data standards (e.g.,
PPA-164
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
latitude/longitude, chemical nomenclature). Beginning in July 2003, agencies submitted air
quality data to AQS thru the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX). CDX is intended to be
the portal through which all environmental data coming to or leaving the Agency will pass.
Population: None
FREDS: None
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and
other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Estimated Mobile Source VOC Emissions
Estimated Mobile Source NOx Emissions
Estimated Mobile Source PM 10 Emissions
Estimated Mobile Source PM 2.5 Emissions
Estimated Mobile Source CO Emissions
Performance Database: National Emissions Inventory Database. The database includes
estimates of annual emissions, by source, of air pollutants in each area of the country, on an
calendar year basis.
See: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/
Data Source: Mobile source emissions inventories. Estimates for on-road, off-road mobile
source emissions are built from inventories fed into the relevant models, which in turn provide
input to the National Emissions Inventory Database.
The MOBILE vehicle emission factor model is a software tool for predicting gram per mile
emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, particulate
matter, and toxics from cars, trucks, and motorcycles under various conditions. Inputs to the
model include fleet composition, activity, temporal information, and control program
characteristics.
The NONROAD emission inventory model is a software tool for predicting emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxides from
small and large off road vehicles, equipment, and engines. Inputs to the model include fleet
composition, activity and temporal information.
Certain mobile source information is updated annually. Inputs are updated annually only if there
is a rationale and readily available source of annual data. Generally, Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT), the mix of VMT by type of vehicle (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-types),
PPA-165
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
temperature, gasoline properties, and the designs of Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs are
updated each year. Emission factors for all mobile sources and activity estimates for non-road
sources are changed only when the Office of Transportation and Air Quality requests that this be
done and is able to provide the new information in a timely manner. The most recent models for
mobile sources are Mobile 6 and Nonroad 2002. (Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm.)
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: EPA issues emissions standards that set limits on how
much pollution can be emitted from a given mobile source. Mobile sources include vehicles that
operate on roads and highways ("on road" or "highway" vehicles), as well as nonroad vehicles,
engines, and equipment. Examples of mobile sources are cars, trucks, buses, earthmoving
equipment, lawn and garden power tools, ships, railroad locomotives, and airplanes. Vehicle and
equipment manufacturers have responded to many mobile source emission standards by
redesigning vehicles and engines to reduce pollution.
EPA uses models to estimate mobile source emissions, for both past and future years. The
estimates are used in a variety of different settings. The estimates are used for rulemaking.
The most complete and systematic process for making and recording such mobile source
emissions estimates is the "Trends" inventory process executed each year by the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards' (OAQPS) Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division
(EMAD). The Assessment and Standards Division, within the Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, provides EMAD information and methods for making the mobile source estimates. In
addition, EMAD's contractors obtain necessary information directly from other sources; for
example, weather data and the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) estimates by state. EMAD creates and publishes the emission inventory
estimate for the most recent historical year, detailed down to the county level and with over 30
line items representing mobile sources. At irregular intervals as required for regulatory analysis
projects, EMAD creates estimates of emissions for future years. When the method for estimating
emissions changes significantly, EMAD usually revises its older estimates of emissions in years
prior to the year of change, to avoid a sudden discontinuity in the apparent emissions trend.
EMAD publishes the national emission estimates in hardcopy; county-level estimates are
available electronically. Additional information about transportation and air quality related to
estimating, testing for, and measuring emissions, as well as research being conducted on
technologies for reducing emissions is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/research.htm.
QA/QC Procedures: The emissions inventories are continuously improved.
Data Quality Review: The emissions inventories are reviewed by both internal and external
parties, including the states, locals and industries.
Data Limitations: The limitations of the inventory estimates for mobile sources come from
limitations in the modeled emission factors (based on emission factor testing and models
PPA-166
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
predicting overall fleet emission factors in g/mile) and also in the estimated vehicle miles
traveled for each vehicle class (derived from Department of Transportation
data).http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm. For nonroad emissions, the estimates come from a
model using equipment populations, emission factors per hour or unit of work, and an estimate
of usage. This nonroad emissions model accounts for over 200 types of nonroad equipment. Any
limitations in the input data will carry over into limitations in the emission inventory estimates.
Error Estimate: Additional information about data integrity is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm.
New/Improved Data or Systems: To keep pace with new analysis needs, new modeling
approaches, and new data, EPA is currently working on a new modeling system termed the
Multi-scale Motor Vehicles and Equipment Emission System (MOVES). This new system will
estimate emissions for on road and off road sources, cover a broad range of pollutants, and allow
multiple scale analysis, from fine scale analysis to national inventory estimation. When fully
implemented, MOVES will serve as the replacement for MOBILE6 and NONROAD. The new
system will not necessarily be a single piece of software, but instead will encompass the
necessary tools, algorithms, underlying data and guidance necessary for use in all official
analyses associated with regulatory development, compliance with statutory requirements, and
national/regional inventory projections. Additional information is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ngm.htm.
References: For additional information about mobile source programs see:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Combined Stationary and Mobile Source Reductions in Air Toxics Emissions
Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
Stationary Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
All Other Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
Performance Database: National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs). The database includes estimates of annual emissions, by source, of air pollutants in
each area of the country, on an annual basis.
Data Source: To calculate performance measures, the data source used is the NEI for HAPs
which includes emissions from large and small industrial sources inventoried as point sources,
smaller stationary area and other sources, such as fires inventoried as non-point sources, and
mobile sources.
Prior to the 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The baseline
NTI (for base years 1990 - 1993) includes emissions information for 188 hazardous air pollutants
PPA-167
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
from more than 900 stationary sources and from mobile sources. It is based on data collected
during the development of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, state
and local data, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, and emissions estimates using accepted
emission inventory methodologies. The baseline NTI contains county level emissions data, not
facility-specific data.
The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs contain estimates of facility-specific HAP emissions and
their source specific parameters such as location (latitude and longitude) and facility
characteristics (stack height, exit velocity, temperature, etc.)
The primary source of data in the 1996 and 1999 NTI is state and local air pollution control
agencies and Tribes. These data vary in completeness, format, and quality. EPA evaluates these
data and supplements them with data gathered while developing MACT and residual risk
standards, industry data, and TRI data. To produce a complete national inventory, EPA
estimates emissions for approximately 30 non-point source categories such as wildfires and
residential heating sources not included in the state, local and Tribal data. Mobile source data
are developed using data provided by state and local agencies and Tribes and the most current
onroad and nonroad models developed by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. The
draft 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPS underwent extensive review by state and local agencies,
Tribes, industry, EPA, and the public.
For more information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please go to the
following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/index.html#nti. For more information and
references on the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please go to the following web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chi ef/net/index.html#l 999.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To produce a complete model-ready national
inventory, EPA estimates emissions for approximately 30 non-point source categories such as
wildfires and residential heating sources not included in the state, local and Tribal data. Mobile
source data are developed using data provided by state and local agencies and Tribes and the
most current onroad and nonroad models developed by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air
Quality.
Upon development of the inventory, the EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous
Air Pollutants) is used to estimate annual emissions of air toxics for the 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI
for HAPS (and for all years in-between). The EMS-HAP can project future emissions, by
adjusting stationary source emission data to account for growth and emission reductions resulting
from emission reduction scenarios such as the implementation of the Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standards.
For more information and references on EMS-HAP, please go to the following web sites:
http://www.epa.gov/scramOOl/tt22.htm#aspen and
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html.
PPA-168
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
The growth and reduction information used for the projections are further described on the
following website: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/etnch/projection/etnshap.httnl.
QA/QC Procedures: The NTI and the NEI for HAPs are databases designed to house
information from other primary sources. The EPA performs extensive quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) activities, including checking data provided by other organizations, to improve
the quality of the emission inventory. Some of these activities include: (1) the use of an
automated format QC tool to identify potential errors of data integrity, code values, and range
checks; (2) use of geographical information system (GIS) tools to verify facility locations; and
(3) automated content analysis by pollutant, source category and facility to identify potential
problems with emission estimates such as outliers, duplicate sites, duplicate emissions, coverage
of a source category, etc. The content analysis includes a variety of comparative and statistical
analyses. The comparative analyses help reviewers prioritize which source categories and
pollutants to review in more detail based on comparisons using current inventory data and prior
inventories. The statistical analyses help reviewers identify potential outliers by providing the
minimum, maximum, average, standard deviation, and selected percentile values based on
current data. The EPA is currently developing an automated QC content tool for data providers
to use prior to submitting their data to EPA. After investigating errors identified using the
automated QC format and GIS tools, the EPA follows specific guidance on augmenting data for
missing data fields. This guidance is available at the following web site:
http ://www. epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/invent/qaaugmementationm em o_99nei_60603 .pdf.
The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and identifies
the augmentation method. After performing the content analysis, the EPA contacts data
providers to reconcile potential errors. The draft NTI is posted for external review and includes
a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission of revisions, state-by-state
modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files to assist in the review of the data.
One of the summary files includes a comparison of point source data submitted by different
organizations. During the external review of the data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and
industry provide external QA of the inventory. The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from
external reviewers and prepares memos for individual reviewers documenting incorporation of
revisions and explanations if revisions were not incorporated. All revisions are tracked in the
database with the source of original data and sources of subsequent revision.
The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes in the
initial emission estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI for HAPs and its final
version. For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs, please refer to the following
web site for a paper presented at the 2002 Emission Inventory Conference in Atlanta. "QA/QC -
An Integral Step in the Development of the 1999 National Emission Inventory for HAPs," Anne
Pope, et al. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei 11/qa/pope.pdf
EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or
elements, which provide "meta" information on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF) fields.
PPA-169
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
These standards were developed by teams representing states, Tribes, EPA and other Federal
agencies. The use of common data standards among partners fosters consistently defined and
formatted data elements and sets of data values, and provides public access to more meaningful
data. The standards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are the: SIC/NAICS, Latitude/Longitude,
Chemical Identification, Facility Identification, Date, Tribal and Contact Data Standards. The
1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all new data standards except the Facility Identification
Standard because OEI has not completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI for
HAPs facilities.
For more information on compliance of the NEI for HAPs with new OMB Information Quality
Guidelines and new EPA data standards, please refer to the following web site for a paper
presented at the 2003 Emission Inventory Conference in San Diego: "The Challenge of Meeting
New EPA Data Standards and Information Quality Guidelines in the Development of the 2002
NEI Point Source Data for HAPs," Anne Pope, et al.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/eil2/dm/pope.pdf
The 2002 NEI for HAPs will undergo scientific peer review in early 2005.
Data Quality Review: EPA staff, state and local agencies, Tribes, industry and the public
review the NTI and the NEI for HAPs. To assist in the review of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, the
EPA provided a comparison of data from the three data sources (MACT/residual risk data, TRI,
and state, local and Tribal inventories) for each facility. For the 1999 NEI for HAPs, two periods
were available for external review - October 2001 - February 2002 and October 2002 - March
2003. The final 1999 NEI was completed and posted on the Agency website in the fall of 2003.
In 2001, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the EMS-HAP model as part of the
1996 national-scale assessment. The review was generally supportive of the assessment purpose,
methods, and presentation; the committee considers this an important step toward a better
understanding of air toxics. Additional information is available on the Internet:
www. epa. gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer.html.
In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a final evaluation report on "EPA's
Method for Calculating Air Toxics Emissions for Reporting Results Needs Improvement" (report
can be found at www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040331-2004-p-00012.pdf) The report stated
that although the methods used have improved substantially, unvalidated assumptions and other
limitations underlying the NTI continue to impact its use as a GPRA performance measure. As a
result of this evaluation and the OIG recommendations for improvement, EPA prepared an action
plan and is looking at way to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data. EPA will meet bi-
annually with OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined in the action
plan.
Data Limitations: While emissions estimating techniques have improved over the years, broad
assumptions about the behavior of sources and serious data limitations still exist. The NTI and
PPA-170
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
the NEI for HAPs contain data from other primary references. Because of the different data
sources, not all information in the NTI and the NEI for HAPs has been developed using identical
methods. Also, for the same reason, there are likely some geographic areas with more detail and
accuracy than others. Because of the lesser level of detail in the baseline NTI, it is currently not
suitable for input to dispersion models. For further discussion of the data limitations and the
error estimates in the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please refer to the discussion of Information Quality
Guidelines in the documentation at: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html#haps99.
Error Estimate: Error estimate cannot be tabulated on account of data limitations as described
above.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs are a significant
improvement over the baseline 1993 NTI because of the added facility-level detail (e.g., stack
heights, latitude/longitude locations), making it more useful for dispersion model input. Future
inventories (2002 and later years) are expected to improve significantly because of increased
interest in the NEI for HAPs by regulatory agencies, environmental interests, and industry, and
the greater potential for modeling and trend analysis. During the development of the 1999 NEI
for HAPs, all primary data submitters and reviewers were required to submit their data and
revisions to EPA in a standardized format using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX).
For more information on CDX, please go the following web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html.
References: The NTI and NEI data and documentation are available at the following sites:
ftp site: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/Emislnventory/
Available inventories: 1996 NTI, 1999 NEI for HAPs
Contents: Modeling data files for each state
Summary data files for nation
Documentation
README file
Audience: individuals who want full access to NTI files
NEON: http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
Available inventories: 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Contents: Summary data files
Audience: EPA staff
CHIEF: www. epa. gov/ttn/chief
1999 NEI for HAPs data development materials
1999 Data Incorporation Plan - describes how EPA compiled the
1999 NEI for HAPs
QC tool for data submitters
PPA-171
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Augmentation Memo describes procedures EPA will use to
augment data
99 NTI Q's and A's provides answers to frequently asked
questions
NIF (Input Format) files and descriptions
CDX Data Submittal Procedures - instructions on how to submit
data using CDX
Training materials on development of HAP emission inventories
Emission factor documents, databases, and models
Audience: State and local agencies, Tribes, industry, EPA, and the public
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air
toxics
Percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for noncancer risk) emissions of air
toxics
Performance Database:
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization
The database includes estimates of annual emissions, by source, of air pollutants in each area of
the country, on an annual basis.
Data Source: To better measure the percentage change in cancer and noncancer risk to the
public, a toxicity-weighted emission inventory performance measure has been developed. This
measure utilizes data from the NEI for air toxics along with data from EPA's Health Criteria
Data for Risk Characterization (found at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html), which
is a compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria used to develop a risk metric. This
compendium includes tabulated values for long-term (chronic) inhalation for many of the 188
hazardous air pollutants. These health risk data were obtained from various data sources
including EPA, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, California
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The
numbers from the health risk database are used for estimating the risk of contracting cancer and
the level of hazard associated with adverse health effects other than cancer.
The NEI for HAPs includes emissions from large and small industrial sources inventoried as
point sources, smaller stationary area and other sources, such as fires inventoried as non-point
sources, and mobile sources. Prior to 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was the National Toxics
Inventory (NTI). The baseline NTI (for base years 1990 - 1993) includes emissions information
for 188 hazardous air pollutants from more than 900 stationary sources and from mobile sources.
It is based on data collected during the development of Maximum Achievable Control
PPA-172
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Technology (MACT) standards, state and local data, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, and
emissions estimates using accepted emission inventory methodologies. The baseline NTI
contains county level emissions data and cannot be used for modeling because it does not contain
facility specific data.
The 1996 NTI and the 1999 NEI for HAPs contain stationary and mobile source estimates.
These inventories also contain estimates of facility-specific HAP emissions and their source
specific parameters such as location (latitude and longitude) and facility characteristics (stack
height, exit velocity, temperature, etc.
The primary source of data in the 1996 and 1999 inventories are state and local air pollution
control agencies and Tribes. These data vary in completeness, format, and quality. EPA
evaluates these data and supplements them with data gathered while developing MACT and
residual risk standards, industry data, and TRI data.
For more information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please go to the
following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/index.html#nti. For more information and
references on the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please go to the following web site:
www. epa. gov/ttn/chi ef/net/index.html# 1999.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Because the NEI is only developed every three years,
EPA utilizes an emissions modeling system to project inventories for "off-years" and to project
the inventory into the future. This model, the EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for
Hazardous Air Pollutants), can project future emissions, by adjusting stationary source emission
data to account for growth and emission reductions resulting from emission reduction scenarios
such as the implementation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards.
Once the EMS-HAP process has been performed, the EPA would tox-weight the inventory by
"weighting" the emissions for each pollutant with the appropriate health risk criteria. This would
be accomplished through a multi-step process. Initially, pollutant by pollutant values would be
obtained from the NEI for the current year and the baseline year (1990/93). Conversion of actual
tons for each pollutant for the current year and the baseline year to "toxicity-weighted" tons
would be accomplished by multiplying the appropriate values from the health criteria database
such as the unit risk estimate (URE) or lifetime cancer risk (defined at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/gloss.htm#rfc) to get the noncancer tons. These toxicity-weighted
values act as a surrogate for risk and allow EPA to compare the toxicity-weighted values against
a 1990/1993 baseline of toxicity-weighted values to determine the percentage reduction in risk
on an annual basis
Complete documentation on development of the NEI for HAPs can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html. For more information and references on EMS-
HAP, go to the following web sites: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htmtfaspen and
PPA-173
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/etnch/projection/etnshap.httnl. The growth and reduction
information used for the projections are further described at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.htmL
QA/QC Procedures: The NTI and the NEI for HAPs are databases designed to house
information from other primary sources. The EPA performs extensive quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) activities, including checking data provided by other organizations, to improve
the quality of the emission inventory. Some of these activities include: (1) the use of an
automated format QC tool to identify potential errors of data integrity, code values, and range
checks; (2) use of geographical information system (GIS) tools to verify facility locations; and
(3) automated content analysis by pollutant, source category and facility to identify potential
problems with emission estimates such as outliers, duplicate sites, duplicate emissions, coverage
of a source category, etc. The content analysis includes a variety of comparative and statistical
analyses. The comparative analyses help reviewers prioritize which source categories and
pollutants to review in more detail based on comparisons using current inventory data and prior
inventories. The statistical analyses help reviewers identify potential outliers by providing the
minimum, maximum, average, standard deviation, and selected percentile values based on
current data. The EPA has developed an automated QC content tool for data providers to use
prior to submitting their data to EPA. After investigating errors identified using the automated
QC format and GIS tools, the EPA follows specific guidance on augmenting data for missing
data fields. This guidance is available at the following web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/invent/qaaugmementati onmemo_99nei_60603.pdf.
The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and identifies
the augmentation method. After performing the content analysis, the EPA contacts data
providers to reconcile potential errors. The draft NTI is posted for external review and includes
a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission of revisions, state-by-state
modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files to assist in the review of the data.
One of the summary files includes a comparison of point source data submitted by different
organizations. During the external review of the data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and
industry provide external QA of the inventory. The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from
external reviewers and prepares memos for individual reviewers documenting incorporation of
revisions and explanations if revisions were not incorporated. All revisions are tracked in the
database with the source of original data and sources of subsequent revision.
The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes in the
initial emission estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI for HAPs and its final
version. For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs, please refer to the following
web site for a paper presented at the 2002 Emission Inventory Conference in Atlanta. "QA/QC -
An Integral Step in the Development of the 1999 National Emission Inventory for HAPs", Anne
Pope, et al. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei 11/qa/pope.pdf
PPA-174
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or
elements, which provide "meta" information on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF) fields.
These standards were developed by teams representing states, Tribes, EPA and other Federal
agencies. The use of common data standards among partners fosters consistently defined and
formatted data elements and sets of data values, and provides public access to more meaningful
data. The standards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are the: SIC/NAICS, Latitude/Longitude,
Chemical Identification, Facility Identification, Date, Tribal and Contact Data Standards. The
1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all new data standards except the Facility Identification
Standard because OEI has not completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI for
HAPs facilities.
For more information on compliance of the NEI for HAPs with new OMB Information Quality
Guidelines and new EPA data standards, please refer to the following web site for a paper
presented at the 2003 Emission Inventory Conference in San Diego. "The Challenge of Meeting
New EPA Data Standards and Information Quality Guidelines in the Development of the 2002
NEI Point Source Data for HAPs", Anne Pope, et al.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/eil2/dm/pope.pdf. The 2002 NEI for HAPs will undergo
scientific peer review in early 2005.
The tables used in the EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are compiled assessments from various sources
for many of the 188 substances listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act of
1990. Because different sources developed these assessments at different times for purposes that
were similar but not identical, results are not totally consistent. To resolve these discrepancies
and ensure the validity of the data, EPA applied a consistent priority scheme consistent with EPA
risk assessment guidelines and various levels of scientific peer review. These risk assessment
guidelines can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/car2sab/preamble.pdf.
Data Quality Review: EPA staff, state and local agencies, Tribes, industry and the public
review the NTI and the NEI for HAPs. To assist in the review of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, the
EPA provided a comparison of data from the three data sources (MACT/residual risk data, TRI,
and state, local and Tribal inventories) for each facility. For the 1999 NEI for HAPs, two periods
were available for external review - October 2001 - February 2002 and October 2002 - March
2003. The final 1999 NEI was completed and posted on the Agency website in the fall of 2003.
The EMS-HAP has been subjected to the scrutiny of leading scientists throughout the country in
a process called "scientific peer review". This ensures that EPA uses the best available scientific
methods and information. In 2001, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the EMS-
HAP model as part of the 1996 national-scale assessment. The review was generally supportive
of the assessment purpose, methods, and presentation; the committee considers this an important
step toward a better understanding of air toxics. Additional information is available on the
Internet: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer.html.
PPA-175
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a final evaluation report on "EPA's
Method for Calculating Air Toxics Emissions for Reporting Results Needs Improvement" (report
can be found at www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040331-2004-p-00012.pdf). The report stated
that although the methods used have improved substantially, unvalidated assumptions and other
limitations underlying the NTI continue to impact its use as a GPRA performance measure. As a
result of this evaluation and the OIG recommendations for improvement, EPA prepared an action
plan and is looking at ways to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data. EPA will meet
bi-annually with OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined in the
action plan.
The data compiled in the Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are reviewed to make sure they support hazard
identification and dose-response assessment for chronic exposures as defined in the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) risk assessment paradigm
(www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/paradigm.html). Because the health criteria data were obtained
from various sources they are prioritized for use (in developing the performance measure, for
example) according to 1) conceptual consistency with EPA risk assessment guidelines and 2)
various levels of scientific peer review. The prioritization process is aimed at incorporating the
best available scientific data.
Data Limitations and Error Estimates: While emissions estimating techniques have improved
over the years, broad assumptions about the behavior of sources and serious data limitations still
exist. The NTI and the NEI for HAPs contain data from other primary references. Because of
the different data sources, not all information in the NTI and the NEI for HAPs has been
developed using identical methods. Also, for the same reason, there are likely some geographic
areas with more detail and accuracy than others. Because of the lesser level of detail in the
baseline NTI, it is currently not suitable for input to dispersion models. For further discussion of
the data limitations and the error estimates in the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please refer to the
discussion of Information Quality Guidelines in the documentation at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html#haps99 .
While the Agency has made every effort to utilize the best available science in selecting
appropriate health criteria data for toxicity-weighting calculations there are inherent limitations
and errors (uncertainties) associated with this type of data. While it is not practical to expose
humans to chemicals at target doses and observe subsequent health implications over long
periods of time, most of the agencies health criteria is derived from response models and
laboratory experiments involving animals. The parameter used to convert from exposure to
cancer risk (i.e. the Unit Risk Estimate or URE) is based on default science policy processes used
routinely in EPA assessments. First, some air toxics are known to be carcinogens in animals but
lack data in humans. These have been assumed to be human carcinogens. Second, all the air
toxics in this assessment were assumed to have linear relationships between exposure and the
probability of cancer (i.e. effects at low exposures were extrapolated from higher, measurable,
exposures by a straight line). Third, the URE used for some air toxics compounds represents a
PPA-176
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
maximum likelihood estimate, which might be taken to mean the best scientific estimate. For
other air toxics compounds, however, the URE used was an "upper bound" estimate, meaning
that it probably leads to an overestimation of risk if it is incorrect. For these upper bound
estimates, it is assumed that the URE continues to apply even at low exposures. It is likely,
therefore, that this linear model over-predicts the risk at exposures encountered in the
environment. The cancer weighting-values for this approach should be considered "upper bound"
in the science policy sense.
All of the noncancer risk estimates have a built-in margin of safety. All of the Reference
Concentrations (RfCs) used in toxicity-weighting of noncancer are conservative, meaning that
they represent exposures which probably do not result in any health effects, with a margin of
safety built into the RfC to account for sources of uncertainty and variability. Like the URE used
in cancer weighting the values are, therefore, considered "upper bound" in the science policy
sense. Further details on limitations and uncertainties associated with the agencies health data
can be found at: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page9.html#L 10
New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs are a significant
improvement over the baseline NTI because of the added facility-level detail (e.g., stack heights,
latitude/longitude locations), making it more useful for dispersion model input. Future
inventories (2002 and later years) are expected to improve significantly because of increased
interest in the NEI for HAPs by regulatory agencies, environmental interests, and industry, and
the greater potential for modeling and trend analysis. During the development of the 1999 NEI
for HAPs, all primary data submitters and reviewers were required to submit their data and
revisions to EPA in a standardized format using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX).
For more information on CDX, please go the following web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html
Beginning in 2006, the toxicity-weighted emission inventory data will also be used as a
measurement to predict exposure and risk to the public. This measure will utilize ambient
monitoring of air toxics as a surrogate for population exposure and compare these values with
health benchmarks to predict risks.
References:
The NTI and NEI data and documentation are available at the following sites:
Emissions Inventory Data: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/Emislnventory/
Available inventories: 1996 NTI, 1999 NEI for HAPs
Contents: Modeling data files for each state
Summary data files for nation
Documentation
README file
Audience: individuals who want full access to NTI files
PPA-177
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
NEON:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:
http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Summary data files
EPA staff
CHIEF:
Audience:
www. epa. gov/ttn/chief
1999 NEI for HAPs data development materials
1999 Data Incorporation Plan - describes how EPA compiled the
1999 NEI for HAPs
QC tool for data submitters
Data Augmentation Memo describes procedures EPA will use to
augment data
99 NTI Q's and A's provides answers to frequently asked
questions
NIF (Input Format) files and descriptions
CDX Data Submittal Procedures - instructions on how to submit
data using CDX
Training materials on development of HAP emission inventories
Emission factor documents, databases, and models
State/1 ocal/Tribal agencies, industry, EPA, and the public
Information on the Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
EMS-HAP: http://epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htnrfaspen
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html
Contents: 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Audience: public
Information on EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization:
Health Criteria Data: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html
Contents: Tabulated dose response values for long-term (chronic)
inhalation and oral exposures; and values for short-term
(acute) inhalation exposure
Audience: public
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Complete the phase out of leaded gasoline in Africa in key countries/regions through
the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles
Performance Database: The measure tracks the number of African countries which have
phased out leaded gasoline. EPA works with the United Nations Environment Programme
PPA-178
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
(UNEP) and other partners in the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles to document the
phase out of leaded gasoline in Africa. UNEP manages the Partnership Clearinghouse, which
keeps track of the status of lead phase out in each African country. Each country's
implementation of lead phase out programs is documented and verified. The Partnership's data
on lead phase out can be found on the Partnership website at:
http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htmtfleaded
There currently is no available database on leaded gasoline sales data or market penetration of
alternative fuels. The Partnership made the decision to track the number of countries which have
phased out lead because the data are more easily verifiable. The phase out is implemented in
different ways in different countries, mostly by legislation. But just having the legislation does
not mean the lead is gone from the gasoline. Many countries have set dates for lead phase out,
and the Partnership tracks progress in implementation.
Data Source: The data are collected by UNEP, working with the African countries. When the
Partnership gets information on the status of lead phase out in each country, experts contact key
sources in government and industry to verify it. Only then is the information put into the
database on the website.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: Experts at the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles verify the
information by contacting key people from industry and government within each country.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
PPA-179
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 1 Objective 2
FY 2006 Overarching Performance Measure:
People Living in Healthier Indoor Air
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
People Living in Radon Resistant Homes
Performance Database: An annual survey reported on a calendar year basis used for over a
decade to calculate results.
Data Source: The survey is an annual sample of home builders in the United States most of
whom are members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). NAHB members
construct 80% of the homes built in the United States each year. Using a survey methodology
reviewed by EPA, NAHB Research Center estimates the percentage of these homes that are built
radon resistant. The percentage built radon resistant from the sample is then used to estimate
what percent of all homes built nationwide are radon resistant. To calculate the number of
people living in radon resistant homes, EPA assumes an average of 2.67 people per household.
NAHB Research Center has been conducting this annual builder practices survey for over a
decade, and has developed substantial expertise in the survey's design, implementation, and
analysis. The statistical estimates are typically reported with a 95 percent confidence interval.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: NAHB Research Center conducts an annual survey of
home builders in the United States to assess a wide range of builder practices. NAHB Research
Center voluntarily conducts this survey to maintain an awareness of industry trends in order to
improve American housing and to be responsive to the needs of the home building industry. The
annual survey gathers information such as types of houses built, lot sizes, foundation designs,
types of lumber used, types of doors and windows used, etc. The NAHB Research Center
Builder Survey also gathers information on the use of radon-resistant design features in new
houses, and these questions comprise about two percent of the survey questionnaire.
In January of each year, the survey of building practices for the preceding calendar year is
typically mailed out to home builders. For the most-recently completed survey, for building
practices during calendar year 2002, NAHB Research Center reported mailing the survey to
about 40,000 active United States home building companies, and received about 2,200 responses,
which translates to a response rate of about 6 percent. The survey responses are analyzed, with
respect to State market areas and Census Divisions in the United States, to assess the percentage
and number of homes built each year that incorporate radon-reducing features. The data are also
used to assess the percentage and number of homes built with radon-reducing features in high
radon potential areas in the United States (high risk areas). Other analyses include radon-
PPA-180
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
reducing features as a function of housing type, foundation type, and different techniques for
radon-resistant new home construction. The data are suitable for year-to-year comparisons.
QA/QC Procedures: Because data are obtained from an external organization, QA/QC
procedures are not entirely known. According to NAHB Research Center, QA/QC procedures
have been established, which includes QA/QC by the vendor that is utilized for key entry of data.
Data Quality Review: Because data are obtained from an external organization, Data Quality
Review procedures are not entirely known. NAHB Research Center indicates that each survey is
manually reviewed, a process that requires several months to complete. The review includes
data quality checks to ensure that the respondents understood the survey questions and answered
the questions appropriately. NAHB Research Center also applies checks for open-ended
questions to verify the appropriateness of the answers. In some cases, where open-ended
questions request numerical information, the data are capped between the upper and lower three
percent of the values provided in the survey responses. Also, a quality review of each year's
draft report from NAHB Research Center is conducted by the EPA project officer.
Data Limitations: The majority of home builders surveyed are NAHB members. The NAHB
Research Center survey also attempts to capture the activities of builders that are not members of
NAHB. Home builders that are not members of NAHB are typically smaller, sporadic builders
that in some cases build homes as a secondary profession. To augment the list of NAHB
members in the survey sample, NAHB Research Center sends the survey to home builders
identified from mailing lists of builder trade publications, such as Professional Builder magazine.
There is some uncertainty as to whether the survey adequately characterizes the practices of
builders who are not members of NAHB. The effects on the findings are not known.
Although an overall response rate of 6 percent could be considered low, it is the response rate for
the entire survey, of which the radon-resistant new construction questions are only a very small
portion. Builders responding to the survey would not be doing so principally due to their radon
activities. Thus, a low response rate does not necessarily indicate a strong potential for a positive
bias under the speculation that builders using radon-resistant construction would be more likely
to respond to the survey. NAHB Research Center also makes efforts to reduce the potential for
positive bias in the way the radon-related survey questions are presented.
Error Estimate: See Data Limitations
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: The results are published by the NAHB Research Center in annual reports of
radon-resistant home building practices. See http://www.nahbrc.org/ for more information about
NAHB (last accessed 12/22/04). The most recent report, "Builder Practices Report: Radon
Reducing Features in New Construction 2002,"Annual Builder and Consumer Practices Surveys
PPA-181
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., December 29, 2003. Similar report titles exist for prior
years.
FY 2006 Performance Measure
People Living in Radon Mitigated Homes
Performance Database: Since 2003, external data are collected once a calendar year. From
1995 to 2002, the data was collected on a biennial calendar year basis.
Data Source: Radon fan manufacturers report fan sales to the Agency. EPA assumes one fan per
radon mitigated home and then multiplies it by the assumed average of 2.67 people per
household.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A.
QA/QC Procedures: Because data are obtained from an external organization, EPA relies on the
business practices for reporting data of the radon fan manufacturers.
Data Quality Review: Data are obtained from an external organization. EPA reviews the data
to ascertain their reliability and discusses any irregularities with the relevant manufacturer.
Data Limitations: Reporting by radon fan manufacturers is voluntary and may underestimate
the number of radon fans sold. Nevertheless, these are the best available data to determine the
number of homes mitigated. There are other methods to mitigate radon including: passive
mitigation techniques of sealing holes and cracks in floors and foundation walls, installing sealed
covers over sump pits, installing one-way drain valves in untrapped drains, and installing static
venting and ground covers in areas like crawl spaces. Because there are no data on the
occurrence of these methods, there is again the possibility that the number of radon mitigated
homes has been underestimated.
No radon vent fan manufacturer, vent fan motor maker or distributor is required to report to
EPA; they provide data/information voluntarily to EPA. There are only four (4) radon vent fan
manufacturers of any significance; one of these accounts for an estimated 70% of the market.
Radon vent fans are unlikely to be used for non-radon applications. However, vent fans typically
used for non-radon applications are perhaps being installed as substitutes for radon vent fans in
some instances; estimated to be less than 1% of the total market. Ascertaining the actual number
of radon vent fans used for other applications, and the number of non-radon fans being
substituted in radon applications, would be difficult and expensive at this time relative to the
benefit of having such data.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
PPA-182
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
References: See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html last accessed 12/22/2004 for
National performance/progress reporting (National Radon Results: 1985-1999) on radon,
measurement, mitigation and radon-resistant new construction. An update to this results report is
expected to be finalized by March 2005. Data through 2002 are available from the Indoor
Environments Division of the Office of Air and Radiation.
FY 2006 Performance Measure
Number of people with asthma who have taken steps to reduce their exposure to indoor
environmental asthma triggers
Note: The name of the "National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma" has been
changed to "National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's
Exposure to ETS" to more appropriately reflect its actual content. Although this is a name
change from that approved by OMB under the Information Collection Request (ICR), in all other
respects, the content and substance of the survey are the same.
Performance Database: The performance database consists of quarterly Partner status reports
used to document the outcomes of individual projects; a media tracking study used to assess
behavior change within that sector of the public viewing the public service announcements; and a
national telephone survey (National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and
Children's Exposure to ETS) which seeks information about the measures taken by people with
asthma, and parents of children with asthma, to minimize exposure to indoor environmental
asthma triggers. Since 2000, the Agency relies on two other sources of information collected on
an annual calendar year basis. Additional information about asthma morbidity and mortality in
the US is obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Annual
expenditures for health and lost productivity due to asthma are obtained from the National Heart
Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Chartbook www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/02_chtbk.pdf
last accessed 12/22/2004.
Data Source: Each component of the database has a unique source. Partner status reports are
generated by those organizations receiving funding from EPA and are maintained by individual
EPA Project Officers. An independent initiative of the Advertising Council provides media
tracking of outcomes of all of their public service campaigns and this is publicly available
information. The National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's
Exposure to ETS (OMB control number 2060-0490) source is EPA. Data on asthma morbidity
and mortality is available from the National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC
(www.cdc.gov/nchs). Data on annual expenditures for health and lost productivity due to asthma
are obtained from the NHLBI Chartbook.
PPA-183
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: End-of-year performance is a best professional
estimate using all data sources. The survey provides more statistically sound results for one
period of time; the next scheduled survey will provide performance results for year 2008.
Partner status reports: EPA requires (programmatic terms and conditions of the award) all
funded organizations to provide quarterly reports identifying the numbers of children, adults, and
health care professionals educated about indoor asthma triggers, the numbers of homes, schools,
and child care centers in which triggers have been identified, and the type of mitigation actions
taken in these environments. In addition, decreases in the number of emergency room visits,
hospitalizations, and other markers of asthma morbidity are requested from those partner
organizations with access to such data. EPA believes that the information reflects progress made
at achieving performance measures.
National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS
(OMB control number 2060-0490): This survey is the most robust data set for this performance
measure, but it is not administered annually. It (telephonic survey) was designed in consultation
with staff from EPA and the CDC National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to ensure that
respondents will understand the questions asked and will provide the type of data necessary to
measure the Agency's objectives. In addition, care has been taken to ensure that the survey
questions target the population with asthma by using the same qualifier question that appears on
other national surveys on asthma collected by the CDC.
From an initial sampling frame of 124,994 phone numbers, 14,685 households were contacted
successfully and agreed to participate in the screening survey. Of the 14,685 individuals
screened, approximately 18 percent, or 2,637 individuals, either have asthma or live with
someone who does. Only those individuals who have asthma or live with someone who does
were considered to be eligible respondents.
Respondents were asked to provide primarily yes/no responses. In some cases, respondents were
given a range of responses in the form of multiple choice questions and were asked to indicate
the one which best defined their response. The survey seeks information on those environmental
management measures that the Agency considers important in reducing an individual's exposure
to known indoor environmental asthma triggers. By using yes/no and multiple choice questions,
the Agency has substantially reduced the amount of time necessary for the respondent to
complete the survey and has ensured consistency in data response and interpretation.
The information collected has been used to establish a baseline to reflect the characteristics of
our nation's asthma population and future iterations of this survey will measure additional
progress toward achieving performance measures.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately and
completely as possible; site-visits are conducted by EPA project officers as warranted. The
National Survey is designed in accordance with approved Agency procedures. Additional
information is available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/icr/players.html last accessed
PPA-184
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
12/22/2004. The computer assisted telephone interview methodology used for this survey helps
to limit errors in data collection. In addition, the QA/QC procedures associated with conducting
the survey include pilot testing of interview questions, interviewer training to ensure consistent
gathering of information, and random data review to reduce the possibility of data entry error.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources to ascertain reliability.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Partner organization status reporting
is that limitation inherent to self-reporting. For the National Survey, random digit dialing
methodology is used to ensure that a representative sample of households has been contacted;
however, the survey is subject to inherent limitations of voluntary telephone surveys of
representative samples. For example, 1) survey is limited to those households with current
telephone service; 2) interviewers may follow survey directions inconsistently. An interviewer
might ask the questions incorrectly or inadvertently lead the interviewee to a response; or 3) the
interviewer may call at an inconvenient time (i.e., the respondent might not want to be
interrupted at the time of the call and may resent the intrusion of the phone call; the answers will
reflect this attitude.).
Error Estimate: In its first data collection with this instrument, the Agency achieved results
within the following percentage points of the true value at the 95 percent confidence level
(survey instrument):
Adult Asthmatics plus or minus 2.4%
Child Asthmatics plus or minus 3.7%
Low Income Adult Asthmatics plus or minus 6.1%
These precision rates are sufficient to characterize the extent to which the results measured by
the survey accurately reflect the characteristics of our nation's asthmatic population.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Data from the National Survey on Environmental
Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS (OMB control number 2060-0490)
were collected from August 4-September 17, 2003 and represent the first data collection with
this instrument.
References: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(www.cdc.gov/nchs/ last accessed 12/22/2004)
EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iaq/ last accessed 12/22/2004)
FY 2006 Performance Measure
Number of Children 6 and Under not Exposed to Secondhand Smoke (ShS) in the
Home
PPA-185
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Database: The performance database consists of Smoke-free Home Pledges that
are tracked through a hotline and website and are documented in a monthly pledge report
generated by EPA staff. Cooperative Agreement Partner status reports are used to document the
outcomes of individual projects; and a state and local technical assistance database documents
known activities and partners in the field. A national telephone survey (National Survey on
Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS), which includes a
series of questions about whether respondents allow smoking in their home, whether young
children are in the home, what resident family members smoke and how often, and how much
visitors contribute to exposure, is used to track progress toward reducing exposure. Information
about ShS in the US is obtained periodically from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) including the National Health Interview Survey (for use in benchmarking
because the same questions on ShS were asked in the 1994 and 1998 baseline National Health
Interview Surveys as the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and
Children's Exposure to ETS), the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (for
cotinine data), and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (for state tobacco/ShS
exposure data).
Data Source: Each component of the database has a unique source. For the National Survey on
Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS (OMB control number
2060-0490), the source is EPA. Additional references are the US Surgeon General's report on
tobacco (which includes the 1986 seminal document on involuntary smoking and demographic
profiles of smoking/ShS exposure in US), the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Tobacco
Monograph Series (compiles the sum of current knowledge including clinical trials, clinical
guidelines and the validation of both the EPA and California EPA risk assessments), the NCI
funded Tobacco Use Supplement portion of the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey
(contains fundamental policy questions regarding tobacco/ShS including smoking in the home ),
and Healthy People 2010 (which includes information on cotinine, ShS exposure and children).
Additionally, cooperative partner status reports are generated by those organizations receiving
funding from EPA and are maintained by individual EPA project officers.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Partner status reports: EPA requires all funded
organizations to provide status reports on their activities identifying, for example, number of
presentations given, pledges signed, number of people trained (i.e. health officials, daycare
providers), number of parents reached, and projected number of children no longer exposed as a
result of their activities. EPA believes that the information reflects progress made at achieving
performance objectives.
National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS
(OMB control number 2060-0490): This survey is the most robust data set for the performance
measure; however it is not administered annually. The next survey will provide 2008 results.
PPA-186
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA designed the survey instrument (telephonic survey) in consultation with the CDC National
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to ensure that respondents would understand the questions
asked and would provide the type of data necessary to measure the Agency's performance. From
the initial sampling frame of 124,994 phone numbers, 14,685 were contacted successfully and
agreed to participate in the screening survey. ETS information was obtained from these
individuals. The sample was large enough to yield the number of responses necessary to achieve
an estimated two percent precision rate at a 95 percent confidence level. Respondents were
asked to provide primarily yes/no responses. In some cases, respondents were given a range of
responses in the form of multiple choice questions and were asked to indicate the one which best
defined their response. By using yes/no and multiple-choice questions, the Agency substantially
reduced the amount of time necessary for the respondent to complete the survey and ensured
consistency in data response and interpretation. EPA believes that the information collected can
be used as an additional benchmark to the 1994 and 1998 National Health Interview Survey data
in order to accurately reflect the percentage of children 6 and under exposed to ShS in the home
and progress in achieving performance objectives.
End-of-year performance is a best professional estimate using all data sources. The survey
provides more statistically sound results for one period of time; the next scheduled survey will
provide performance results for year 2008.
QA/QC Procedures: With regard to partner organization reports, EPA assumes that the data are
collected and reported as accurately and completely as possible; site-visits are conducted by EPA
project officers as warranted. The National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma
and Children's Exposure to ETS was designed in accordance with approved Agency procedures.
Additional information is available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/icr/players.html last
accessed 12/22/2004.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources in the performance database to
ascertain reliability and resolves any discrepancies.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Cooperative Agreement Partner status
reporting is that self-reporting has an inherent limitation. For the National Survey, random digit
dialing methodology is used to ensure that a representative sample of households has been
contacted; however, the survey is subject to inherent limitations in voluntary telephone surveys
of representative samples. Limitations of phone surveys include: 1) possible inconsistency of
interviewers following survey directions. For example, an interviewer might; ask the questions
incorrectly or inadvertently lead the interviewee to a response; or 2) call at an inconvenient time.
For example, the respondent might not want to be interrupted at the time of the call and may
resent the intrusion of the phone call. The answers will reflect this attitude. In addition, a
telephone survey is limited to those households with a telephone or households that speak
English. A limitation of the survey in general is that the survey represents a single point and
cannot, as a stand-alone document, represent the changes in demographics and population over
time.
PPA-187
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Currently available cotinine survey data do not address 50% of the age specific portion of EPA's
target population. It does not include birth to three years old, the portion of children most
susceptible to the effects of ETS.
Error Estimate: EPA's survey was designed to ensure that, at the 95 percent confidence level,
its estimate of the number of children 6 and under not exposed to ShS in the house is within
approximately two percentage points of the true value.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Data from the National Survey on Environmental
Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS (OMB control number 2060-0490) was
collected from August 4-September 17, 2003 and represents the first data collection with this
instrument. This survey utilized the exact questions on ShS from the 1994 and 1998 baseline
National Health Interview Surveys and will assist in evaluating progress made at achieving our
goal.
References: EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iaq/)
National Health Interview Survey and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are
part of the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs last accessed 12/22/2004)
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm last accessed 12/22/2004),
US Surgeon General's report on tobacco (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/index.htm/ last
accessed 12/28/2004),
National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Tobacco Monograph Series
(http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/ last accessed 12/22/2004),
NCI funded Tobacco Use Supplement portion of the US Census Bureau's Current Population
Survey (http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/studies/tus-cps/ last accessed 12/22/2004),
Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/ last accessed 12/22/2004).
FY 2006 Performance Measure
Students, faculty and staff experiencing improved indoor air quality in their schools
Performance Database: The performance data consist of cooperative partner status reports,
annual results reports from the EPA, and tracking numbers of disseminated Tools for Schools
kits (TfS). A survey of a representative sample of schools was completed by EH&E Inc. of
Newton, MA during calendar year 2002. The survey verified the number of schools using indoor
PPA-188
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
air quality management plans consistent with EPA guidance. However, the survey is not
administered on an annual basis.
Data Source: The sources of the data include cooperative partners and EPA, the National
Clearinghouse on the numbers of kits disseminated, and the statistical sample of all the public
and private schools in the nation during the 1999 - 2000 school year (data are from the United
States Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Calculations for the number of people experiencing
improved IAQ are based upon an average 525 students, staff and faculty per school (data are
from the United States Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics). That
number, along with the number of schools that are adopting/implementing TfS, are used to
estimate the performance result.
End-of-year performance is a best professional estimate using all data sources. The survey
provides more statistically sound results for one period of time; the next scheduled survey will
provide performance results for year 2008.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately and
completely as possible; site visits and regular communication with grantees are conducted by
EPA projects officers.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources in the performance database to
ascertain reliability and to resolve any discrepancies.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Cooperative Agreement Partner status
reporting is that self-reporting has an inherent limitation.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: Prior to the survey, EPA tracked the number of schools
receiving the TfS guidance and estimated the population of the school to determine the number
of students/staff experiencing improved indoor air quality. The survey was administered to
establish a baseline for schools implementing IAQ management practices. EPA queried a
statistically representative sample of schools to estimate the number of schools that have actually
adopted and implemented good IAQ management practices consistent with the TfS guidance.
EPA plans to re-administer the survey beginning in FY 2006 timeframe.
References: See the United States Department of Education National Center for Education
Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/. See also Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Kit (402-K-95-001)
at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools last accessed 12/22/2004.
PPA-189
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Office Workers experiencing improved indoor air quality in their workplaces
Performance Database: Since fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter, the performance
database consists of the annual number of requested copies of building indoor air quality
guidance documents, (e.g. EPA's Building Air Quality, I-Beam, a computer software designed to
be a comprehensive state-of-the-art guidance for managing IAQ in commercial buildings, Mold
Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings) and training conducted through cooperative
agreements or other government agencies (GSA) using EPA documents. In addition, EPA
conducted a voluntary pilot survey of building owners and managers in 2001 to determine the
use of indoor air quality (IAQ) management practices in U.S. office buildings.
Data Source: The pilot survey was developed by EPA and distributed by the Building Owners
and Managers Association (BOMA). The pilot survey's purpose and design received approval
from the Office of Management and Budget. The survey is not administered on an annual basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The pilot survey included data regarding: the size and
uses of a selected building; documentation of management practices employed in the building;
how the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems are managed; how pollution sources
are addressed; housekeeping and pest management practices; remodeling and renovation
activities; and responses to tenant complaints regarding IAQ. A sampling frame was developed
based upon random sampling of the membership lists from BOMA, the International Facilities
Managers Association (IFMA) and buildings managed by the General Services Administration
(GSA). The final sample size, (and survey recipient list) was 3,612 and we received 591
completed surveys. The survey results identified both strengths and weaknesses in building
management practices in U.S. office buildings.
End-of-year performance is a best professional estimate using all data sources. The survey
provides more statistically sound results for one period of time.
QA/QC Procedures: Survey was designed in accordance with approved Agency procedures.
Additional information is available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/icr/players.html/ last
accessed 12/22/2004. The quality review was conducted by BOMA.
Data Quality Review: BOMA had responsibility for the accuracy of data entered into the
database. Quality assurance safeguards were used in the data entry. BOMA, and EPA's
contractor reviewed individual survey responses for accuracy during the aggregation and
analyses activities.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with basing estimates on requests for
guidance documents and training is the unknown factor of how many of the requests resulted in
improved indoor air quality. The survey provided a reference point on progress. The survey
PPA-190
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
results are subject to the limitations inherent in survey sampling. The response rate of 14% for
the survey was low due to the timing of the survey administration and subsequent events in
September and October 2001.
Error Estimate: 4% precision at a 95% confidence level.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: N/A
PPA-191
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 1 Objective 3
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs
Restrict Domestic Exempted Production and Import of Newly Produced Class I CFCs
and Halons
Performance Database: The Allowance Tracking System (ATS) database is maintained by the
Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD). The ATS is used to compile and analyze quarterly
information on U.S. production, imports, exports, transformations, and allowance trades of
ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Results are reported on a calendar-year basis.
Data Source: Progress on restricting domestic exempted consumption of Class I CFCs and
halons is tracked by monitoring industry reports of compliance with EPA's phaseout regulations.
U.S. companies that produce, import, and export ODS provide the data, typically in quarterly
reports. Specific requirements as outlined in the Clean Air Act are available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caa603.txt.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data are aggregated across all U.S. companies for
each individual ODS to analyze total U.S. consumption and production.
QA/QC Procedures: Reporting and record keeping requirements are published in 40 CFR Part
82, Subpart A, Sections 82.9 through 82.24. These sections specify the required data and
accompanying documentation that companies must submit or maintain on site to demonstrate
their compliance.
The ATS data are subject to a Quality Assurance Plan (Quality Assurance Plan, USEPA Office
of Atmospheric Programs, October 2004). In addition, the data are subject to an annual quality
assurance review, coordinated by Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) staff separate from those
on the team normally responsible for data collection and maintenance. The ATS is programmed
to ensure consistency of the data elements reported by companies. The tracking system flags
inconsistent data for review and resolution by the tracking system manager. This information is
then cross-checked with compliance data submitted by reporting companies. SPD maintains a
user's manual for the ATS that specifies the standard operating procedures for data entry and
data analysis. EPA regional inspectors perform inspections and audits on site at the producers',
importers', and exporters' facilities. These audits verify the accuracy of compliance data
submitted to EPA through examination of company records.
Data Quality Reviews: The Government Accounting Office (GAO) completed a review of U.S.
participation in five international environmental agreements, and analyzed data submissions
from the U.S. under the Montreal Protocol on Substances the Deplete the Ozone Layer. No
deficiencies were identified in their January 2003 report.
PPA-192
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Limitations: None. Data are required by the Clean Air Act.
Error Estimate: None.
New/Improved Data or Systems: SPD is developing a system to allow direct electronic
reporting.
References: See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/desc.html for additional information on ODSs. See
http://www.unep.ch/ozone/montreal. shtml for additional information about the Montreal
Protocol. See http://www.unmfs.org/ for more information about the Multilateral Fund. Quality
Assurance Plan, USEPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, October 2004.
PPA-193
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 1 Objective 4
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Purchase and Deploy State-of-Art Monitoring Units
Performance Data: Data from the near real-time gamma component of the Environmental
Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS) will be stored in an internal EPA database at
the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama.
Expect to receive results every fiscal year beginning in FY 2006.
Data Source: Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS). When the
system is fully operational, data on ionizing radiation in air will be available in near real-time
from a total of 180 monitoring units.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Assuming that funding is continued in future years
and the project receives all necessary approvals, the existing air sampling equipment will be
replaced with state-of-the art air monitors that include near real-time gamma radiation detection
capability. Addition of detectors and communication systems will provide notification about
significant radioactive contamination events to decision- makers within hours
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow the
Agency guidelines and be consistent with a specific Quality Assurance Plan that will be
completed once the Agency tests and accepts the fixed radiation monitor prototype (given
current assumptions, we expect delivery of the prototype in spring 2005 and fmalization of the
quality assurance plan in early summer). All monitoring equipment will be periodically
calibrated with reliable standards and routinely checked for accuracy with onsite testing devices.
Laboratory analyses of air filters and other environmental media are closely controlled in
compliance with the NAREL Quality Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating
Procedures.
Data Quality Reviews: The database will screen all incoming data from the monitoring systems
for abnormalities as an indicator of either a contamination event or an instrument malfunction.
Data will be held in a secure portion of the database until verified by trained personnel. Copies
of quality assurance and quality control testing will also be maintained to assure the quality of
the data.
Data Limitations: Data are limited in near real-time to gamma emitting radionuclide
identification and quantification. Radiation levels from gamma-emitting nuclides that will be so
low as to be "undetectable" will be significantly below health concerns that require immediate
action. Lower levels of radioactive materials in the samples will be measured through
laboratory-based analyses and data will be available within days after the sample is received.
PPA-194
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Error Estimate: The overall error in detection capability is estimated to be within 50% of the
actual concentration based on previous experience with similar measurement systems. An error
analysis will be performed on the prototype systems during the process of detector selection.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: New air samplers will maintain steady flow
rates that are measured during operation and corrected for varying environmental conditions.
Addition of gamma spectrometric detectors and computer-based multi-channel analyzers to the
air samplers provide near real-time analyses of radioactive content in particles captured by the
filter. In addition to data collection the onboard computer systems can communicate results of
analyses back to a central database and even identify abnormal conditions that might require
action. These improvements not only include higher quality data, but also will provide
information regarding contamination events to decision-makers within hours instead of days.
The number and location of monitoring sites will be improved to provide representative
sampling for much more of the nation's population.
References: For a additional information about the continuous monitoring system, ERAMS see:
http://www.epa.gov/narel/erams/aboutus.htmltfmission last accessed 12/22/2004
NAREL Quality Management Plan, Revision 1, March 15, 2001.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of EPA RERT members that meet scenario-based criteria
Performance Data: To determine the effectiveness of RERT performance, an output measure
has been developed that scores RERT members on a scale of one (1) to 100 against scenario-
based criteria. A baseline evaluation was performed in FY03, based on the effectiveness of the
RERT in responses to actual incidents and a major national exercise (TOPOFF2). RERT
members were evaluated in their ability to: (1) provide effective field response, (2) support
coordination centers, and (3) provide analytical capabilities and throughout as needed to support
a single small-to-medium scale incident. Overall RERT effectiveness in this baseline analysis
was measured at approximately 13 percent. In FY 2004, RERT members were re-evaluated,
through a major exercise, in the ability factors listed above. In FY 2005, the evaluation criteria
will be reevaluated and revised in response to the results of the FY 2004 exercise as well as
changes necessitated by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Under this Act, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) is required to develop evaluation criteria and test the effectiveness of
the Nuclear Incident Response Team (NIRT), which includes EPA's RERT assets. Thus, the
output measure tentatively outlined above will be modified both in response to lessons learned at
the exercise and in cooperation with DHS to meet the needs of the NIRT. Data will be collected
on a fiscal year basis starting in FY 2003.
Data Source: DHS is responsible for assuring that all Federal Emergency Response assets
maintain an adequate level of readiness (Homeland Security Act of 2002). EPA assumes that
DHS will maintain a data system to evaluate and assess the readiness of assets across the federal
PPA-195
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
government. EPA will perform evaluations of its own assets including exercises such as the FY
2004 exercise and report results under this measure, but must rely on the DHS data source for
key information.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: The expectations for performance of EPA's RERT are currently evolving.
Under Section 501 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, DHS's Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response will establish standards as part of the NIRT that will be
applicable to EPA's RERT assets. DHS will evaluate the NIRT's performance against these new
standards, which have not yet been developed. The requirements for the RERT (i.e., what is
actually expected of RERT members during a response) may change because of the new
standards. This uncertainty means that the current evaluation may not effectively reflect future
criteria.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: The Homeland Security Act of 2002.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Drums of Radioactive Waste Disposed of according to EPA Standards
Performance Data: The Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
database contains the number of drums shipped by DOE waste generator facilities and placed in
the DOE WIPP. The WIPP is a DOE facility located in southeastern New Mexico, 26 miles from
Carlsbad. The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act was passed by Congress in October 1992 and
amended in September 1996. The act transferred the land occupied by the WIPP to DOE and
gave EPA regulatory responsibility for determining whether the facility complies with
radioactive waste disposal standards. Results are calculated on a fiscal year basis and have been
reported annually since 1999.
Data Source: Department of Energy
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
PPA-196
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
QA/QC Procedures: The performance data used by EPA are collected and maintained by DOE.
Under EPA's WTPP regulations (available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/background.htm (last accessed 7/21/2004), all DOE WTPP-
related data must be collected and maintained under a comprehensive quality assurance program
meeting consensus standards developed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) (available on the Internet: http://www.asme.org/codes/ (last accessed 12/22/2004) ).
EPA conducts regular inspections to ensure that these quality assurance systems are in place and
functioning properly; no additional QA/QC of the DOE data is conducted by EPA.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: The DOE WIPP database contains the number of drums shipped by DOE
waste generator facilities and placed in the DOE WIPP. Currently, there are five DOE waste
generator facilities that are approved to generate and ship waste: Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Hanford Site, Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Savannah River Site.
Before DOE waste generator facilities can ship waste to the WIPP, EPA must approve the waste
characterization controls and quality assurance procedures for waste identification at these sites.
EPA conducts frequent independent inspections and audits at these sites to verify continued
compliance with radioactive waste disposal standards and to determine if DOE is properly
tracking the waste and adhering to specific waste component limits. Once EPA gives its
approval, the number of drums shipped to the WIPP facility on an annual basis is dependent on
DOE priorities and funding. EPA volume estimates are based on projecting the average shipment
volumes over 40 years with an initial start up.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: The Department of Energy National TRU Waste Management Plan
Quarterly Supplement http://www.wipp.ws/library/caolib.htm#Controlled_ (last accessed
12/22/2004) contains information on the monthly volumes of waste that are received at
the DOE WIPP.
PPA-197
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 1 Objective 5
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions overall and by Sector
Performance Database: Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System. The
tracking system's primary purpose is to maintain a record of the annual greenhouse gas
emissions reduction goals and accomplishments for the voluntary climate program using
information from partners and other sources.. It also measures the electricity savings and
contribution towards the President's greenhouse gas intensity goal (The President's green house
gas intensity goal was announced by the President February 2002. Please check the White
House website for more details). Results are reported annually and calculated on a calendar-year
basis.
Data Source: EPA develops carbon and non-CC>2 emissions baselines. A baseline is the
"business-as-usual" case without the impact of EPA's voluntary climate programs. Baseline data
for carbon emissions related to energy use comes from the Energy Information Agency (EIA)
and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM) of the U.S. electric power sector. These data
are used for both historical and projected greenhouse gas emissions and electricity generation,
independent of partners' information to compute emissions reductions from the baseline and
progress toward annual goals. The projections use a "Reference Case" for assumptions about
growth, the economy, and regulatory conditions. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases, are maintained
by EPA. The non-CO2 data are compiled with input from industry and also independently from
partners' information.
Data collected by EPA's voluntary programs include partner reports on facility- specific
improvements (e.g. space upgraded, kilowatt-hours (kWh) reduced), national market data on
shipments of efficient products, and engineering measurements of equipment power levels and
usage patterns
Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. The report
includes a complete chapter dedicated to the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory (sources, industries,
emissions, volumes, changes, trends, etc.). A second chapter addresses projected greenhouse
gases in the future (model assumptions, growth, sources, gases, sectors, etc.) U.S. Department of
State. 2002. "U.S. Climate Action Report2002. Third National Communication of the United
States of America under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."
Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific improvements
but these emissions data are not used in tracking the performance measure. EPA, however,
validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based on the actual emissions data received.
PPA-198
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Most of the voluntary climate programs' focus is on
energy efficiency. For these programs, EPA estimates the expected reduction in electricity
consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Emissions prevented are calculated as the product of the
kWh of electricity saved and an annual emission factor (e.g., million metric tons carbon
equivalent (MMTCE) prevented per kWh). Other programs focus on directly lowering
greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Natural Gas STAR, Landfill Methane Outreach, and Coalbed
Methane Outreach); for these, greenhouse gas emission reductions are estimated on a project-by-
project basis. EPA maintains a Atracking system@ for emissions reductions.
The Integrated Planning Model, used to develop baseline data for carbon emissions, is an
important analytical tool for evaluating emission scenarios affecting the U.S. power sector. The
IPM has an approved quality assurance project plan that is available from EPA's program office.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information
on which to evaluate emissions reductions from voluntary programs. Peer-reviewed carbon-
conversion factors are used to ensure consistency with generally accepted measures of
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and peer-reviewed methodologies are used to calculate GHG
reductions from these programs.
Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific improvements
but these emissions data are not used in tracking the performance measure. EPA, however,
validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based on the actual emissions data received.
Data Quality Review: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate
programs through interagency evaluations. The second such interagency evaluation, led by the
White House Council on Environmental Quality, examined the status of U.S. climate change
programs. The review included participants from EPA and the Departments of State, Energy,
Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. The results were published in the U.S. Climate
Action Report-2002 as part of the United States' submission to the Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC). The previous evaluation was published in the U.S. Climate Action
Report-1997. A 1997 audit by EPA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that the climate
programs examined "used good management practices" and "effectively estimated the impact
their activities had on reducing risks to health and the environment..."
Data Limitations: These are indirect measures of GHG emissions (carbon conversion factors
and methods to convert material-specific reductions to GHG emissions reductions). Also, the
voluntary nature of the programs may affect reporting. Further research will be necessary in
order to fully understand the links between GHG concentrations and specific environmental
impacts, such as impacts on health, ecosystems, crops, weather events, and so forth.
Error Estimate: These are indirect measures of GHG emissions. Although EPA devotes
considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information on which to evaluate emissions
PPA-199
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
reductions from its voluntary programs, errors in the performance data could be introduced
through uncertainties in carbon conversion factors, engineering analyses, and econometric
analyses. The only programs at this time aimed at avoiding GHG emissions are voluntary.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of
its climate programs through interagency evaluations. EPA continues to update inventories and
methodologies as new information becomes available.
References: The U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 is available at:
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html. The accomplishments of many of
EPA's voluntary programs are documented in the Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Annual Report. The most recent version is Change for the Better: Energy Star and Other
Voluntary Programs, Climate Protection Partnerships Division 2002 Annual Report.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Annual Energy Savings
Performance Database: Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System. Results are
reported annually and calculated on a calendar-year basis.
Data Source: Data collected by EPA's voluntary programs include partner reports on facility
specific improvements (e.g. space upgraded, kilowatt-hours (kWh) reduced), national market
data on shipments of efficient products, and engineering measurements of equipment power
levels and usage patterns. EPA maintains a Atracking system@ for energy reductions.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Most of the voluntary climate programs' focus is on
energy efficiency. For these programs, EPA estimates the expected reduction in electricity
consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Emissions prevented are calculated as the product of the
kWh of electricity saved and an annual emission factor (e.g., MMTCE prevented per kWh).
Other programs focus on directly lowering greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Natural Gas STAR,
Landfill Methane Outreach, and Coalbed Methane Outreach); for these, greenhouse gas emission
reductions are estimated on a project-by-project basis.
Energy bill savings are calculated as the product of the kWh of energy saved and the cost of
electricity for the affected market segment (residential, commercial, or industrial) taken from the
Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook and Annual Energy Review
for each year in the analysis (1993-2012). Energy bill savings also include revenue from the sale
of methane and/or the sale of electricity made from captured methane. The net present value
(NPV) of these savings was calculated using a 4-percent discount rate and a 2001 perspective.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible
information on which to evaluate energy savings from its voluntary programs.
PPA-200
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Quality Review: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate
programs through interagency evaluations. The second such interagency evaluation, led by the
White House Council on Environmental Quality, examined the status of U.S. climate change
programs. The review included participants from EPA and the Departments of State, Energy,
Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. The results were published in the U.S. Climate
Action Report-2002 as part of the United States' submission to the Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC). The previous evaluation was published in the U.S. Climate Action
Report-1997. A 1997 audit by EPA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that the climate
programs examined "used good management practices" and "effectively estimated the impact
their activities had on reducing risks to health and the environment...@
Data Limitations: The voluntary nature of programs may affect reporting. In addition, errors in
the performance data could be introduced through uncertainties in engineering analyses and
econometric analyses.
Error Estimate: Although EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible
information on which to evaluate emissions reductions from voluntary programs, errors in the
performance data could be introduced through uncertainties in engineering analyses and
econometric analyses.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of
its climate programs through interagency evaluations. EPA continues to update inventories and
methodologies as new information becomes available.
References: The U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 is available at:
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html. The accomplishments of many of
EPA=s voluntary programs are documented in the Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Annual Report. The most recent version is Protecting the Environment Together: Energy Star
and Other Voluntary Programs, Climate Protection Partnerships Division 2003 Annual Report
[expected fall 2004].
PPA-201
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 1 Objective 6
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Fuel Economy of Typical SUV Vehicle with EPA-Developed Hybrid Technology Tested
over EPA Driving Cycles
Performance Database: Fuel economy test data for both urban and highway test cycles under
the EPA Federal Test Procedure for passenger cars. The Clean Automotive Technology program
commits EPA to develop technology by the end of the decade to satisfy stringent criteria
emissions requirements and to at most double fuel efficiency in personal vehicles such as SUVs,
pickups, and urban delivery vehicles while simultaneously meeting the more demanding size,
performance, durability, and power requirements of these vehicles. The results are calculated on
a fiscal year basis.
Data Source: EPA fuel economy tests performed at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions
Laboratory (NVFEL), Ann Arbor, Michigan
QA/QC Procedures: EPA fuel economy tests are performed in accordance with the EPA
Federal Test Procedure and all applicable QA/QC procedures. Available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's NVFEL laboratory is recognized as a national and international
facility for fuel economy and emissions testing. NVFEL is also the reference point for private
industry.
Data Limitations: Primarily due to EPA regulations, vehicle fuel economy testing is a well
established and precise exercise with extremely low test to test variability (well less than 5%).
Additional information is available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/testdata.html. One
challenge relates to fuel economy testing of hybrid vehicles (i.e., more than one source of
onboard power), which is more complex than testing of conventional vehicles. EPA has not yet
published formal regulations to cover hybrid vehicles. Relevant information is available on the
Internet: http://www.ctts.nrel.gov/analysis/hev_test/procedures.shtml.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is using solid engineering judgment and consultations
with other expert organizations (including major auto companies) to develop internal procedures
for testing hybrid vehicles.
PPA-202
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
References: See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/testproc.htm for additional information about testing
and measuring emissions at the NVFEL.
FY 2006 Performance Measures:
Synthesis report with improved data on emissions and ambient concentrations for use
in preparation and evaluation of state implementation plan development, application,
and compliance determination
Integrated report on the health effects of different particle sizes or particle components
in healthy and select susceptible subgroups
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
PPA-203
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 2 Objective 1
FY 2006 Performance Measures:
The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through
effective treatment and source water protection
The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive
drinking water that meets health-based standards with which systems need to comply as
of December 2001
The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive
drinking water that meets health-based standards with a compliance date of January
2002 or later (covered standards include: Stage I disinfection by-products/interim
enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water treatment
rule/arsenic)
The percentage of community water systems that provide drinking water that meets
health-based standards with which systems need to comply as of December 2001
The percentage of community water systems that provide drinking water that meets
health-based standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later
The percentage of population served by community water systems in Indian country that
receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards
Performance Database: Safe Drinking Water Information System - Federal Version (SDWIS or
SDWIS-FED). SDWIS contains basic water system information, population served, and detailed
records of violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the statute's implementing regulations.
The performance measure is based on the population served by community water systems that
were active during any part of the performance year and did not have any violations designated as
"health based." Exceedances of a maximum contaminant level (MCL) and violations of a
treatment technique are health-based violations. SDWIS has provided annual results for nine years
and reports on a fiscal year basis.
Data Source: Data are provided by agencies with primacy (primary enforcement authority) for
the Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) program. These agencies are either: States, EPA for
non-delegated states or territories, and the Navajo Nation Indian tribe, the only tribe with primacy.
Primacy agencies collect the data from the regulated water systems, determine compliance, and
report a subset of the data to EPA (primarily inventory and summary violations).
PPA-204
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Under the drinking water regulations, water systems
must use approved analytical methods for testing for contaminants. State certified laboratories
report contaminant occurrence to states that, in turn, determine exceedances of maximum
contaminant levels or non-compliance with treatment techniques and report these violations to
EPA. These results are subject to periodic performance audits and compared to results that states
report to SDWIS. Primacy agencies' information systems and compliance determinations are
audited on an average schedule of once every 3 years, according to a protocol. To measure
program performance, EPA aggregates the SDWIS data into national statistics on overall
compliance with health-based drinking water standards using the measures identified above.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA conducts a number of Quality Assurance/Quality Control steps to
provide high quality data for program use, including:
(1) SDWIS-FED edit checks built into the software to reject erroneous data.
(2) Quality assurance manuals for states and Regions, which provide standard operating
procedures for conducting routine assessments of the quality of the data, including timely
corrective action(s).
(3) Training to states on reporting requirements, data entry, data retrieval, and error
correction.
(4) User and system documentation produced with each software release and maintained on
EPA's web site. System, user, and reporting requirements documents can be found on the
EPA web site, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/. System and user documents are accessed
via the database link http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html, and specific rule
reporting requirements documents are accessed via the regulations, guidance, and policy
documents link http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html.
(5) Specific error correction and reconciliation support through a troubleshooter's guide, a
system-generated summary with detailed reports documenting the results of each data
submission, and an error code database for states to use when they have questions on how
to enter or correct data.
(6) User support hotline available 5 days a week.
The SDWIS-FED equivalent of a quality assurance plan is the data reliability action plan1
(DRAP). The DRAP contains the processes and procedures and major activities to be
employed and undertaken for assuring the data in SDWIS meet required data quality
standards. This plan has three major components: assurance, assessment, and control.
Data Quality Review: SDWIS data quality was identified as an Agency weakness in 1999 and
has a corrective action completion target date that extends to 2007. SDWIS' weaknesses center
around five major issues: 1) completeness of the data (e.g., the inventory of public water systems,
violations of maximum contaminant levels, enforcement actions) submitted by the states, 2)
timeliness of the data sent by the states, i.e., if states do not report at specified times, then
1 Data Reliability Action Plan. U.S. EPA, October 2002. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water internal work plan
document. Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan (2003) For State Reported Public Water System Data In
the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version (SDWIS/FED)
PPA-205
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
enforcement and oversight actions suffer, 3) difficulty receiving data from the states, 4) both cost
and difficulty processing and storing data in SDWIS after it has been received, and 5) difficulty
getting SDWIS data for reporting and analysis. Two (2000 and 2003) Data Reliability Action
Plans focus on the first two issues, and an information strategic plan2 (ISP) has been developed and
is being implemented to address the last three issues, which deal primarily with technology
(hardware and software) concerns. For instance, the ISP documents ways to improve tools and
processes for creating and transferring data to EPA. The ISP incorporates newer technologies
and adapts the Agency's Enterprise Architecture Plan to integrate data and allow the flow of data
from reporting entities to EPA via the Agency's secure central data exchange (CDX)
environment. Detailed activities and implementation schedules are included in these documents,
and the Agency expects to implement these additional improvements by the end of 2005.
Routine data quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) analyses of the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) by the Office Water (OW) have revealed a degree of non-
reporting of violations of health-based drinking water standards, and of violations of regulatory
monitoring and reporting requirements (discussed further under Data Limitations). As a result of
these data quality problems, the baseline statistic of national compliance with health-based
drinking water standards likely is lower than previously reported. The Agency is engaged in
statistical analysis and in discussions with states to more accurately quantify the impact of these
data quality problems on the estimate of national compliance with health-based drinking water
standards. Even as improvements are made, SDWIS serves as the best source of national
information on compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements for program
management, the development of drinking water regulations, trends analyses, and public
information.
Data Limitations: Recent state data verification and other quality assurance analyses indicate
that the most significant data quality problem is under-reporting of monitoring and health-based
standards violations and inventory characteristics. The most significant under-reporting occurs
in monitoring violations. Even though those are not covered in the health based violation
category, which is covered by the performance measure, failures to monitor could mask
treatment technique and MCL violations. Such under-reporting of violations limits EPA's ability
to: 1) accurately portray the amount of people affected by health-based violations, 2) undertake
geo-spatial analysis, 3) integrate and share data with other data systems, and 4) precisely
quantify the population served by systems, which are meeting the health-based standards.
Therefore, the estimates of population-served could be high or low. As described in the Data
Quality Review section above, EPA is currently changing the protocol to enhance the results of
data audits as the best near-term option to improve these estimates, while continuing to explore
other approaches, including use of contaminant occurrence data.
2 U. S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Information Strategy (under revision). See Options for
OGWDWInformation Strategy (Working Draft), EPA 816-P-01-001. Washington, DC, February 2001. Available on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/informationstrategy.html
PPA-206
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Error Estimate: EPA will be analyzing data, derived from the improved data audit protocol, with
a robust statistical basis from which to extrapolate national results, and better aligned with
requirements of the Data Quality Act. The long-term value of the improved audit process is that
each year's results will be statistically representative and provide information closer in time to
the needed performance reporting; for example, 2005 results, the first year of the improved audit
process will be reported in 2006.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Several approaches are underway.
First, EPA will continue to work with states to implement the DRAP and ISP, which have already
improved the completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency of the data in SDWIS-FED
through: 1) training courses for specific compliance determination and reporting requirements, 2)
state-specific technical assistance, 3) increased number of data audits conducted each year, and 4)
assistance to regions and states in the identification and reconciliation of missing, incomplete, or
conflicting data.
Second, more states (from 30 to 40 by year-end 2005) will use SDWIS-STATE,3 a software
information system jointly designed by states and EPA, to support states as they implement the
drinking water program.
Third, EPA has modified SDWIS-FED to (1) simplify the database, (2) minimize data entry
options resulting in complex software, (3) enforce Agency data standards, and (4) ease the flow
of data to EPA through a secure data exchange environment incorporating modern technologies,
all of which will improve the accuracy of the data. In 2006, full use of SDWIS-FED for
receiving state reports will be implemented. Data will be stored in a data warehouse system that
is optimized for analysis, data retrieval, and data integration from other data sources. It will
improve the program's ability to more efficiently use information to support decision-making
and effectively manage the program.
Finally, EPA, in partnership with the states, is developing information modules on other drinking
water programs: the Source Water Protection Program, the Underground Injection Control
Program (UIC), and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. These modules will be
integrated with SDWIS to provide a more comprehensive data set with which to assess the
nation's drinking water supplies, a key component of the goal. In 2003, agreement was reached
on the data elements for reporting source water and UIC data. Plans have now been developed
for design of systems to address these data flows. Developing the systems to receive the data is
scheduled for 2005.
3 SDWIS/STATE (Version 8.1) is an optional Oracle data base application available for use by states and EPA regions to support
implementation of their drinking water programs.
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Data and Databases. Drinking Water Data & Databases -
SDWIS/STATE, July 2002. Information available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwis_st/current.html
PPA-207
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
References:
Plans*
SDWIS-FED does not have a Quality Assurance Project Plan - it is a legacy system which
has "evolved" since the early 80s prior to the requirement for a Plan. The SDWIS-FED
equivalent is the Data Reliability Action Plan
Information Strategy Plan - SDWIS-FED (see footnote 2)
Office of Water Quality Management Plan, available at
http://www.epa.gov/water/info.html
Enterprise Architecture Plan
Reports*
1999 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability
2003 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability Report - contains the Data Reliability Action Plan and
status report
PWSS Management Report (quarterly)
1999 Management Plan Review Report
2003 Management Plan Review Report
Guidance Manuals, and Tools
PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance Manual
Various SDWIS-FED User and System Guidance Manuals (includes data entry
instructions, data On-line Data Element Dictionary-a database application, Error Code
Data Base (ECDB) - a database application, users guide, release notes, etc.) Available on
the Internet at
Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet at
Web site addresses
OGWDW Internet Site and contains
access to the information systems and various guidance, manuals, tools, and reports.
Sites of particular interest are:
contains information for users to
better analyze the data, and
contains reporting guidance,
system and user documentation and reporting tools for the SDWIS-FED system.
* These are internal documents maintained by EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Please call 202-564-3751 for
further information.
PPA-208
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of source water areas for community water systems that achieve minimized
risk to public health (minimized risk achieved by substantial implementation, as
determined by the state, of source water protection actions in a source water protection
strategy)
Performance Database: The source water assessment and protection programs are authorized
under Sections 1453, 1428, and relevant subsections of 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA).4 EPA issued guidance to implement these programs in 1997, State Source Water
Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance5 EPA will issue supplemental reporting
guidance, "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final
Reporting Guidance " early in 2005. Starting in FY 2005, and updated annually thereafter, states
report to EPA on the results of their source water assessment programs (SWAPs) and progress in
implementing source water protection (SWP) strategies, and whether such strategy
implementation is affecting public health protection. To assess the results of the SWAPs, state
reporting includes three elements: (1) the delineated source water areas around each well and
intake, (2) whether the assessments are complete, and (3) most prevalent and most threatening
sources of contamination. To assess progress in implementing the SWP strategies, state reporting
includes two elements: (1) whether a prevention strategy covering Community Water System
source water areas has been adopted, and is being implemented and (2) whether such strategy
implementation has reached a substantial level. To assess whether the program is affecting
public health protection, states report change in the number of source water areas with
substantially implemented source water protection strategies. The Agency will develop a
national summary of data on the progress of states' source water protection programs using these
data elements in early 2006.
In FY 2003, EPA maintained pilot state-level summary data for each of these elements in a
spreadsheet format and this format will be used for reporting for FY 2005. Beginning in FY
2005, states may, at their option, make available to EPA public water system-level data for each
of these elements to be maintained in a set of data tables in the drinking water warehouse (for
tabular data) and in event tables in the Office of Water's Reach Address Database (RAD)6 (GIS
data). These data will be compatible with the inventory data States are currently reporting to the
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).7 Three states piloted this approach in 2003.
4 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. P.L. 104-182. (Washington: 6 August 1996). Available on the Internet at
5 U.S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009
(Washington: US EPA, August 1997). Available on the Internet at
6 Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS). Available only on the Internet at
7 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Information available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
PPA-209
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
[Not publicly available. Contact the Drinking Water Protection Division at 202-564-3797.]
Data Source: Up to the end of FY 2004, states reported to the EPA Regional Offices the
percentage of community water systems implementing source water protection programs. A new
Source Water data module will be developed and will be used as the data source in FY 2005 and
beyond - See section "New/Improved Data or Systems."
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For this measure, the states' reporting of progress in
implementing their source water assessment and protection programs will be based on EPA's
2005 guidance, "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures:
Final Reporting Guidance. " States will only report state-level summary information that will be
directly related to specific community water systems in a state-level database. Because state
reporting will be based on consistent definitions and procedures found in the Source Water
Assessment and Protection Measures: Final Guidance, EPA assumes that the data will be
reliable for use in making management decisions.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures will be included in the 2005 "State and Federal
Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance."
Additionally, a series of data checks will be built into the spreadsheet data collection procedures
given to each Region for their work with states. States will be required to identify whether their
reported summary-level data are based on a system-level database. EPA's Regions also will
work with individual states to obtain a description of their methods of collecting and verifying
information.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA Regions will conduct data quality reviews of state data using the
QA/QC procedures included with the spreadsheet-based data system, and work with states to
resolve data issues. As a result, EPA expects the quality of data on the results of the assessments
and source water protection activities to improve over time.
Data Limitations: Because the initial reporting provides only state-level summary information,
there is no standard protocol for EPA to verify and validate the data against system-level
information contained in state databases. In addition, much of the data reported by states is
voluntary and based on working agreements with EPA because SDWA only requires states to
complete source water assessments. The only source water information that states are required
to report to EPA under SDWA is whether the assessments are completed. Although EPA's 2005
"State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting
Guidance " will set standard data definitions and procedures, it also provides for considerable
flexibility in states' data collection protocols and analytical methods to evaluate their data. For
example, some states may require each public water system (PWS) to report data, while others
may institute a voluntary process. Because much of the data reporting is voluntary and the
individual state protocols may vary, state data may be incomplete and inconsistent across states.
PPA-210
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Error Estimate: There is no basis for making an error estimate for this performance measure
given the data limitations of state-level summary reporting described above.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has developed a new source water data module to
collect, store, and use public water system-level data received from states, but it may be refined
as more states voluntarily use it over the next three years of the Strategic Plan. The source water
module has been developed as a joint initiative between EPA, the Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators (ASDWA), and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC). It will
give EPA the ability to access the data directly from states through a data exchange agreement
using an electronic data transfer capability. A state may choose, at its option, to provide EPA
more detailed data in lieu of state-level summary reporting. The new source water data module
will be integrated into the drinking water data warehouse and be compatible with Safe Drinking
Water Information System (SDWIS) data already reported by states. Geospatial data (i.e., the
intake and well point locations and the source water area polygons) will be maintained in EPA's
Office of Water's Reach Access Database (RAD). The source water assessment and protection
indicator data and other attribute data will be maintained in data tables in the drinking water
warehouse. The source water data module is operational for states to pilot from FY 2005
through FY 2008. Three states used the module in the first pilot year 2003. A number of other
states may report using the data module for the 2005 reporting period based on
EPA/ASDWA/GWPC pilot process.
References:
Guidance Manuals
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs
Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009 (Washington: US EPA, August 1997). Available on the
Internet at
Source Water Assessment and Protection Measures: Initial Guidance, August, 2003.
"State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final
Reporting Guidance " (to be released in early 2005).
Web site addresses
US EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
For more detailed information on Source Water topics, US EPA Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water, Source Water site.
US EPA Office of Water (OW) Reach Access Database (RAD). Watershed Assessment,
Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS).
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
PPA-211
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of households on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water
Performance Database: Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS), the Indian
Health Service (IHS), Office of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE), Division of
Sanitation Facilities Construction (DSFC).
Data Sources: The STARS includes data on sanitation deficiencies, Indian homes and
construction projects. STARS is currently comprised of two sub data systems, the Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS) and the Project Data System (PDS).
The SDS is an inventory of sanitation deficiencies for existing Indian homes and communities.
The IHS is required to prioritize SDS deficiencies and annually report to Congress. The
identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the most common of which
follow:
Consultation with Tribal members and other Agencies
Field visits by engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives (CHRs)
nurses, or by other IHS or tribal heath staff
Sanitary Surveys
Community Environmental Health Profiles
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Inventory
Census Bureau Reports (for comparison purposes only)
Tribal Master Plans for Development
Telephone Surveys
Feasibility Studies
The most reliable and preferred method is a field visit to each community to identify and obtain
accurate numbers of homes with sanitation deficiencies. The number of Indian homes within the
communities must be consistent among the various methods cited above. If a field visit cannot
be made, it is highly recommended that more than one method be used to determine sanitation
deficiencies to increase the accuracy and establish greater credibility for the data.
The PDS is a listing of funded construction projects and is used as a management and reporting
tool.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance for the Indian country water quality performance
measure depends on the quality of the data in the STARS. The STARS data undergoes a series
of quality control reviews at various levels within the IHS DSFC. The DSFC is required to
annually report deficiencies in SDS to Congress in terms of total and feasible project costs for
proposed sanitation projects and sanitation deficiency levels for existing homes.
PPA-212
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Quality Reviews: The SDS data initially undergoes a series of highly organized reviews
by experienced tribal, IHS field, IHS district and IHS area personnel. The data are then sent to
the DSFC headquarters office for review before final results are reported. The DSFC
headquarters reviews the SDS data for each of the 12 IHS area offices. The data quality review
consists of performing a number of established data queries and reports which check for errors
and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top 25 SDS projects and corresponding community
deficiency profiles for each area are reviewed and scrutinized thoroughly. Detailed cost
estimates are highly encouraged and are usually available for review.
Data Limitations: The data are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS.
Error Estimate: The IHS DSFC requires that higher-level projects (those with the possibility of
funding prior to the next update) must be developed to allow for program implementation in an
organized, effective, efficient manner. Those SDS projects (top 20%) must have cost estimates
within 10% of the actual costs.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The STARS is a web based application and therefore allows
data to be continuously updated by personnel at various levels and modified as program
requirements are identified.
References:
1. Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Criteria for the
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program, June 1999, Version 1.02, 3/13/2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/Criteria_March_2003.cfm
2. Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS), Working Draft, "Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies for
Indian Homes and Communities", May 2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
The quality of water and sediments will be improved to allow increased consumption of
fish in not less than 3% of the water miles/acres identified by states or tribes as having a
fish consumption advisory in 2002.
Performance Database: National Listing of Fish Advisories.1 The database includes fields
identifying the waters for which fish consumption advisories have been issued. The fields also
identify the date upon which the advisory was issued, thus allowing an assessment of trends.
The National Hydrographic Data (NHD) are used to calculate the spatial extent of the fish
advisory. This information is updated continually as states and tribes issue or revise advisories.
The National Listing of Fish Advisories database includes records showing that 846,310 river
PPA-213
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
miles and 14,195,187 lake acres were identified by states or tribes in calendar year 2003 as
having fish with chemical contamination levels resulting in an advisory of potential human
health risk from consumption. States and tribes report data on a calendar year basis. The
calendar year data are then used to support the fiscal year (FY) commitments (e.g., calendar year
2005 data support the FY 2006 commitments). Metadata are also available describing
methodologies used by states and tribes for establishing advisories. The Fish Advisory data has
been collected since 1993.
Data Source: State and Tribal Governments. These entities collect the information and enter it
directly into the National Listing of Fish Advisories database. EPA reviews advisory entries,
including the states' or tribes' responses to an on-line survey, which support the advisory
decision.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The performance measure is calculated as the
aggregate surface area covered by the individual advisories divided by the total waters of each
state or territory. The states and tribes submit the area data to the National Listing of Fish
Advisories database.
QA/QC Procedures: A standard survey, which has been approved by OMB, is available on the
Internet for electronic submission. A password is issued to ensure the appropriate party is
completing the survey. EPA has national guidance2'3 for states and tribes on developing and
implementing quality assurance practices for the collection of environmental information related
to fish advisories. This guidance helps assure data quality of the information that states and
tribes use to decide whether to issue an advisory. The Office of Water's "Quality Management
Plan," approved in September 2001 and published in July 20024, is general guidance that applies
to information collection.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA reviews advisory entries and responses to the survey to ensure the
information is complete, then follows-up with the state or local government to obtain additional
information where needed. However, the Agency cannot verify the accuracy of the voluntary
information that state and local governments provide. There have been no external party reviews
of this information.
Data Limitations: Participation in this survey and collection of data is voluntary. While the
voluntary response rate has been high, it does not capture the complete universe of advisories.
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam do not report in the survey. In addition, states have
not assessed all waters for the need for advisories, so the information reported reflects a subset of
water bodies in the state.
Error Estimate: We are unable to provide an error estimate. Submitting data to the National
Listing of Fish Advisories database is voluntary and the Agency cannot be certain that the
database contains information on 100% of the assessed waters in the United States. Therefore,
PPA-214
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
we may be understating the total amount of waters assessed, the magnitude of which is not
known.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA will use small grants to encourage states to investigate
additional water bodies to determine if there is a need for fish consumption advisories. This will
lead to a more complete characterization of the nation's fish safety. EPA also plans to begin
tracking recommended "meal frequencies" in the state and tribal advisories to account for the
instances where advisories are modified to allow greater consumption.
References:
1. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "National Listing of Fish Advisories." Washington, DC: EPA
Accessed May 1, 2003. Available only on the Internet at http://mapl.epa.gov/
2. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Fish Sampling and Analysis." Volume 1 of "Guidance for
Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories." 3rd ed. EPA-823-B-
00-007. Washington DC: EPA, 2000. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volumel/.
3. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits." Volume 2
of "Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories." 3rd
ed.@ EPA-823-B-00-008. Washington DC: EPA, 2000.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volume2/.
4. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Quality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001.
Washington, DC: EPA, July 2002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of the shellfish-growing acres monitored by states that will be approved for
use.
Performance Database: There is no database currently available, although one is under
development (see below). Until that database is operational, data to support this measure will
come from past surveys of States that are members of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
Conference (ISSC), conducted at 5-year intervals and periodic updates requested from the
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (most recent, 2003 data released in 2004).
Data Source: Currently, the ISSC requests the data on approved acreages from shellfish
producing states and prepares reports. Survey responses are voluntary.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The methods used by the state programs to produce
the current data used by the ISSC are based on the National Shellfish Sanitation Plan and Model
Ordinance; the operation of those state programs is overseen by the FDA.
QA/QC Procedures: States are responsible for the internal QA/QC of their data.
PPA-215
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Quality Reviews: The ISSC reviews the state data during report preparation to ensure
completeness and accuracy, and follows up with states where necessary.
Data Limitations: Based on NOAA's previous surveys and the voluntary nature of the
information collected, potential data limitations may include incomplete coverage of shellfish
growing areas.
Error Estimate: No estimates are available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The ISSC initiated development of the Shellfish Information
Management System (SIMS) in July 2002. The database is being developed and implemented by
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on behalf of the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), a Cooperative Program chartered by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). The database will include relevant information that is collected by State
Shellfish Control Authorities. Historically, NOAA collected shellfish-growing area data in 5-
year intervals, 1985, 1990, and 1995. These data were not stored in a database. Once
operational, SIMS will be the first national shellfish growing area database and will include
NOAA's 1995 and 2003 data. State summary information can then be used to track trends
relevant to the performance measure, with the 1995 data as the baseline. The SIMS database is
designed as a real time database. The ISSC plans to request data updates annually, but states
may update their data any time. These data may be accessed at any time so timely status reports
can be generated.
Ten states were involved in the design of the database; four states are working to populate the
database, with plans to begin work with 5-6 more states in FY 2005. No long-term database
management plan is in place at this time.
References: None at this time.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored
by State beach safety programs will be open and safe for swimming
Performance Database: The data are stored in PRAWN (Program tracking, beach Advisories,
Water quality standards, and Nutrients), a database that includes fields identifying the beaches
for which monitoring and notification information are available and the date the advisory or
closure was issued, thus enabling trend assessments to be made. The database also identifies
those states that have received a BEACH (Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health) Act [P.L. 106-284] grant. EPA reports the information annually, on a calendar year
basis, each May. The information in the database is accessible to the public through the
BEACON (Beach Advisory Closing On-line Notification) system.
PPA-216
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Source: Since 1997 EPA has surveyed state and local governments for information on
their monitoring programs and on their advisories or closures. The Agency created the PRAWN
database to store this information. State and local governmental response to the survey was
voluntary up through calendar year 2002. States and local entities collect and report data on a
calendar year basis. The calendar year data are then used to support fiscal year commitments
(e.g. 2005 calendar year data are used to report against FY 2006 commitments). Starting in
calendar year 2003, data for many beaches along the coast and Great Lakes had to be reported to
EPA as a condition of grants awarded under the BEACH Act1. As of 2004, States and
Territories monitor for pathogens at 3,472 coastal and Great Lakes beaches, up from 2,823
beaches in 20022.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data are an enumeration of the days of beach-
specific advisories or closures issued by the reporting state or local governments during the year.
Performance against the target is tracked using a simple count of the number of beaches
responding to the survey and the days over which the advisory or closure actions were taken.
This is compared to the total number of days that every beach could be open. Thus the data are
suitable for the performance measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Since 1997, EPA has distributed a standard survey form, approved by
OMB, to coastal and Great Lake state and county environmental and public health beach
program officials in hard copy by mail. The form is also available on the Internet for web-entry
electronic submission. When a state or local official enters data using the web-entry format, a
password is issued to ensure the appropriate party is completing the survey. Currently the
Agency has procedures for information collection (see Office of Water's "Quality Management
Plan," approved September 2001 and published July 20023). In addition, coastal and Great
Lakes states receiving BEACH Act grants are subject to the Agency's grant regulations under 40
CFR 31.45. These regulations require states and tribes to develop and implement quality
assurance practices for the collection of environmental information.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the survey responses to ensure the information is complete,
following up with the state or local government to obtain additional information where needed.
The Agency also reviews the QA/QC reports submitted by States and Territories as part of their
grant reporting. There have been no external party reviews of this information.
Data Limitations: From calendar year 1997 to calendar year 2002, participation in the survey
and submission of data has been voluntary. While the voluntary response rate has been high, it
has not captured the complete universe of beaches. The voluntary response rate was 92% in
calendar year 2002 (240 out of 261 contacted agencies responded). The number of beaches for
which information was collected increased from 1,021 in calendar year 1997 to 2,823 in calendar
year 2002. Participation in the survey is now a mandatory condition for implementation grants
awarded under the BEACH Act program to coastal and Great Lakes states. Except for Alaska,
all coastal and Great Lakes states and territories have annually applied for implementation grants
since they have been available.
PPA-217
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Error Estimate: As of 2004, States and Territories report that they monitor at 3,472 of the
6,099 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. This monitoring varies between States. For example,
North Carolina monitors all its 228 beaches whereas South Carolina monitors 24 of 229 beaches.
Where monitoring is done, there is some chance that the monitoring may miss some instances of
high pathogen concentrations. EPA's most recent National Health Protection Survey of Beaches
found that 90% of the nation's beaches are monitored once a week or less4. Studies in southern
California found that weekly sampling missed 75% of the pathogen exceedances5, and that 70%
of the exceedances lasted for only one day6. An EPA Office of Research and Development
(ORD) beach monitoring study found a positive correlation between pathogen indicator densities
one day as compared to densities the next day, but that the correlation was negligible when
compared to densities after four days7. These studies indicate that weekly sampling most likely
misses many pathogen events that can affect public health. This information is not sufficient to
calculate the potential error in the reporting, but it is sufficient to indicate that the reporting may
understate the number of days that beaches should be closed or under advisory.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Participation in the survey is now a mandatory condition for
grants awarded under the BEACH Act program. As the Agency awards these implementation
grants, it will require standard program procedures, sampling and assessment methods, and data
elements for reporting. To the extent that state governments apply for and receive these grants,
the amount, quality, and consistency of available data will improve. In FY 2006, EPA expects
the 35 coastal and Great Lakes states to apply for grants to implement monitoring and
notification programs.
References
1. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants." EPA-823-B-02-004. Washington DC: EPA, June 2002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/guidance/all.pdf
2. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "National List of Beaches." EPA-823-R-04-004.
Washington, DC, March 2004. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/list/list-of-beaches.pdf
3. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "AQuality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001.
Washington, DC: EPA, July 2002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
4. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 2002 Swimming Season."
EPA-823-F-03-007. Washington, DC, May 2003. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/beachwatch2003-newformat.pdf
5. Leecaster. M.K. and S.B. Weisberg, Effect of Sampling Frequency on Shoreline
Microbiology Assessments, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(11), 2001.
6. Boehm, A.B., et. al., Decadal and Shorter Period Variability of Surf Zone Water Quality
at Huntington Beach, California, Environmental Science and Technology, 36(18), 2002.
7. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. "The EMPACT Beaches Project,
Results and Recommendations from a Study on Microbiological Monitoring In
Recreational Waters." EPA 600/9-02/xxx. Washington, DC, Sept. 2002. (Draft Report).
PPA-218
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 2 Objective 2
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Watersheds in which at least 80 percent of the assessed water segments meet water
quality standards
Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System
(WATERS) (1) is used to summarize water quality information at the watershed level. For
purposes of this national summary, watersheds are equivalent to 8-digit hydrologic unit codes
(HUCs), of which there are 2,262 nationwide although data may be disaggregated to smaller
watersheds should the need arise. WATERS is a geographic information system that integrates
many existing databases including the STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database (2), the
National Assessment Database (NAD)(3), and the Water Quality Standards database (4). Water
quality information available through WATERS includes data submitted by the states under
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b) reports. Data from the NAD includes waterbody type,
location, extent, and the designated uses assessed, as well as the assessment conclusion. NAD
data are available for most areas as far back as the year 2000 assessment cycle. Data gaps
expected include incomplete state assessments and uncertain state adoption of the data formats
inconsistent with the National Assessment Database. The data are submitted to EPA every two
years, with annual electronic updates. The U.S. EPA provides access to the states' data on its
Monitoring Program website. (5)
Data Source: State CWA Section 305(b) reports. Under the Clean Water Act, the states are
given the responsibility for setting water quality standards for their waters and collecting the data
and information to assess the condition of those waters. The data collected by states to assess
water quality and to prepare their CWA Section 305(b) reports come from multiple sources, e.g.,
state monitoring networks, United States Geological Survey (USGS), local governments,
volunteer monitors, academic institutions, etc. States also use predictive tools, such as landscape
and water quality models, and randomized probability surveys. [Raw water quality data may be
entered by states and other sources into STORET.] States use ambient monitoring data to
determine if their waters are attaining the state's water quality standards. States are encouraged
to use three EPA data systems to structure and transfer these data. The first of these is the Water
Quality Standards Database, which records the designated uses and supporting criteria for
specifically defined waterbody segments contained in the second dataset, the National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD). These segments, each defined by states, are described using a
structure that EPA conceived two decades ago, but now has divested to its partner, the U.S.
Geological Survey; The NHD provides important address points that can define the extent (for
instance, by defining the upstream and downstream boundaries of a beach) of waterbodies that
have been assigned consistent standards. The NHD also allows important features such as
outfalls, intakes, and dams to be located so that they can be mapped and better understood. It
also allows administrative designations to be located, such as the boundaries of assessments
made to determine whether the waters meet the standards assigned to a waterbody. Results of
PPA-219
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
assessments are entered into the third database, the National Assessment Database. The National
Assessment Database is used to assemble performance statistics for each biennial (calendar year)
reporting cycle: 2000, 2002, 2004 and (planned) 2006. Results are calculated on the basis of
these biennial reports. Long delays are often encountered in state submissions, causing delays in
EPA's development of summary statistics. EPA is working to establish more certain procedures
to prevent future delays.
EPA provides access to WATERS on its monitoring website. However, given differences among
state water quality standards and monitoring methods, the results of these assessments do not
provide a reliable nationwide assessment of water quality conditions.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: States employ various methods to make water quality
assessment decisions, including: 1) Direct sampling of chemical, physical, and biological
parameters using targeted site selection (usually, where problems are most likely or where water
is heavily used); 2) Predictive models to estimate water quality; 3) Sampling at statistically
valid, probability-based sites (in its early stages in a number of states) to assess broad scale water
quality conditions; 4) Compilation of data from outside sources such as volunteer monitors,
academic institutions, and others. EPA aggregates state assessment information by watershed
(as described above) to generate the national performance measure. State assessment results
describe attainment of designated uses in accordance with state water quality standards and
represent a direct measure of performance. State CWA Section 305(b) data have been used to
provide a summary of the ambient water quality conditions across the nation and to determine
conditions in the subset of waters assessed. Geographically specific waterbody assessments are
suitable for year- to-year comparisons of water quality attainment progress. As states continue to
strengthen their monitoring and data management programs, more state data will be suitable for
tracking changes in water quality over time. While programs are in transition, national
performance data will be heavily influenced by changes in state data procedures.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data provided by states in their individual assessments (under
CWA Section 305(b)) and accessed through WATERS is dependent on individual state
procedures. Numerous system level checks are built into the data sources in WATERS, based
upon the business rules associated with the water quality standards database. States are given the
opportunity to review the information to ensure it accurately reflects the data they submitted.
Data exchange guidance and training are also provided to the states. Sufficiency threshold for
inclusion in this measure requires that 20 percent of stream miles in an 8-digit HUC be assessed.
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was approved
in July 2002 (6). It describes the quality system used by the Office of Water and applies to all
environmental programs within the Office of Water and to any activity within those programs
that involves the collection or use of environmental data.
Data Quality Review: Numerous independent reports have cited that weaknesses in water
quality monitoring and reporting undermine EPA's ability to depict the condition of waters
nationwide, to make trend assessments, and to support scientifically sound water program
PPA-220
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
decisions. The most recent reports include the 2004 GAO report on watershed management.
General Accounting Office (GAO), 2004, Watershed Management: Better coordination of data
collection efforts needed to support key decisions: Washington D.C., United States General
Accounting Office, the 1998 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) Program (7), the March 15, 2000 General Accounting Office report Water
Quality: Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data (8), the 2001 National
Academy of Sciences Report, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management (9),
a 2002 National Academy of Public Administration Report, Understanding What States Need to
Protect Water Quality (10), and EPA 's Draft Report on the Environment (11). Water quality
reporting under Section 305(b) has been identified as an Agency-Level weakness under the
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act.
In response to these evaluations, EPA has been working with states and other stakeholders to
improve: 1) data coverage, so that state reports reflect the condition of all waters of the state; 2)
data consistency, to facilitate comparison and aggregation of state data to the national level; and
3) documentation, so that data limitations and discrepancies are fully understood by data users.
The Office of Water has limited authority to require better water quality monitoring or reporting
by states. OW has recently issued several guidance documents designed to increase consistency
and coverage in state monitoring, assessment and reporting. In July 2003, EPA issued its
Integrated Reporting guidance (12) which calls on states to integrate the development and
submission of 305(b) water quality reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters. The
Integrated Report will enhance the ability of water quality managers to display, access, and
integrate environmental data and information from all components of the water quality program.
In July 2002, EPA released the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - a
Compendium of Best Practices (13), intended to facilitate increased consistency in monitoring
program design and in the data and decision criteria used to support water quality assessments.
And in March 2003, EPA issued Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program
(14), which describes ten elements that each state water quality monitoring program should
contain and a ten-year time frame for implementing all elements. As part of each state's
monitoring strategy, state data will be accompanied by quality assurance plans. Quality
assurance is one of the ten required elements of these strategies.
EPA has enhanced two existing data management tools (STORET and the National Assessment
Database) so that they include documentation of data quality information. EPA's WATERS tool
integrates many databases including STORET, the National Assessment Database, and the Water
Quality Standards Database. These integrated databases facilitate comparison and
understanding of differences among state standards, monitoring activities, and assessment
results. The Office of Water has recently convened and continues to use an Assessment Data
Visualization Work Group that is tracking the increased use of the three data systems and is
planning to focus its orientation and training to expand the use of these data systems and to
ensure regional review of the quality of states' data. Regions also will more closely review the
coverage of monitoring needed to support state assessment activities. Until there is consistent,
PPA-221
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
widespread use of these systems, the water quality conditions states report will be subject to
procedure-induced variation that masks environmental progress.
Data Limitations: Data do not represent an assessment of water quality conditions at the
national level. EPA is working with states to provide a data structure that allows state
assessments to be geographically located so that they can be clearly identified and changes can
be tracked over time. EPA data systems being adopted by states implement this feature. Other
disparities remain, however. Most states do not employ a monitoring design that characterizes all
waters in each reporting cycle, and some states only report the results of the most recent
assessments without providing the perspective of water quality from previous assessments.
States, territories, and tribes collect data and information on only a portion of their water bodies
because it is prohibitively expensive to monitor all water bodies. Furthermore, states do not use
a consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess attainment with water quality standards.
For example, indicators of aquatic life use support range from biological community condition to
levels of dissolved oxygen and concentrations of toxic pollutants. State water quality standards
themselves vary from state to state. State assessments of water quality may include uncertainties
associated with their measured or modeled data. These variations in state practices and standards
limit the use of assessment reports for describing water quality at the national level and prevent
the agency from aggregating water quality assessments at the national level with known
statistical confidence.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for these data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Office of Water is currently working with states, tribes
and other Federal agencies to improve the data that support this management measure by
addressing the underlying methods of monitoring water quality and assessing the data. Also, the
Office of Water is working with partners to enhance monitoring networks to achieve
comprehensive coverage of all waters, use a consistent suite of core water quality indicators
(supplemented with additional indicators for specific water quality questions), and document key
data elements, decision criteria and assessment methodologies in electronic data systems. The
Office of Water is using a variety of mechanisms to implement these improvements including
data management systems, guidance, stakeholder meetings, training and technical assistance,
program reviews and negotiations.
EPA is working with states to enhance their monitoring and assessment programs, and
promoting the use of probability surveys as a cost-effective way to obtain a snapshot of water
quality conditions. These enhancements, along with improving the quality and timeliness of data
for making watershed-based decisions, will improve EPA's ability to use state assessments in
portraying national conditions and trends. Specific state refinements include developing
biological criteria to measure the health of aquatic communities (and attainment with the aquatic
life use) and designing probability-based monitoring designs to support statistically valid
inferences about water quality. EPA has been instrumental in helping states design the
monitoring networks and analyze the data. Initial efforts have focused on coastal/estuarine
PPA-222
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
waters and wadeable streams. Lakes will be targeted next. States are implementing these changes
incrementally and in conjunction with traditional targeted monitoring. At last count, 16 states
have adopted probability-based monitoring designs, several more are evaluating them, and all
but 10 are collaborating with EPA to undertake a national probability survey of conditions of
wadeable streams at a national level.
The President's FY2005 budget request includes a $17 million increase to support states'
implementation of comprehensive water quality monitoring strategies, including refinement of
biological assessment methods and probability-based designs for different water resource types;
landscape models and other predictive tools; remote sensing and innovative indicators of water
quality to help streamline where additional monitoring is needed; and targeted monitoring to
provide data to implement local management actions such as National Pollution Discharge
Elimination Program (NPDES) permits and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The
initiative will also support improvement of data management systems to ensure that water quality
monitoring data are understandable and available to decision makers and the public. Included
here are upgrades to STORET, to improve system navigation and operation and to enhance
analysis and presentation applications. Funds will also support enhancing the capability to
exchange water quality data with states.
References:
1. WATERS available on-line at www.epa.gov/waters. Aggregate national maps and state
and watershed specific data for this measurement are displayed numerically and
graphically in the WATERS database.
2. STORET available online at www.epa.gov/STORET. Links to user guide and
descriptions of the database can be found here.
3. National Assessment Database information available at
http ://www. epa.gov/waters/305b/
4. Water Quality Standards Database information available at
www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase/
5. State 305(b) Report information -
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/reporting.html
6. U.S. EPA. Office of Water Quality Management Plan. Washington, DC: July 2002.
EPA831-X-02-001. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ow/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
7. National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. Report of the
Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load Program. 1998. EPA
100-R-98-006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/faca/tofc.htm.
8. General Accounting Office. Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by
Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. Washington, DC: March 15, 2000. GAO/RCED-00-
54.
9. National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total
Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction. Assessing the TMDL
PPA-223
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Approach to Water Quality Management. National Academy Press, Washington, DC:
2001.
10. National Academy of Public Administration. Understanding What States Need to
Protect Water Quality. Washington, D.C: December 2002. Academy Project No. 2001-
001. Available at www.napawash.org^
11. U.S. EPA. Draft Report on the Environment 2003. July 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm
12. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Guidance for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting
Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, TMDL,
July 21, 2003. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/policy.html.
13. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. "Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology.
Toward a Compendium of Best Practices." (First Edition). Washington, DC: July 31,
2002. Available atwww.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html.
14. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program. Washington, DC: March 2003. EPA 841-B-03-003. Available at:
www. epa. gov/owow/monitoring
15. General Accounting Office Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Data
Collection Efforts Needed to Support Key Decisions, Washington, DC: March 15, 2000.
GAO-04-382
FY 2006 Performance Measure;
Water quality standards are fully attained in waters identified in 1998/2000 as not
attaining standards
Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System
(WATERS- found at http://www.epa.gov/waters/) is EPA's approach for viewing water quality
information related to this measure. WATERS can be used to view "303(d) Information,"
compiled from, States' Listings of Impaired Waters as Required by Clean Water Act Section
303(d) (referred to here in brief as "303(d) lists"), which are recorded in the national TMDL
Tracking System (NTTS). This information (found at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/status.html) is used to generate reports that identify waters that
are not meeting water quality standards ("impaired waters"). This information, combined with
information and comment from EPA Regions and states, yields the baseline data for this
measure: number of impaired waters in 1998/2000. As Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)
and other watershed-related activities are developed and implemented, water bodies which were
once impaired will meet water quality standards, and thus will be removed from the year 98/2000
impaired totals. Changes will be recorded in reports, scheduled every six years (e.g. future
reporting years 2006 and 2012), as percentage improvements to water body impairment.
Data Source: The underlying data source for this measure is State 303(d) lists of their impaired
water bodies. These lists are submitted with each biennial (calendar year) reporting cycle. The
baseline for this measure is the 1998 list (States were not required to submit lists in 2000;
PPA-224
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
however, if states did submit a 2000 list, then that more recent list was used as the baseline).
States prepare the lists using actual water quality monitoring data, probability-based monitoring
information, and other existing and readily available information and knowledge the state has, in
order to make comprehensive determinations addressing the total extent of the state's water body
impairments. Once EPA approves a state's 303(d) list, EPA enters the information into
WATERS, as described above. Delays are often encountered in state submissions and in EPA's
approval of these biennial submissions. Establishing more certain procedures to keep on
schedule is being considered.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: States employ various analytical methods of data
collection, compilation, and reporting including: 1) Direct water samples of chemical, physical,
and biological parameters; 2) Predictive models of water quality standards attainment; 3)
Probabilistic models of pollutant sources; and 4) Compilation of data from volunteer groups,
academic interests and others. EPA-supported models include BASINS, QUAL2E, AQUATOX,
and CORMIX. Descriptions of these models and instructions for their use can be found at
www.epa.gov/OST/wqm/. The standard operating procedures and deviations from standard
methods for data sampling and prediction processes are stored by states in the STORET
database. EPA aggregates state data to generate the national performance measure. State-
provided data describe attainment of designated uses in accordance with state water quality
standards and thus represent a direct measure of performance. Delays are often encountered in
state 303d lists and 305b submissions, and in EPA's approval of the 303(d) portion of these
biennial submissions. Establishing more certain procedures to prevent these delays is being
considered.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data provided by states pursuant to individual state 303(d) lists
(under CWA Section 303(d)) is dependent on individual state procedures. EPA regional staff
interacts with the states during the process of approval of the lists and before the information is
entered into the database to ensure the integrity of the data. The Office of Water Quality
Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was approved in July 2001. EPA requires
that each organization prepare a document called a quality management plan (QMP) that:
documents the organization's quality policy; describes its quality system; and identifies the
environmental programs to which the quality system applies (e.g., those programs involved in
the collection or use of environmental data).
Data Quality Review: Numerous independent reports have cited that weaknesses in monitoring
and reporting of monitoring data undermine EPA's ability to depict the condition of the Nation's
waters and to support scientifically sound water program decisions. The most recent reports
include the 1998 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Program8, the March 15, 2000 General Accounting Office report Water Quality: Key
8 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load Program. 1998. National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology. EPA Number 100R98006. National Center for Environmental Publications]
PPA-225
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data9, the 2001 National Academy of
Sciences Report Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management10 and EPA 's
Draft Report on the Environment.
11
In response to these evaluations, EPA has been working with states and other stakeholders to
improve: 1) data coverage, so that state reports reflect the condition of all waters of the state; 2)
data consistency to facilitate comparison and aggregation of state data to the national level; and
3) documentation so that data limitations and discrepancies are fully understood by data users.
First, EPA enhanced two existing data management tools (STORET and the National
Assessment Database) so that they include documentation of data quality information.
Second, EPA has developed a GIS tool called WATERS that integrate many databases including
STORET, the National Assessment database, and a new water quality standards database. These
integrated databases facilitate comparison and understanding of differences among state
standards, monitoring activities, and assessment results.
Third, EPA and states have developed a guidance document: Consolidated Assessment and
Listing Methodology - a Compendium of Best Practices12 (released on the Web July 31, 2002 at
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html) intended to facilitate increased consistency in
monitoring program design and the data and decision criteria used to support water quality
assessments.
Fourth, the Office of Water (OW) and EPA's Regional Offices have developed the Elements of a
State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program, (August 2002) which is currently under
review by our state partners. This guidance describes ten elements that each state water quality-
monitoring program should contain and proposes time-frames for implementing all ten elements.
Data Limitations: Data may not precisely represent the extent of impaired waters because
states do not employ a monitoring design that monitors all their waters. States, territories and
tribes collect data and information on only a portion of their water bodies. States do not use a
consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess attainment of water quality standards. For
example, indicators of aquatic life use support range from biological community assessments to
levels of dissolved oxygen to concentrations of toxic pollutants. These variations in state
practices limit how the CWA Sections 305(b) reports and the 303(d) lists provided by states can
9 Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. March 15,2000. RCED-00-54 and
Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters. January 11, 2002
10 Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. 2001. Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total
Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research
Council
11 US EPA. Draft Report on the Environment 2003. July 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm
12 U.S. EPA. (July 31, 2002). Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology. Toward a Compendium of Best Practices.
(First Edition). Washington, DC: Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Available on the Internet: Monitoring and
Assessing Water Quality www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/cahn.html
PPA-226
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
be used to describe water quality at the national level. There are also differences among their
programs, sampling techniques, and standards.
State assessments of water quality may include uncertainties associated with derived or modeled
data. Differences in monitoring designs among and within states prevent the agency from
aggregating water quality assessments at the national level with known statistical confidence.
States, territories, and authorized tribes monitor to identify problems and typically lag times
between data collection and reporting can vary by state.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Water has been working with states to improve
the guidance under which 303(d) lists are prepared. EPA issued new listing Guidance July 21,
2003 entitled Guidance for 2004 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to
Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (Guidance). The Guidance may be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/tmdl0103/index.html . The Guidance addresses a number of
issues that states and EPA identified during the 2002 listing cycle. Among these issues are
minimum data requirements and sample size requirements in making listing determinations, use
of probability-based sampling in the state's monitoring program, improved year-to-year
consistency in a choice of a geo-referencing scheme, and use of a consistent method of
segmenting water bodies and denoting changes to the segmentation between listing cycles.
References: Cited in body of text above.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of monitoring stations in Tribal waters that show at least a 10% improvement
in each of 4 key parameters: total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen and
fecal coliform (2002 Baseline: four key parameters available at 900 sampling stations in
Indian country)
Performance Database: All of the monitoring stations originally included in the baseline for
this measure (900) are United States Geological Survey (USGS) stations with USGS station
identification numbers. In the time since the 900 sites were originally identified, additional
monitoring stations on Tribal lands have been located. The water quality monitoring results for
the additional stations on Tribal lands are recorded in the USGS National Water Information
System (NWIS) and EPA's Storage and Retrieval database (STORET). Through STORET and
NWIS, EPA and USGS have established standardized formats for reporting water quality data
and information.
Data on total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform are readily
available through the STORET (www.epa.gov/STORET) and the NWIS
PPA-227
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
(http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/) websites for those monitoring stations in Tribal waters where
these data have been collected and loaded into the databases.
Data Source: Monitoring activities at the sampling stations included in this measure are not
conducted or reported by Tribes. Sampling is performed at these monitoring stations by a variety
of entities, for a variety of purposes and with differing frequencies. The proximity of these
stations to watersheds undergoing restoration/protection activities may not be included as part of
the information included in the STORET database or NWIS. The use of these monitoring
stations in this performance measure is opportunistic, and thus sampling results may not
necessarily reflect the impacts of restoration activities performed as part of the implementation
of Clean Water Act programs by Tribes.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Sampling is performed at these monitoring stations by
a variety of entities, for a variety of purposes and with differing frequencies. Methods used to
measure total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform among these sites
likely differ. However, metadata for sampling results, including sampling methods, detection
limits and sampling date and time, are readily available to the public through the STORET
database and NWIS. Given that the measure is based on improvements in water quality at
individual monitoring stations in tribal lands over time, the use of differing methods at sampling
stations included in the measure is not necessarily problematic. Sampling results at these
stations are likely to be suitable for tracking progress in the measure. Implicit in the measure is
the assumption that improvements in water quality at these sampling stations reflect the
successful implementation of CWA programs by Tribes. The monitoring stations included in the
measure are used for a variety of purposes and with differing frequencies and the proximity of
the monitoring stations to waters undergoing restoration/protection actions by Tribes is
unknown. Given this, the suitability of sampling results at these stations for tracking successful
implementation of CWA programs by Tribes is uncertain.
QA/QC Procedures: Samples at the monitoring stations included in this measure are collected
and processed by a variety of entities and for differing purposes. As a result, QA/QC procedures
for these samples may differ considerably. However, QA/QC procedures for the samples are
readily available to the public through the STORET website or obtained from the USGS.
Data Quality Review: Data owners are responsible for data quality review. Information on the
quality of the data in STORET is readily available to the public through the website. The USGS
is responsible for data quality review of sampling results loaded in the NWIS. No audits or data
quality reviews for the monitoring results included in this measure have been conducted by EPA
for data in the STORET or NWIS database.
Data Limitations: It is still early to determine the full extent of data limitations. The
monitoring stations included in the universe for this measure have been selected
opportunistically by EPA based on their presence on Tribal lands and reporting sampling results
for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform. Sampling is performed
PPA-228
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
at these monitoring stations by a variety of entities and for a variety of purposes with differing
frequencies. The proximity of these stations to watersheds undergoing restoration/protection
activities may not be included as part of the information included on the STORET or NWIS
databases. Sampling results may not necessarily reflect the impacts of restoration activities
performed as part of the implementation of Clean Water Act programs by Tribes. The impact of
these data limitations on progress as reported in the measure is unclear.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has significantly improved the ease of data retrieval
from the STORET database with the completion of the STORET data warehouse. Sampling
results are being loaded into STORET at a rate of approximately 1 million records/month, which
will significantly increase the data available to track progress in the measure. EPA and USGS are
currently implementing a memorandum of understanding to create a common view for data
included in the STORET database and NWIS. This work also will facilitate the ability to
measure progress.
References: Water quality data in STORET are publicly available at www.epa.gov/STORET.
Water quality data from USGS are available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/. The Office of
Water Quality Management Plan (July 2001) is available on the Intranet at
http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/infopolicy.html.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of households on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation
Performance Database: Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS), the
Indian Health Service (IHS), Office of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE),
Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction (DSFC).
Data Sources: The STARS includes data on sanitation deficiencies, Indian homes and
construction projects. STARS is currently comprised of two sub data systems, the Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS) and the Project Data System (PDS).
The SDS is an inventory of sanitation deficiencies for existing Indian homes and communities.
The IHS is required to prioritize SDS deficiencies and annually report to Congress. The
identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the most common of which
follow:
Consultation with Tribal members and other Agencies
Field visits by engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives (CHRs),
nurses, or by other IHS or tribal heath staff
Sanitary Surveys
PPA-229
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Community Environmental Health Profiles
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Inventory
Census Bureau Reports (for comparison purposes only)
Tribal Master Plans for Development
Telephone Surveys
Feasibility Studies
The most reliable and preferred method is a field visit to each community to identify and obtain
accurate numbers of homes with sanitation deficiencies. The number of Indian homes within the
communities must be consistent among the various methods cited above. If a field visit cannot
be made, it is highly recommended that more than one method be used to determine sanitation
deficiencies to increase the accuracy and establish greater credibility for the data.
The PDS is a listing of funded construction projects and is used as a management and reporting
tool.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance for the Indian country water quality performance
measure depends on the quality of the data in the STARS. The STARS data undergoes a series
of quality control reviews at various levels within the IHS DSFC. The DSFC is required to
annually report deficiencies in SDS to Congress in terms of total and feasible project costs for
proposed sanitation projects and sanitation deficiency levels for existing homes.
Data Quality Reviews: The SDS data initially undergoes a series of highly organized reviews
by experienced tribal, IHS field, IHS district and IHS area personnel. The data are then sent to
the DSFC headquarters office for review before final results are reported. The DSFC
headquarters reviews the SDS data for each of the 12 IHS area offices. The data quality review
consists of performing a number of established data queries and reports which check for errors
and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top 25 SDS projects and corresponding community
deficiency profiles for each area are reviewed and scrutinized thoroughly. Detailed cost
estimates are highly encouraged and are usually available for review.
Data Limitations: The data are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS.
Error Estimate: The IHS DSFC requires that higher-level projects (those with the possibility of
funding prior to the next update) must be developed to allow for program implementation in an
organized, effective, efficient manner. Those SDS projects (top 20%) must have cost estimates
within 10% of the actual costs.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The STARS is a web based application and therefore allows
data to be continuously updated by personnel at various levels and modified as program
requirements are identified.
PPA-230
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
References:
1. Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Criteria for the
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program, June 1999, Version 1.02, 3/13/2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/Criteria_March_2003.cfm
2. Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS), Working Draft, "Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies for
Indian Homes and Communities", May 2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system
health of coastal waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is improved on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report
Maintain water clarity and dissolved oxygen in coastal waters at the national levels
reported in the 2002 National Coastal Condition Report based upon recent data
reported in the 2004 National Coastal Condition Report
Improve ratings reported on the national "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report for: coastal wetlands loss by at least 0.1 points; contamination of
sediments in coastal waters by at least 0.1 points; benthic quality by at least 0.1 points;
& eutrophic condition by at least 0.1 points
Performance Database: EMAP/NCA [Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program/National Coastal Assessment] database (housed EPA/ORD/NHEERL/AED,
Narragansett, RI)(Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and
Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory/Gulf Ecology
Division); pre-database information housed in ORD/NHEERL facility in Gulf Breeze, FL (Gulf
Ecology Division) (pre-database refers to a temporary storage site for data where they are
examined for QA purposes, have appropriate metadata attached and undergo initial statistical
analyses); data upon QA acceptance and metadata completion are transferred to EMAP/NCA
database and are web available at www.epa.gov/emap/nca.
Data Source: Probabilistic surveys of ecological condition completed throughout the Mid-
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) in 1991-
1994, in southern Florida in 1995, in the Southeast in 1995-1997, in the Mid-Atlantic in 1997-
1998, in each coastal state in 2000-2004 (except Alaska and Hawaii), in Alaska in 2002 and
2004, in Hawaii in 2002 and 2004, and in Puerto Rico in 2000 and 2004, and in other island
territories (Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands) in 2004. Surveys collect condition
information regarding water quality, sediment quality and biotic condition at 70-100 sites/region
(e.g., mid-Atlantic) each year of collection prior to 1999 and at 35-150 sites in each state or
territory/year (site number dependent upon state) after 1999. Additional sampling by the
PPA-231
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
National Estuary Program (NEP) included all individual national estuaries; the total number of
sites within NEP boundaries was 30 for the two-year period 2000-2003.
These data are collected through a joint EPA-State cooperative agreement and the States follow a
rigid sampling and collection protocol following intensive training by EPA personnel.
Laboratory processing is completed at either a state laboratory or through a national EPA
contract. Data collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (either the National
Coastal QAPP or a variant of it) and QA testing and auditing by EPA.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The surveys are conducted using a probabilistic
survey design which allows extrapolation of results to the target population (in this case - all
estuarine resources of the specific state.) The collection design maximizes the spatial spread
between sites, located by specific latitude-longitude combinations. The survey utilizes an
indexed sampling period (generally late summer) to increase the probability of encountering
water quality, sediment quality and biotic condition problems, if they exist. Based on the QAPP
and field collection manual, a site in a specific state is located by sampling vessel via Global
Positioning System (GPS) and water quality is measured on board at multiple depths. Water
samples are taken for chemistry; sediment samples are taken for chemistry, toxicity testing and
benthic community assessment; and fish trawls are conducted to collect community fish data and
provide selected fish (target species) for analysis of whole body and/or fillet contaminant
concentrations. Samples are stored in accordance with field manual instructions and shipped to
the processing laboratory. Laboratories follow QA plans and complete analyses and provide
electronic information to the state or EPA. EPA and the state exchange data to ensure that each
has a complete set. EPA analyzes the data to assess regional conditions, whereas the states
analyze the data to assess conditions of state-specific waters. Results of analyses on a national
and regional basis are reported as chapters in the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR)
series. The overall regional condition index is the simple mean of the five indicators' scores
used in the Coastal Condition Report (in the NCCR2 a recalculation method was provided for
direct comparison of the successive reports). An improvement for one of the indicators by a full
category unit over the eight year period will be necessary for the regional estimate to meet the
performance measurement goal (+0.2 over an eight year period).
Assumptions: (1) The underlying target population (estuarine resources of the United
States) has been correctly identified; (2) GPS is successful; (3) QAPP and field collection
manuals are followed; (4) all samples are successfully collected; (5) all analyses are completed in
accordance with the QAPP; and (6) all combinations of data into indices are completed in a
statistically rigorous manner.
Suitability: By design all data are suitable to be aggregated to the state and regional level
to characterize water quality, sediment quality, and biotic condition. Samples represent
"reasonable", site-specific point-in-time data (not primary intention of data use) and an excellent
representation of the entire resource (extrapolation to entire resource supportable). The intended
use of the data is the characterization of populations and subpopulations of estuarine resources
PPA-232
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
through time. The data meet this expectation and the sampling, response, analysis and reporting
designs have been peer reviewed successfully multiple times. The data are suitable for
individual calendar year characterization of condition, comparison of condition across years, and
assessment of long-term trends once sufficient data are collected (7-10 years). Data are suitable
for use in National Coastal Condition calculations for the United States and its regions to provide
performance measurement information. The first long-term trends analysis will appear in the
2006 NCCR representing trends between 1990-2004.
QA/QC Procedures: The sampling collection and analysis of samples are controlled by a
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) [EPA 2001] and the National Coastal Assessment
Information Management Plan (IMP)[EPA 2001]. These plans are followed by all twenty-three
coastal states and 5 island territories. Adherence to the plans are determined by field training
(conducted by EPA ORD), field audits (conducted by EPA/ORD), round robin testing of
chemistry laboratories (conducted by EPA/ORD), overall systems audits of state programs and
national laboratory practices (conducted by EPA), sample splits (sent to reference laboratories),
blind samples (using reference materials) and overall information systems audits (conducted by
EPA/ORD). Batch sample processing for laboratory analyses requires the inclusion of QA
samples in each batch. All states are subject to audits at least once every two years. All
participants received training in year 2000 and retraining sessions are scheduled every two years.
Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews have been completed in-house by EPA ORD at the
regional and national level in 2000-2003 (National Coastal Assessment 2000-2003) and by the
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in 2003 (assessment completed in June, 2003 and
written report not yet available; oral debriefing revealed no deficiencies). No deficiencies were
found in the program. A national laboratory used in the program (University of Connecticut) for
nutrient chemistry, sediment chemistry and fish tissue chemistry is being evaluated by the
Inspector General's Office for potential falsification of laboratory results in connection with
other programs not related to NCA. The NCA has conducted its own audit assessment and only
one incorrect use of a chemical digestion method for inorganic chemistry samples (metals) was
found. This error was corrected and all samples "digested" incorrectly were reanalyzed at no
cost.
Data Limitations: Data limitations are few. Because the data are collected in a manner to
permit calculation of uncertainty and designed to meet a specific Data Quality Objective (DQO)
(<10% error in spatial calculation for each annual state estimate), the results at the regional level
(appropriate for this performance measure) are within about 2- 4% of true values dependent upon
the specific sample type. Other limitations as follows: (a) Even though methodology errors are
minimized by audits, in the first year of the NCA program (2000) some errors occurred resulting
in loss of some data. These problems were corrected in 2001 and no problems have been
observed since, (b) In some instances, (<5%) of sample results, QA investigation found
irregularities regarding the precision of measurement (e.g., mortality toxicity testing of controls
exceeded detection limit, etc.). In these cases, the data were "flagged" so that users are aware of
the potential limitations, (c) Because of the sampling/ analysis design, the loss of data at a small
PPA-233
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
scale (~ 10%) does not result in a significant increase in uncertainty in the estimate of condition.
Wholesale data losses of multiple indicators throughout the U.S. coastal states and territories
would be necessary to invalidate the performance measure, (d) The only major source of
external variability is year-to-year climatic variation (drought vs. wet, major climatic event, etc.)
and the only source of internal variation is modification of reporting indicators (e.g., new indices,
not a change in data collected and analyzed). This internal reporting modification requires a re-
analysis of earlier information to permit direct comparison, (e) There is generally a 2-3 year lag
from the time of collection until reporting. Sample analysis generally takes one year and data
analysis another. Add another year for report production and peer review, (f) Data collections
are completed annually; The EPA/ORD data collection collaboration will continue through 2004.
After 2004, ORD will assist OW, as requested, with expert advice, but will no longer support the
program financially.
Error Estimate: The estimate of condition (upon which the performance measure is
determined) has an annual uncertainty rate of about 2-3% for national condition, about 5-7% for
individual regional indicators (composite of all five states data into a regional estimate), and
about 9-10% for individual state indicators. These condition estimates are determined from the
survey data using cumulative distribution functions and the uncertainty estimates are calculated
using the Horvitz-Thompson estimator.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
(1) Changes have occurred in the data underlying the performance measure based on
scientific review and development. A change in some reporting indicators has occurred
in order to more accurately represent the intended ecological process or function. For
example, a new eutrophication index was determined for the 2000 data. In order to
compare this new index to the 1991-1994 data, the earlier data results must be
recomputed using the new technique. This recalculation is possible because the
underlying data collection procedures have not changed.
(2) New national contract laboratories have been added every year based on competition.
QA requirements are met by the new facilities and rigorous testing at these facilities is
completed before sample analysis is initiated. QA adherence and cross-laboratory sample
analysis has minimized data variability resulting from new laboratories entering the
program.
(3) The only reason for the discontinuation of the National performance goal would be the
elimination of the surveys after 2004 or any other year thereafter.
In order to continue to utilize the 2001 National Coastal Condition report as the baseline
for this performance measure, the original scores reported in 2001 have been re-calculated in the
2004 report using the index modifications described above (#1). These "new" results for the
baseline (re-calculated scores) are reported in Appendix C of the 2004 report.
PPA-234
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
References:
1. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Database (1990-1998) and National Coastal
Assessment Database (2000- 2004) websites: www.epa.gov/emap and
www.epa.gov/emap/nca (NCA data for 2000 is only data available at present)
2. National Coastal Assessment. 2000-2003. Various internal memoranda regarding results of
QA audits. (Available through John Macauley, National QA Coordinator NCA, USEPA,
ORD/NHEERL/GED, 1 Sabine Island, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561)
3. National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA/620/R-
01/002.(Available through John Macauley above)
4. National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Information Management Plan. EPA/620/R-01/003
(Available through Stephen Hale, NCA IM Coordinator, ORD/NHEERL/AED, 27
Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI)
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-
620/R-01/005.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. In
review Assigned Report Number EPA-620/R-03/002.
PPA-235
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 2 Objective 3
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Final reports of full-scale demonstrations of arsenic treatment technologies
Report on bioassessment methods for a range of designated uses in freshwater systems
within Mid-Western U.S. rivers
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
PPA-236
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 3 Objective 1
FY 2006 Performance Measures:
Daily per capita generation
Millions of tons municipal solid waste diverted
Performance Database: Data are provided by the Department of Commerce. EPA does not
maintain a database for this information.
Data Source: The baseline numbers for municipal solid waste (MSW) source reduction and
recycling are developed using a materials flow methodology employing data largely from the
Department of Commerce and described in the EPA report titled "Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States." The Department of Commerce collects materials production
and consumption data from various industries.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on domestic production of materials and products
are compiled using published data series. U.S. Department of Commerce sources are used,
where available; but in several instances more detailed information on production of goods by
end-use is available from trade associations. The goal is to obtain a consistent historical data
series for each product and/or material. Data on average product lifetimes are used to adjust the
data series. These estimates and calculations result in material-by-material and product-by-
product estimates of MSW generation, recovery, and discards. To strategically support
attainment of the 35% recycling goal, EPA has identified specific components of the MSW
stream on which to focus: paper and paperboard, organics (yard and food waste), and plastics.
For these targeted efforts EPA will examine data on these waste components.
There are various assumptions factored into the analysis to develop estimates of MSW
generation, recovery and discards. Example assumptions (from pages 141-142 of year 2000
"Characterization Report") include: Textiles used as rags are assumed to enter the waste stream
the same year the textiles are discarded. Some products (e.g., newspapers and packaging)
normally have short lifetimes and products are assumed to be discarded in the year they are
produced.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control are provided by the Department of
Commerce's internal procedures and systems. The report prepared by the Agency,
"Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States," is reviewed by a number of
experts for accuracy and soundness.
Data Quality Review: The report, including the baseline numbers and annual rates of recycling
and per capita municipal solid waste generation, is widely accepted among experts.
PPA-237
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Limitations: Data limitations stem from the fact that the baseline statistics and annual
rates of recycling and per capita municipal solid waste generation are based on a series of
models, assumptions, and extrapolations and, as such, are not an empirical accounting of
municipal solid waste generated or recycled.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) does not collect data on
estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Because the statistics on MSW generation and recycling are
widely reported and accepted by experts, no new efforts to improve the data or the methodology
have been identified or are necessary. EPA plans to develop regulations for improving reporting
of source reduction activities by Toxic Release Inventory reporting facilities.
References: Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures, EPA, October
2003 (EPA 530-R-03-011), http://www.epa.gov/osw/index.htm.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percent of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other
approved controls in place
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: Data are entered by the States. Supporting documentation and reference materials
are maintained in regional and state files. EPA's Regional offices and authorized states enter
data on a rolling basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Information System (RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
RCRAInfo contains information on entities (generically referred to as "handlers") engaged in
hazardous waste generation and management activities regulated under the portion of RCRA that
provides for regulation of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo has several different modules, including
status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA permitting universe.
QA/QC Procedures: States and EPA's Regional offices generate the data and manage data
quality related to timeliness and accuracy. Within RCRAInfo, the application software enforces
structural controls that ensure that high-priority national components of the data are properly
entered. RCRAInfo documentation, which is available to all users on-line at
http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/, provides guidance to facilitate the generation and interpretation of
data. Training on use of RCRAInfo is provided on a regular basis, usually annually, depending
on the nature of system changes and user needs. Determination of whether or not the GPRA
annual goals are met is based on the legal and operating status codes for each unit (e.g., a facility
PPA-238
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
can have more than one unit). Each year since 1999, in discussions with regions and states, EPA
has highlighted the need to keep the data that supports the GPRA permitting goal current.
RCRAInfo is the sole repository for this information and is a focal point for planning from the
local to national level.
Note: Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized State
personnel. It is not available to the general public because the system contains enforcement
sensitive data. The general public is referred to EPA's Envirofacts Data Warehouse to obtain
filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste sites.
Data Quality Review: The 1995 GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information
System Are Limited (AIMD-95-167, August 22, 1995,
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf) on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System
reviewed whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing
their hazardous waste programs. Recommendations coincide with ongoing internal efforts to
improve the definitions of data collected, ensure that data collected provide critical information
and minimize the burden on states. RCRAInfo, the current national database has evolved in part
as a response to this report.
Data Limitations: No data limitations have been identified. The states have ownership of their
data and EPA has to rely on them to make changes. The data that determine if a facility has met
its permit requirements are prioritized in update efforts. Basic site identification data may
become out-of-date because RCRA does not mandate annual or other periodic notification by the
regulated entity when site name, ownership and contact information changes. Nevertheless, EPA
tracks the facilities by their IDs and those should not change even during ownership changes.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSW does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has successfully implemented new tools for managing
environmental information to support federal and state programs, replacing the old data systems
(the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System and the Biennial Reporting
System) with RCRAInfo. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated
universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as facility status, regulated activities, and
compliance history. The system also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste
by large quantity generators and on waste management practices from treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. RCRAInfo is web accessible, providing a convenient user interface for
Federal, state and local managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled
cost, and using commercial off-the-shelf software to develop reports from database tables.
References: RCRAInfo documentation and data (http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/). The 1995
GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information System Are Limited (AIMD-95-
167, August 22, 1995, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf).
PPA-239
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance with both
release detection and release prevention (spill, overfill, and corrosion protection)
requirements
Number of confirmed releases at UST facilities nationally
Percent increase of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance with
both release detection and relase prevention (Spill, overfill, and corrosion protection
requirements)
Performance Database: The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) does not maintain
a national database. States individually maintain records for reporting state program
accompli shments.
Data Source: Designated State agencies submit semi-annual progress reports to the EPA
regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's regional offices verify and then forward the data in a word
processing table to OUST. OUST staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with the
regional offices. The data are displayed in a word processing table on a region-by-region basis,
which is a way regional staff can check their data.
Data Quality Review: None.
Data Limitations: Percentages reported are sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations
from sample data. Data quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
References: FY 2004 End-of-Year Activity Report, November 24, 2004 (updated semi-
annually). http://www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca_043_4.pdf
PPA-240
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 3 Objective 2
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage facilities required to have
Facility Response Plans
Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA
Performance Database: A new, more streamlined reporting system is under development to
store oil spill prevention, emergency preparedness and response information. Information
included in the new database will be similar to CERCLIS, but definitions and activities
pertaining to oil will be included to support oil spill program needs for FY 2004 and beyond.
System is currently on hold pending reorganization of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response/Office of Emergency Preparedness, Prevention and Response.
Data Source: a new system pending
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Pending new database
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: For additional information on the Oil program, see
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/appdx_f5.pdf. As noted above, the program is
currently undergoing reorganization.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of emergency response and homeland security readiness improvement
Performance Database: No specific database has been developed. Data from evaluations from
each of the 10 Regions are tabulated and stored using standard software (WordPerfect,
spreadsheets, etc.).
Data Source: Data are collected through detailed surveys of all Regional programs, and
interviews with personnel and managers in each program office. The score represents a
PPA-241
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
composite based upon data from each unique Regional and headquarters organization. Annual
increments represent annual improvements. The survey instrument was developed based upon
Core Emergency Response (ER) elements, and has been approved by EPA Headquarters and
Regional managers. Core ER elements cover all aspects of the Core ER program, including
Regional Response Centers, transportation, coordination with backup Regions, health and safety,
delegation and warrant authorities, response readiness, response equipment, identification
clothing, training and exercises, and outreach.
While EPA is currently prepared to respond to chemical, biological, and radiological incidents,
improvement in the emergency response and homeland security readiness measure will
demonstrate an increased ability to respond quickly and effectively to national-scale events. The
FY 2004 Core ER target is to improve emergency response and homeland security readiness by
10% from the FY 2003 baseline performance.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Core ER elements were developed over the last
several years by the EPA Removal Program to identify and clarify what is needed to ensure an
excellent emergency response program. The elements, definitions, and rationales were
developed by staff and managers and have been presented to the Administrator and other high
level Agency managers. Based on the Core ER standards, evaluation forms and criteria were
established for EPA's Regional programs, the Environmental Response Team (ERT), and
Headquarters. These evaluation criteria identify what data need to be collected, and how that
data translate into an appropriate score for each Core ER element. The elements and evaluation
criteria will be reviewed each year for relevance to ensure that the programs have the highest
standards of excellence and that the measurement clearly reflects the level of readiness. The data
are collected from each Regional office, ERT, and Headquarters using a systematic, objective
process. Each evaluation team consists of managers and staff, from Headquarters and from
another EPA Regional office, with some portion of the team involved in all reviews for
consistency and some portion varying to ensure independence and objectivity. For instance, a
team evaluating Region A might include some or all of the following: a staff person from
Headquarters who is participating in all reviews, a staff person from Headquarters who is very
familiar with Region A activities, a manager from Headquarters, and a staff person and/or
manager from Region B. One staff or group will be responsible for gathering and analyzing all
the data to determine the overall score for each Regional office, ERT, and Headquarters, and for
determining an overall National score.
QA/QC Procedures: See "Methods, Assumptions and Suitability"
Data Quality Review: The evaluation team will review the data (see Methods, Assumptions
and Suitability) during the data collection and analysis process. Additional data review will be
conducted after the data has been analyzed to ensure that the scores are consistent with the data
and program information. There currently is no specific database that has been developed to
collect, store, and manage the data.
PPA-242
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Limitations: One key limitation of the data is the lack of a dedicated database system to
collect and manage the data. Standard software packages (word processing, spreadsheets) are
used to develop the evaluation criteria, collect the data, and develop the accompanying readiness
scores. There is also the possibility of subjective interpretation of data.
Error Estimate: It is likely that the error estimate for this measure will be small for the
following reasons: the standards and evaluation criteria have been developed and reviewed
extensively by Headquarters and EPA's Regional managers and staff; the data will be collected
by a combination of managers and staff to provide consistency across all reviews plus an
important element of objectivity in each review; the scores will be developed by a team looking
across all ten Regions, ERT, and Headquarters; and only twelve sets of data will be collected,
allowing for easier cross-checking and ensuring better consistency of data analysis and
identification of data quality gaps.
New/Improved Data or Systems: There are no current plans to develop a dedicated system to
manage the data.
References: FY 2004/2005 Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPEVI),
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/pdfs/appdxb3pl.pdf
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of final Superfund site assessment decisions
Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures controlled
Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with groundwater migration controlled
Number of final remedies (cleanup targets) selected at Superfund sites
Number of Superfund construction completions
Number of Superfund removal response actions initiated
Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability System (CERCLIS) is the database used by the Agency to track, store, and report
Superfund site information.
Data Source: CERCLIS is an automated EPA system; headquarters and EPA's Regional offices
enter data into CERCLIS on a rolling basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Each performance measure is a specific variable
within CERCLIS.
QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls
are in place: 1) Superfund Implementation Manual (SPIM), the program management manual
that details what data must be reported; 2) Report Specifications, which are published for each
report detailing how reported data are calculated; 3) Coding Guide, which contains technical
PPA-243
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
instructions to such data users as Regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs),
program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit
Testing, an extensive QA check against report specifications; 5) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry
Internal Control Plan, which includes: (a) regional policies and procedures for entering data into
CERCLIS; (b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund accomplishments are supported by
source documentation; (c) delegation of authorities for approval of data input into CERCLIS;
and (d) procedures to ensure that reported accomplishments meet accomplishment definitions;
and (6) a historical lockout feature has been added to CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal
year data can be changed only by approved and designated personnel and are logged to a change-
log report. Specific directions for these controls are contained in the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPIM) Fiscal Year 2004/2005
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim04.htm).
CERCLIS operation and further development is taking place under the following administrative
control quality assurance procedures: 1) Office of Environmental Information Interim Agency
Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.4
(http://cfmtl.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsdweb/otop/policies/infoman.cfm); 2) the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf) 3) Agency platform, software and hardware
standards (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf); 4) Quality Assurance Requirements in
all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being developed and maintained
(http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines); and 5) Agency security procedures
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView). In addition, specific
controls are in place for system design, data conversion and data capture, and CERCLIS outputs.
Data Quality Reviews: Two audits, one by the Office Inspector General (OIG) and the other by
Government Accountability Office (GAO), were conducted to assess the validity of the data in
CERCLIS. The OIG audit report, Superfund Construction Completion Reporting (No.
E1SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030), dated December 30, 1997, was prepared to verify the accuracy of
the information that the Agency was providing to Congress and the public. The OIG report
concluded that the Agency "has good management controls to ensure accuracy of the
information that is reported," and "Congress and the public can rely upon the information EPA
provides regarding construction completions." Further information on this report are available at
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm. The GAO's report, Superfund: Information on the
Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, was prepared to verify the
accuracy of the information in CERCLIS on sites' cleanup progress. The report estimates that
the cleanup status of National Priority List (NPL) sites reported by CERCLIS as of September
30, 1997, is accurate for 95 percent of the sites. Additional information on the Status of Sites
may be obtained at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf Another OIG audit,
Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30,
2002, evaluated the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and consistency of the data entered into
CERCLIS. The weaknesses identified were caused by the lack of an effective quality assurance
PPA-244
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
process and adequate internal controls for CERCLIS data quality. The report provided 11
recommendations to improve controls for CERCLIS data quality. EPA concurs with the
recommendations contained in the audit, and many of the identified problems have been
corrected or actions that would address these recommendations are underway. Additional
information about this report is available at http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm.
The IG reviews annually the end-of-year Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) data, in an informal process, to verify the data
supporting the performance measures. Typically, there are no published results.
The Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) was signed in August 2003 (http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf).
Data Limitations: Weaknesses were identified in the OIG audit, Information Technology -
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002. The
weaknesses identified were caused by the lack of an effective quality assurance process and
adequate internal controls for CERCLIS data quality. Although the Agency disagrees with the
study design and report conclusions, the report provided 11 recommendations with which EPA
concurs. Many of the identified problems have been corrected or actions that would address
these recommendations are underway, e.g., 1) FY 02/03 SPIM Chapter 2 update was made to
better define the Headquarters' and Regional roles and responsibilities for maintaining planning
and accomplishment data in CERCLIS; 2) FY 04/05 SPEVI Appendix A, Section A.A.5 'Site
Status Indicators' added language to clarify the use of the non-NPL status code of "SX"; 3) FY
04/05 SPIM Appendix A, Section A.A.6 'Data Quality' added a section on data quality which
includes a list of relevant reports; 4) FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix E, Section E.A.5 "Data
Owners/Sponsorship' was revised to reflect what data quality checks (focus data studies) will be
done by designated Regional and headquarters staff; 5) draft guidance from OCA (Other
Cleanup Activity) subgroup, which outlines the conditions under which sites are taken back from
states when states have the lead but are not performing; and 6) Pre-CERCLIS Screening: A Data
Entry Guide, which provides guidance to the regions for preventing entry of duplicate sites in
CERCLIS. The development and implementation of a quality assurance process for CERCLIS
data has begun. This process includes delineating quality assurance responsibilities in the
program office and periodically selecting random samples of CERCLIS data points to check
against source documents in site files.
Error Estimate: The GAO's report, Super/and: Information on the Status of Sites
(GAO/RECD-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, estimates that the cleanup status of National
Priority List sites reported by CERCLIS is accurate for 95 percent of the sites. The OIG report,
Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30,
2002, states that over 40 percent of CERCLIS data on site actions reviewed was inaccurate or not
adequately supported. Although the 11 recommendations were helpful and will improve controls
PPA-245
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
over CERCLIS data, the Agency disagrees and strongly objects to the study design and report
conclusions, stating they do not focus on the program's data quality hierarchy and the
importance it places on NPL sites.
New/Improved Data or Systems: A CERCLIS modernization effort is currently underway to
enhance CERCLIS, with a focus on data collection and data analysis and how to best satisfy the
current needs of the Superfund program. Among other initiatives, this effort includes reviewing
current and anticipated data needs. Items in CERCLIS that are no longer needed will be deleted,
and new items identified will be added. Strict standards for quality will be enforced. The
CERCLIS database has been made Intranet accessible. This will make it easier to access the
database and will improve database reliability because there will no longer be 10 separate
CERCLIS installations on Regional servers. The Superfund eFacts system is a vital part of the
CERCLIS modernization efforts. The Superfund eFacts system is an e-Government solution
design to give EPA management and staff quick and easy access to important milestones relating
to various aspects of the Superfund program. In 2006, the Agency will continue its efforts begun
in 1999 to improve the Superfund program's technical information by increasing reliance upon
the CERCLIS data system, which will incorporate more site remedy selection, risk, removal
response, and community involvement information. Efforts to share information among the
Federal, state, and Tribal programs to further enhance the Agency's efforts to efficiently identify,
evaluate, and remediate Superfund hazardous waste sites will continue. In 2005, the Agency will
also establish data quality objectives for program planning purposes and to formulate the
organization's information needs for the next 5 years. Adjustments will be made to EPA's
current architecture and business processes to better meet those needs.
References: OIG audit Superfund Construction Completion Reporting, (No. E1SGF7_05_0102_
8100030) and Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality, (No. 2002-P-00016,
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htmX and the GAO report, Superfund Information on the
Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf). The
Superfund/Oil Implementation Manuals for the fiscal years 1987 to the current manual
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/guidance/index.htm). The Quality Management Plan
(QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (August 2003,
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf). Office of Environmental Information Interim
Agency Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.4
(http://cfmtl.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsdweb/otop/policies/infoman.cfm). The Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf). EPA platform, software and hardware
standards (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf). Quality Assurance Requirements in all
contract vehicles under which CERCLIS are being developed and maintained
(http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines). EPA security procedures
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView).
PPA-246
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 Performance Measures:
High priority RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins controlled
High priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to groundwater controlled
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: The States and Regions enter Data. A "High", "Medium", or "Low" entry is made
in the database with respect to final-assessment decision. A "yes" or "no" entry is made in the
database with respect to meeting the human exposures to toxins controlled and releases to
groundwater controlled indicators. An entry will be made in the database to indicate when a
remedy is selected and the complete construction of a remedy is made. Supporting
documentation and reference materials are maintained in the Regional and State files. EPA's
Regional offices and authorized States enter data on a continual basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RCRAInfo has several different modules, including a
Corrective Action Module that tracks the status of facilities that require, or may require,
corrective actions. RCRAInfo contains information on entities (generically referred to as
"handlers") engaged in hazardous waste (HW) generation and management activities regulated
under the portion of RCRA that provides for regulation of hazardous waste. N The annual
performance measures are used to summarize and report on the facility-wide environmental
conditions at the RCRA Corrective Action Program's highest priority facilities. They are used to
track the RCRA program's progress in getting highest priority contaminated facilities under
control. Known and suspected facility-wide conditions are evaluated using a series of simple
questions and flow-chart logic to arrive at a reasonable, defensible determination. These
questions were issued as a memorandum titled: Interim Final Guidance for RCRA Corrective
Action Environmental Indicators, Office of Solid Waste, February 5, 1999). Lead regulators for
the facility (authorized state or EPA) make the environmental indicator determination; however,
facilities or their consultants may assist EPA in the evaluation by providing information on the
current environmental conditions. Remedies selected and complete constructions of remedies are
used to track the RCRA program's progress in getting highest priority contaminated facilities
moving towards final cleanup. The lead regulators for the facility select the remedies and
complete constructions of remedies determinations.
QA/QC Procedures: States and Regions generate the data and manage data quality related to
timeliness and accuracy (i.e., the data correctly reflect the environmental conditions and
determination). Within RCRAInfo, the application software enforces structural controls that
ensure that high-priority national components of the data are properly entered. RCRAInfo
documentation, which is available to all users on-line, provides guidance to facilitate the
generation and interpretation of data. Training on use of RCRAInfo is provided on a regular
basis, usually annually, depending on the nature of systems changes and user needs.
PPA-247
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Note: Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized State
personnel. It is not available to the general public because the system contains enforcement
sensitive data. The general public is referred to EPA's Envirofacts Data Warehouse to obtain
filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste facilities.
Data Quality Review: The 1995 GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information
System Are Limited (AIMD-95-167, August 22, 1995,
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf) on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System
reviewed whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing
their hazardous waste programs. Recommendations coincide with ongoing internal efforts to
improve the definitions of data collected, ensure that data collected provide critical information
and minimize the burden on states. RCRAInfo, the current national database has evolved in part
as a response to this report.
Data Limitations: No data limitations have been identified. As discussed above, the
performance measure determinations are made by the authorized states and EPA Regions based
on a series of standard questions and entered directly into RCRAInfo. EPA has provided
guidance and training to states and Regions to help ensure consistency in those determinations.
High priority facilities are monitored on a facility-by-facility basis and the QA/QC procedures
identified above are in place to help ensure data validity.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste does not collect data on estimated
error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has successfully implemented new tools for managing
environmental information to support federal and state programs, replacing the old data systems
(the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System and the Biennial Reporting
System) with RCRAInfo. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated
universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as facility status, regulated activities, and
compliance history. The system also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste
from large quantity generators and on waste management practices by treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. RCRAInfo is web-accessible, providing a convenient user interface for
federal, state and local managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled
cost, and using commercial off-the-shelf software to develop reports from database tables.
References: RCRAInfo documentation and data (http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/). The 1995
GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information System Are Limited (AIMD-95-
167, August 22, 1995, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf).
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of leaking underground storage tank cleanups completed
PPA-248
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Database: The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) does not maintain
a national database. States individually maintain records for reporting state program
accompli shments.
Data Source: Designated State agencies submit semi-annual progress reports to the EPA
regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's regional offices verify and then forward the data in a word
processing table to OUST. OUST staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with the
regional offices. The data are displayed in a word processing table on a region-by-region basis,
which is a way regional staff can check their data.
Data Quality Review: None.
Data Limitations: Percentages reported are sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations
from sample data. Data quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
References: FY 2004 End-of-Year Activity Report, November 24, 2004 (updated semi-
annually). http://www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca_043_4.pdf
PPA-249
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 3 Objective 3
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Refer to DOJ, settle, or writeoff 100% of Statute of Limitations (SOLs) cases for
Superfund sites with total unaddressed past costs equal to or greater than $200,000 and
report value of costs recovered
Performance Database: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS)
Data Source: Automated EPA system; Headquarters and EPA's Regional Offices enter data into
CERCLIS
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data used to support this measure are collected
on a fiscal year basis only. Enforcement reports are run at the end of the fiscal year, and the data
that support this measure are extracted from the report.
QA/QC Procedures: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management
Plan, approved April 11, 2001. To ensure data accuracy and control, the following
administrative controls are in place: 1) Superfund/Oil Implementation Manual (SPIM), a
program management manual that details what data must be reported; 2) Report specifications,
which are published for each report detailing how reported data are calculated; 3) Coding Guide,
which contains technical instructions to such data users as regional Information Management
Coordinators (EVICs), program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality
Assurance (QA) Unit Testing, an extensive QA check against report specifications; 5) QA Third
Party Testing, an extensive test made by an independent QA tester to ensure that the report
produces data in conformance with the report specifications; 6) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry
Internal Control Plan, which includes: a) regional policies and procedures for entering data into
CERCLIS, b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund accomplishments are supported by
source documentation, c) delegation of authorities for approval of data input into CERCLIS, and,
d) procedures to ensure that reported accomplishments meet accomplishment definitions; and 7)
a historical lockout feature that has been added to CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal year
data can be changed only by approved and designated personnel and are logged to a change-log
report.
Data Quality Review: The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLIS data, in an informal
process, to verify the data supporting the performance measure. Typically, there are no
published results.
Data Limitations: None
Error Estimate: NA
PPA-250
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan,
approved April 11, 2001
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Reach a settlement 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 government
Performance Database: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS).
Data Source: Automated EPA system; Headquarters and Regional Offices enter data into
CERCLIS.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are no analytical or statistical methods used to
collect the information. The data used to support this measure are collected on a fiscal year basis
only. Enforcement reports are run at the end of the fiscal year, and the data that supports this
measure are extracted from the report.
QA/QC Procedures: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management
Plan, approved April 11, 2001. To ensure data accuracy and control, the following
administrative controls are in place: 1) Superfund/Oil Implementation Manual (SPIM), a
program management manual that details what data must be reported; 2) Report Specifications,
which are published for each report detailing how reported data are calculated; 3) Coding Guide,
which contains technical instructions to such data users as regional Information Management
Coordinators (EVICs), program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality
Assurance (QA) Unit Testing, an extensive QA check against report specifications; 5) QA Third
Party Testing, an extensive test made by an independent QA tester to ensure that the report
produces data in conformance with the report specifications; 6) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry
Internal Control Plan, which includes: a) regional policies and procedures for entering data into
CERCLIS, b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund accomplishments are supported by
source documentation, c) delegation of authorities for approval of data input into CERCLIS, and,
d) procedures to ensure that reported accomplishments meet accomplishment definitions; and 7)
a historical lockout feature that has been added to CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal year
data can be changed only by approved and designated personnel and are logged to a change-log
report.
PPA-251
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Quality Review: The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLIS data, in an informal
process, to verify the data supporting the performance measure. Typically, there are no
published results.
Data Limitations: None
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan,
approved April 11, 2001.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Draft of FY05 Annual SITE Report to Congress
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
PPA-252
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 4 Objective 1
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Detailed Review Papers Completed
Prevalidation Studies Completed
Validation by Multiple Labs Completed
Peer Reviews
Assays Ready for Use
Performance Database: Performance is measured by the cumulative number of actions
(usually studies) to be undertaken by the projected completion date of FY 2009. The measures
appear as fractions where the numerator represents the total number of cumulative actions for the
current year and the denominator represents the actions projected to be completed by the end of
FY2009.
Data Source: Data are generated to support all stages of validation of endocrine test methods
through contracts, grants and interagency agreements, and the cooperative support of the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD). The scope of the effort includes the conduct of laboratory
studies and associated analyses to validate the assays proposed for the Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program (EDSP).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The measures are program outputs that represent the
program's progress toward completing the validation of endocrine test methods. The measures
track progress through each stage of the process rather than reporting only the end product.
These measures are being adopted because they best show the complexity of the validation
process. For example, EPA may plan on four studies to address prevalidation issues for a given
assay, and at the completion of the four studies, the annual performance measure (APM) would
be 4/4. Upon review of the last study, EPA may conclude that an ambiguity exists, or another
question has arisen that requires an additional study. The APM would then be revised to 4/5,
showing that four studies were completed, but another study must now be completed to address
all issues that allow EPA to move to the next phase of validation. The denominator also could
move downward if, for instance, EPA concludes that a planned study is not needed or if an assay
performs so poorly during prevalidation that it is dropped from the Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program.
Although 21 assays are being developed and validated (denoted by the denominator for the
measure "Assays Ready for Use"), the denominators for the other measures differ from this
number for several reasons: more than one assay may be covered in a Detailed Review Paper,
more than one prevalidation study is required to optimize an assay and address prevalidation
questions, etc.
PPA-253
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
How various studies are counted also requires some explanation as there are several options.
EPA has taken the view that a study is laboratory work performed to address a specific question
whether performed in one laboratory or many labs. Thus, a single chemical study will be
counted as one study, a multichemical study involving 10 chemicals in one laboratory will be
counted as one study, and a study of interlaboratory variability will be counted as one study for
each lab in which testing is conducted. From these examples, it is apparent that laboratory
studies differ considerably in scope and complexity.
QA/QC Procedures: Required by the EPA's Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) (40 CFR Part
792 and 40 CFR 160 Part 1), EDSP's contractor operates an independent quality assurance unit
(QAU) to ensure that all studies are conducted under an appropriate QA/QC program. For this
procurement, two levels of QA/QC are employed. All prevalidation and interlaboratory studies
are conducted under a project specific Quality Assurance Program (QAP) developed by the
contractor and approved by EPA. All validation studies are conducted according to GLPs. In
addition, EPA or its agent conducts an independent lab/QA audit of facilities participating in the
validation program.
Data Quality Review: All of the documentation and data generated by the contractor, OECD
and ORD, as it pertains to the EDSP, are reviewed for quality and scientific applicability. The
contractor maintains a Data Coordination Center which manages information/data generated
under EDSP. The contractor also conducts statistical analyses relating to lab studies, chemical
repository, and quality control studies.
Data Limitations: There is a data lag of approximately 9-24 months due to the variation in
length and complexity of the lab studies, and for time required for review, analysis and reporting
of data.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: EPA Website; EPA Annual Report; Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
Proposed Statement of Policy, Dec. 28, 1998; Endocrine Disrupter Screening and Testing
Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) Final Report (EPA/743/R-98/003); EPA Contract # 68-W-01-
023.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of registrations of reduced risk pesticides registered (Register safer chemicals
and biopesticides)
Number of new (active ingredients) conventional pesticides registered (New Chemicals)
(Cumulative)
Number of conventional new uses registered (New Uses)(Cumulative)
PPA-254
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Number of new uses for previously registered antimicrobial products
Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions
Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk chemicals
Performance Database: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network)
consolidates various pesticides program databases. It is maintained by the EPA and tracks
regulatory data submissions and studies, organized by scientific discipline, which are submitted
by the registrant in support of a pesticide's registration. In addition to tracking decisions in
OPPIN, manual counts are also maintained by the office on the registrations of reduced risk
pesticides. Results for reduced risk pesticides, new active conventional ingredients, and new
uses have been reported since 1996. The results are calculated on a fiscal year (FY) basis. For
antimicrobial new uses, results have been reported since FY 2004 on a FY basis. Both S18
timeliness and reduced risk decision times are being reported on a FY basis for the first time in
FY2005.
Data Source: Pesticide program reviewers update the status of the submissions and studies as
they are received and as work is completed by the reviewers. The status indicates whether the
application is ready for review, the application is in the process of review, or the review has been
completed.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which when
finalized, represent the program's statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the
marketplace are safe for human health and the environment, and when used in accordance with
the packaging label present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While program outputs are not the
best measures of risk reduction, they do provide a means for reducing risk, such that the
program's safety review prevents dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace.
QA/QC Procedures: A reduced risk pesticide must meet the criteria set forth in Pesticide
Registration Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997. Reduced risk pesticides include those which
reduce the risks to human health; reduce the risks to non-target organisms; reduce the potential
for contamination of groundwater, surface water or other valued environmental resources; and/or
broaden the adoption of integrated pest management strategies, or make such strategies more
available or more effective. In addition, biopesticides are generally considered safer (and thus
reduced risk). All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard. All risk assessments are subject to public and
scientific peer review. The office adheres to its Quality Management Plan (May 2000) in
ensuring data quality and that procedures are properly applied.
Data Quality Review: These are program outputs. EPA staff and management review the
program outputs in accordance with established policy for the registration of reduced-risk
pesticides as set forth in Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997.
PPA-255
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Limitations: None. All required data must be submitted for the risk assessments before the
pesticide, including a reduced risk pesticide, is registered. If data are not submitted, the pesticide
is not registered. As stated above, a reduced risk pesticide must meet the criteria set forth in PRN
97-3 and all registrations must meet FQPA safety requirements. If a pesticide does not meet
these criteria, it is not registered. If an application for a reduced risk pesticide does not meet the
reduced risk criteria, it is reviewed as a conventional active ingredient.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network), which consolidates various pesticides program databases, will reduce the processing
time for registration actions.
References: FIFRA Sec 3(c)(5); FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3,
September 4, 1997; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996; OPP Quality Management Plan,
May 2000)
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of Tolerance Reassessments issued
Number of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) issued
Number of Product Reregistration decisions issued
Tolerance Reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by children
Number of inert ingredients tolerance/tolerance exemptions reassessed
Reduce decision times for REDs
Reduce occurrence of residues in 19 foods eaten by children
Performance Database: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network)
consolidates various EPA program databases. It is maintained by the EPA and tracks regulatory
data submissions and studies, organized by scientific discipline, which are submitted by the
registrant in support of a pesticide's reregi strati on. In addition to tracking decisions in OPPIN,
manual counts are also maintained by the office on the reregistrations decisions. Decisions are
logged in as the action is completed, both for final decisions and interim decisions. Tolerance
reassessments, REDs and product reregi strati on decisions have been reported on a FY basis since
FY 1996. Tolerance reassessments for the top 20 foods eaten by children have been reported on
an FY basis since FY 2002 and inert ingredient tolerances reassessed and tolerance exemptions
reassessed have been reported on an FY basis since FY 2004. Reduction in decision times for
REDs will be reported on an FY basis in FY 2005.
Data Source: EPA's Pesticides Program.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which represent the
program's statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for
PPA-256
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
human health and the environment and when used in accordance with the packaging label
present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While program outputs are not the best measures of
risk reduction, they do provide a means for reducing risk in that the program's safety review
prevents dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace.
QA/QC Procedures: All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard. All risk assessments are subject to public
and scientific peer review. The office adheres to the procedures for quality management of data
as outlined in its QMP approved May 2000.
Data Quality Review: Management reviews the program counts and signs off on the decision
document.
Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: N/A. There are no errors associated with count data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN, which consolidates various pesticides program
databases, will contribute to reducing the processing time for reregi strati on actions.
References: EPA Website http://www.epa.gov/pesticides EPA Annual Report 2002 EPA
Number 735-R-03-001; 2003 Annual Performance Plan OPP Quality Management Plan, May
2000.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of Acre Treatments with Reduced Risk Pesticides
Performance Database: EPA uses an external database, Doane Marketing Research data, for
this measure. The data have been reported for trend data since FY 2001 on an FY basis.
Data Source: Primary source is Doane Marketing Research, Inc. (a private sector research
database). The database contains pesticide usage information by pesticide, year, crop use,
acreage and sector.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: A reduced-risk pesticide must meet the criteria set
forth in Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997. Reduced-risk pesticides include
those which reduce the risks to human health; reduce the risks to non-target organisms; reduce
the potential for contamination of groundwater, surface water, or other valued environmental
resources; and/or broaden the adoption of integrated pest management strategies or make such
strategies more available or more effective. In addition, biopesticides are generally considered
safer (and thus reduced-risk). EPA's statistical and economics staff review data from Doane.
PPA-257
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Information is also compared to prior years for variations and trends as well as to determine the
reasons for the variability.
Doane sampling plans and QA/QC procedures are available to the public at their website. More
specific information about the data is proprietary and a subscription fee is required. Data are
weighted and a multiple regression procedure is used to adjust for known disproportionalities
(known disproportionality refers to a non proportional sample, which means individual
respondents have different weights) and ensure consistency with USD A and state acreage
estimates.
QA/QC Procedures: All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard. All risk assessments are subject to public
and scientific peer review. Doane data are subject to extensive QA/QC procedures, documented
at their websites. In ensuring the quality of the data, EPA's pesticide program adheres to its
Quality Management Plan (QMP), approved May 2000.
Data Quality Review: Doane data are subject to extensive internal quality review, documented
at the website. EPA's statistical and economics staff review data from Doane. Information is also
compared to prior years for variations and trends as well as to determine the reasons for the
variability.
Data Limitations: Doane data are proprietary; thus in order to release any detailed information,
the Agency must obtain approval. There is a data lag of approximately 12-15 months, due to the
collection of data on a calendar year (CY) basis and reporting on a fiscal year (FY) basis, plus
the time it takes to review and analyze the data within the office's workload.
Error Estimate: Error estimates differ according to the data/database and year of sampling.
Doane sampling plans and QA/QC procedures are available to the public at their website. More
specific information about the data is proprietary and a subscription fee is required. Data are
weighted and multiple regression procedure is used to adjust for known disproportionalities and
ensure consistency with USDA and state acreage estimates
New/Improved Data or Systems: These are not EPA databases; thus improvements are not
known in any detail at this time.
References: EPA Website; EPA Annual Report; Annual Performance Plan and Annual
Performance Report, http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/download.htm; Doane Marketing
Research, Inc.: http://www.doanemr.com; http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs and
http://www.usda.nass/nass/nassinfo; FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration Notice
97-3, September 4, 1997.
PPA-258
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Reduction in occurrences of carcinogenic and cholinesterase-inhibiting neurotoxic
pesticide residues on a core set of 19 children's foods reported in 1994-1996
Performance Database: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data
Program (PDF). The results for this annual performance measure (APM) are calculated on a
calendar year basis and have been reported in the fiscal year 2003 and 2004 annual reports.
Data Source: Data collection is conducted by the states. Information is coordinated by USDA
agencies and cooperating state agencies.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The information is collected by the states and includes
statistical information on pesticide use, food consumption, and residue detections, which provide
the basis for realistic dietary risk assessments and evaluation of pesticide tolerance. Pesticide
residue sampling and testing procedures are managed by USDA's Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS). AMS also maintains an automated information system for pesticide residue data
and publishes annual summaries of residue detections. This measure helps provide information
on the effect of EPA's regulatory actions on children's health via reduction of pesticide residues
on children's foods. The assumption is that through reduction of pesticide residues on these
foods, children's exposure to pesticides will be reduced; thus, the risk to their health diminished.
This measure contributes to the Agency's goal of protecting human health and is aligned with the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) mandate of protecting children's health.
QA/QC Procedures: The core of USDA's PDP's QA/QC program is Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) based on EPA's Good Laboratory Practices. At each participating laboratory,
there is a quality assurance (QA) unit which operates independently from the rest of the
laboratory staff. QA Plans are followed as the standard procedure, with any deviations
documented extensively. Final QA review is conducted by PDF staff responsible for collating
and reviewing data for conformance with SOPs. PDF staff also monitor the performance of
participating laboratories through proficiency evaluation samples, quality assurance internal
reviews, and on-site visits. Additionally, analytical methods have been standardized in various
areas including analytical standards, laboratory operations, data handling, instrumentation and
QA/QC. With the exception of California, all samples of a commodity collected for PDF are
forwarded to a single laboratory, allowing greater consistency, improved QA/QC and reduced
sample loss. Program plans may be accessed at http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/SOPs.htm.
Data Quality Review: In addition to having extensive QA plans to ensure reliability of the data,
the PDF follows EPA's Good Laboratory Practices in standard operating procedures. A QA
committee composed of quality assurance officers is responsible for annual review of program
SOPs and for addressing QA/QC issues. Quality assurance units at each participating laboratory
operate independently from the laboratory staff and are responsible for day-to-day quality
PPA-259
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
assurance oversight. Preliminary QA/QC review is done at each participating laboratory with
final review performed by PDF staff for conformance with SOPs.
Data Limitations: Participation in the PDF is voluntary. Sampling is limited to ten states but
designed in a manner to represent the food supply nationwide. The number of sampling sites and
volume vary by state. Sampling procedures are described at the website, see reference below.
There is a data lag of approximately 12-15 months due to collection/reporting procedures and
time required for review and analysis of the data.
Error Estimate: Uncertainties and other sources of error are minor and not expected to have any
significant effect on performance assessment. More information is available on the website (See
References).
New/Improved Data or Systems: These are not EPA data; thus improvements are not known in
any detail at this time.
References: PDF Annual Reports, http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/download.htm;
http://www.ams.usda.gov/process/; CFR 40 Part 160; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996;
http://www.epahome/Standards.html; http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/SOPs.htm.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of incidents and mortalities to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife caused by the 15
pesticides responsible for the greatest mortality to such wildlife
Performance Database: The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) is a national
database of information on poisoning incidents of non-target plants and animals caused by
pesticide use. The fields used include the number of incidents reported for each non-target plant
or animal. The data used to report is the average for 3 years. Data are gathered on a calendar year
basis and reported on a FY basis beginning in FY 2004. There is approximately 2 year data lag.
The Environmental Fate and Effects staff for Pesticide Programs maintain this database.
Data Source: Data are extracted from written reports offish and wildlife incidents submitted to
the Agency by pesticide registrants under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2), as well as incident reports voluntarily submitted by state and Federal
agencies involved in investigating such incidents.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: This measure helps to provide information on the
effect of EPA's regulatory actions on the well being offish and wildlife. The assumption is that
the number of incidents and mortalities to fish and wildlife caused by pesticides will decrease
when use of those pesticides are curtailed or eliminated.
PPA-260
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the
quality of the data. Even before entering incident data in the database, a database program is
used to screen for records already in the database with similar locations and dates. Similar
records are then individually reviewed to prevent duplicate reporting. After each record is
entered into the EIIS database, an incident report is printed that contains all the data entered into
the database. A staff member, other than the one who entered the data, then reviews the
information in the report and compares it to the original source report to verify data quality.
Scientists using the incident database are also encouraged to report any inaccuracies they find in
the database for correction.
Data Quality Review: Internally and externally conducted data quality reviews related to data
entry are ongoing. EPA follows a quality assurance plan for accurately extracting data from
reports and entering it into the EIIS database. This quality assurance plan is described in
Appendix D of the Quality Management Plan for pesticides programs. When resources allow
incorporation of wildlife data from private organizations, such as the American Bird
Conservancy, the new data and EIIS data are reviewed for quality during data entry using the
same standards.
Data Limitations: This measure is designed to monitor trends in the numbers of acute poisoning
events reported to the Agency. Because the data are obtained, in part, through voluntary
reporting, the numbers of reported incidents may not accurately reflect the numbers of actual
incidents. Therefore, it is important to consider the possible factors influencing changes in
incident reporting rates over time when evaluating this measure.
Error Estimate: Moving average counts of number of incidents per year may be interpreted as a
relative index of the frequency of acute toxicity effects that pesticides are causing to fish and
wildlife. The indicator numbers are subject to under-reporting, but trends in the numbers over
time may indicate if the overall level of adverse acute effects is improving or getting worse.
Even so, if there is an increase in bird kills since the baseline year, it may be due to better
tracking/reporting of kills rather than an increase or change in use of a pesticide.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA is currently conducting a project with the American
Bird Conservancy, reviewing the data in its Avian Incident Monitoring System on bird kill
incidents caused by pesticides. These data will be incorporated into the EIIS. The project is
expected to improve the quantity and quality of data in the EIIS database on avian incidents.
References: The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) is an internal EPA database.
Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 6(a) (2). QMP: Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pesticides Program, May 20, 2000.
PPA-261
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Establish short-term exposure limits for X percent of chemicals identified as highest
priority by the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL) Program
Performance Database: Performance is measured by the cumulative number of chemicals with
"Proposed", "Interim", and/or "Final" AEGL values. The results are calculated on a fiscal year
basis.
Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that reviews
short term exposure values for extremely hazardous chemicals. The supporting data, from both
published and unpublished sources and from which the AEGL values are derived, are collected,
evaluated, and summarized by FACA Chemical Managers and Oak Ridge National Laboratory's
scientists. Proposed AEGL values are published for public comment in the Federal Register.
After reviewing public comment, interim values are presented to the AEGL Subcommittee of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for review and comment. After review and comment
resolution, the National Research Council under the auspices of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) publishes the values as final.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The work of the National Advisory Committee's
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (NAC/AEGL, formally chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act) adheres to the 1993 U.S. National Research Council/National Academies of
Sciences (NRC/NAS) publication Guidelines for Developing Community Emergency Exposure
Levels for Hazardous Substances. NAC/AEGL, in cooperation with the National Academy of
Sciences' Subcommittee on AEGLs, have developed standard operating procedures (SOPs),
which are followed by the program. These have been published by the National Academy Press
and are referenced below. The cumulative number of AEGL values approved as "proposed" and
"interim" by the NAC/AEGL FACA Committee and "final" by the National Academy of
Sciences represents the measure of performance. The work is assumed to be completed at the
time of final approval of the AEGL values by the NAS.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures include public comment via the Federal Register
process; review and approval by the FACA committee; and review and approval by the
NAS/AEGL committee and their external reviewers.
Data Quality Review: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
PPA-262
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
New/Improved Data or Systems: This is the first time acute exposure values for extremely
hazardous chemicals have been established according to a standardized process and put through
such a rigorous review.
References: Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
for Hazardous Chemicals, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 2001
(http://www.nap.edu/books/030907553X/html/). NRC (National Research Council). 1993.
Guidelines for Developing Community Emergency Exposure Levels for Hazardous Substances.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead levels (>10 ug/dL) (this is
the level that CDC defines as 'elevated' and indicative of the need for intervention)
Performance Database: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Data is produced on a calendar year basis.
Due to strict QA/QC analysis and data lag, 2001-2002 data sets are tentatively scheduled for
release first quarter of 2005.
Data Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey is a coordinated program
of studies designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the U.S.
The program began in the early 1960s and continues. The survey examines a nationally
representative sample of approximately 5,000 men, women, and children each year located
across the U.S.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Detailed interview questions cover areas related to
demographic, socio-economic, dietary, and health-related questions. The survey also includes an
extensive medical and dental examination of participants, physiological measurements, and
laboratory tests. Specific laboratory measurements of environmental interest include: (e.g. lead,
cadmium, and mercury), VOCs, phthalates, organophosphates (OPs), pesticides and their
metabolites, non-persistent pesticides, dioxins/furans and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
NHANES is unique in that it links laboratory-derived biological markers (e.g. blood, urine etc.)
to questionnaire responses and results of physical exams. CDC has published both the "National
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals," (March 2001) and the "Second
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals" (January 2003), which
reflect findings from NHANES, including the body burden of lead and other pollutants measured
in the blood stream or urine. These reports provide ongoing surveillance of the U.S. population's
exposure to environmental chemicals. The
2001 report provides biological markers to 27 chemicals based on blood and urine samples from
people participating in 1999 NHANES. The 2003 Report expands the number of chemicals to
116 (in order to include carcinogenic volatile organic compounds, carcinogenic PAHs, dioxins
and furans, PCBs, trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, and carbamate and organochlorine
PPA-263
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
pesticides). Future reports will continue to provide additional data on exposure among different
populations stratifying results by gender, race/ethnicity, age, urban/rural residence, education
level, income, and other characteristics. CDC will track these indicators over time. Data will
assist both public health officials and regulators in analyzing: 1) trends over time; 2) the
effectiveness of public health efforts; and 3) exposure variations among sub-populations.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance plans are available from the CDC as outlined on the web
site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm under the NHANES section.
Data Quality Reviews: CDC follows standardized survey instrument procedures to collect data
to promote data quality, and data are subjected to rigorous QA/QC review. CDC/NCHS has an
elaborate data quality checking procedure outlined on the web site
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm under the NHANES section.
Data Limitations: The NHANES survey uses two steps, a questionnaire and a physical exam.
There are sometimes different numbers of subjects in the interview and examinations because
some participants only complete one step of the survey. Participants may elect to provide a urine
sample but not the more invasive blood sample. For this reason, special weighting techniques are
needed. Demographic information is collected but not publicly available protect to the privacy of
the participants. Body burden data are evidence of human exposure to toxic substances; however,
linkages between evidence of exposure and source of exposure have yet to be made for many
substances. In the case of lead, the correlation is strongly documented.
Error Estimate: Because NHANES is based on a complex multi-stage sample design,
appropriate sampling weights should be used in analyses to produce national estimates. Several
statistical methodologies can be used to account for unequal probability of the selection of
sample persons. The methodologies and appropriate weights are provided at
www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes3/cdrom/nchs/MANUALS/NH3GUIDE to help
generate appropriate error estimates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NHANES has moved to a continuous sampling schedule.
The sample design allows for limited estimates to be produced on an annual basis and more
detailed estimates to be produced on 2-year samples. The data are released in 2-year sets (1999-
2000, and 2001-2002).
References: "National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals," (NCEH
Publication Number 01-0164, Atlanta, GA: March 2001). See
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report/. More extensive findings from NHANES are in the "Second
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals" (NCEH Publication Number
03-0022: Atlanta, GA January 2003). See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm, or
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
PPA-264
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Reduce the potential for risks from leaks and spills by ensuring the safe disposal of
large capacitors and transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Performance Database: PCB Annual Report Database. The results are calculated on a calendar
year (CY) basis. Two-year data lag and results for CY 06 will not be available until 2008.
Data Source: Annual Reports from commercial storers and disposers of PCB Waste.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data provide a baseline for the amount of safe
disposal of PCB waste annually. By ensuring safe disposal of PCBs in equipment such as
transformers and capacitors coming out of service, and contaminated media such as soil, and
structures from remediation activities, the Agency is reducing the exposure risk of PCBs that are
either already in the environment or may be released to the environment through spills or leaks.
QA/QC Procedures: The Agency reviews, transcribes, and assembles data into the Annual
Report Database.
Data Quality Reviews: The Agency contacts data reporters, when needed, for clarification of
data submitted.
Data Limitations: Data limitations include missing submissions from commercial storers and
disposers, and inaccurate submissions. PCB-Contaminated Transformers, of PCB concentrations
50 to 499 parts per million (ppm), and those that are 500 ppm PCBs or greater are not
distinguished in the data. Similarly, large and small capacitors of PCB waste may not be
differentiated. Data are collected for the previous calendar year on July 1 of the next year
creating a lag of approximately one year. Despite these limitations, the data do provide the only
estimate of the amount of PCB waste disposed annually.
Error Estimate: Not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: U.S EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, National Program Chemicals
Program, PCB Annual Report for Storage and Disposal of PCB Waste.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percent reduction in relative risk index for chronic human health associated with
environmental releases of industrial chemicals in commerce as measured by Risk
Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model
PPA-265
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Database: The RSEI Model uses annual reporting from individual industrial
facilities along with a variety of other information to evaluate chemical emissions and other
waste management activities. RSEI incorporates detailed data from EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) and Integrated Risk Information System, the U.S. Census, and many other
sources. Due to a TRI data lag, performance data will be unavailable for this measure when the
FY 2006 Annual Performance Report is prepared. The data will be available for the FY 2008
report and is based on calendar year.
Data Source: The RSEI model incorporates data on chemical emissions and transfers and
facility locations from EPA's Toxics Release Inventory; chemical toxicity data from EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System; stack data from EPA's AIRS Facility Subsystem and
National Emissions Trends Database and the Electric Power Research Institute; meteorological
data from the National Climatic Data Center; stream reach data from EPA's Reach File 1
Database; data on drinking water systems from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System;
fishing activity data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife; exposure factors from EPA's Exposure Factor
Handbook; and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The RSEI Model generates unique numerical values
known as "Indicator Elements" using the factors pertaining to surrogate dose, toxicity and
exposed population. Indicator Elements are unitless (like an index number, they can be compared
to one-another but do not reflect actual risk), but proportional to the modeled relative risk of
each release (incrementally higher numbers reflect greater estimated risk). Indicator Elements are
risk-related measures generated for every possible combination of reporting facility, chemical,
release medium, and exposure pathway (inhalation or ingestion). Each Indicator Element
represents a unique release-exposure event and together these form the building blocks to
describe exposure scenarios of interest. These Indicator Elements are summed in various ways to
represent the risk-related results for releases users are interested in assessing. RSEI results are for
comparative purposes and only meaningful when compared to other scores produced by RSEI.
The measure is appropriate for year-to-year comparisons of performance. Depending on how the
user wishes to aggregate, RSEI can address trends nationally, regionally, by state or smaller
geographic areas.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA annually updates the data sources used within the RSEI model to take
advantage of the most recent and reliable data. For example, TRI facilities self-report release
data and occasionally make errors. TRI has QC functions and an error-correction mechanism for
reporting such mistakes. Because of the unique screening-level abilities of the RSEI model, it is
possible to identify other likely reporting errors and these are forwarded to the TRI Program for
resolution. In developing the RSEI model, OPPT has performed numerous QC checks on various
types of data. For instance, locational data for on-site and off-site facilities have been checked
and corrected, and this information is being supplied to the Office of Environmental Information
(OEI) and the Envirofacts database.
PPA-266
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Quality Reviews: RSEI depends upon a broad array of data resources, each of which has
gone through a quality review process tailored to the specific data and managed by the providers
of the data sources. RSEI includes data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), U.S. Census, etc. All were collected for regulatory or programmatic
purposes and are of sufficient quality to be used by EPA, other Federal agencies, and state
regulatory agencies. Over the course of its development, RSEI has been the subject of three
reviews by EPA's Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model, Peer Reviews. Described at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html). The RSEI model has undergone continuous
upgrading since the 1997 SAB Review. Toxicity weighting methodology was completely revised
and subject to a second positive review by SAB (in collaboration with EPA's Civil Rights
program); air methodology was revised and groundtruthed using New York data to demonstrate
high confidence; water methodology has been revised in collaboration with EPA's Water
program. When the land methodology has been reviewed and revised, EPA will have completed
its formal, written response to the 1997 SAB Review.
Data Limitations: RSEI relies on data from a variety of EPA and other sources. TRI data may
have errors that are not corrected in the standard TRI QC process. In the past, RSEI has
identified some of these errors and corrections have been made by reporting companies.
Drinking water intake locations are not available for all intakes nationwide. Where intake
locations are known only at the county-level, RSEI distributes the drinking water population
between all stream reaches in that county. This could increase or decrease the RSEI risk-related
results depending on the pattern of TRI releases on the stream reaches in that county. If the
actual uptake location is on a highly polluted stream reach, this approach would underestimate
risk by distributing the drinking water population to less-polluted reaches. In coastal areas,
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) water releases may go directly to the ocean, rather
than nearby streams. EPA is in the process of systematically correcting potential errors regarding
POTW water releases. These examples are illustrative of the data quality checks and
methodological improvements that are part of the RSEI development effort. Data sources are
updated annually and all RSEI values are recalculated on an annual basis.
Error Estimate: In developing the RSEI methodology, both sensitivity analyses and
groundtruthing studies have been used to address model accuracy (documentation is provided on
the RSEI Home Page - www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/). For example, groundtruthing of the air
modeling performed by RSEI compared to site-specific regulatory modeling done by the state of
New York showed virtually identical results in both rank order and magnitude. However, the
complexity of modeling performed in RSEI, coupled with un-quantified data limitations, limits a
precise estimation of errors that may either over- or under-estimate risk-related results.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The program regularly tracks improvements in other Agency
databases (e.g., SDWIS and Reach File databases) and incorporates newer data into the RSEI
databases. Such improvements can also lead to methodological modifications in the model.
PPA-267
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Corrections in TRI reporting data for all previous years are captured by the annual updates of the
RSEI model.
References: The methodologies used in RSEI were first documented for the 1997 review by the
EPA Science Advisory Board. The Agency has provided this and other updated technical
documentation on the RSEI Home Page. (RSEI Home Page - http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/)
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
Model, Peer Reviews. Described at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html RSEI
Methodology Document (describes data and methods used in RSEI Modeling)
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/method2004.pdf RSEI User's Manual (PDF, 1.5 MB)
explains all of the functions of the model, the data used, and contains tutorials to walk the new
user through common RSEI tasks (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/users_manual.pdf). A
more general overview of the model can be found in the RSEI Fact Sheet (PDF, 23 KB)
(http ://www. epa. gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/factsheet_v2-1. pdf).
There are also seven Technical Appendices that accompany these two documents and provide
additional information on the data used in the model. The Appendices are as follows: Technical
Appendix A (PDF, 121 KB) - Listing of All Toxicity Weights for TRI Chemicals and Chemical
Categories Technical Appendix B (PDF, 290 KB) - Physicochemical Properties for TRI
Chemicals and Chemical Categories Technical Appendix C (PDF, 40 KB) - Derivation of Model
Exposure Parameters Technical Appendix D (PDF, 71 KB) - Locational Data for TRI Reporting
Facilities and Off-site Facilities Technical Appendix E (PDF, 44 KB) - Derivation of Stack
Parameter Data Technical Appendix F (PDF, 84KB) - Summary of Differences Between RSEI
Data and TRI Public Data Release.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of new chemicals or microorganisms introduced into commerce that pose an
unreasonable risk to workers, consumers or the environment
Performance Database: Implementation of this measure will require the use of several EPA
databases: Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS), pre-manufacture notice
(PMN) CBI Local Area Network (LAN), 8(e) database (ISIS), and the Focus database. The
following information from these databases will be used collectively in applying this measure:
1. CBITS: Tracking information on Pre-Manufacture Notices (PMNs) received;
2. PMN CBI LAN: Records documenting PMN review and decision, assessment reports
on chemicals submitted for review. In addition, the information developed for each
PMN is kept in hard copy in the Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC);
3. ISIS: Data submitted by industry under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Section 8(e). TSCA 8(e) requires that chemical manufacturers, processors, and
distributors notify EPA immediately of new (e.g. not already reported), unpublished
chemical information that reasonably supports a conclusion of substantial risk. TSCA
8(e) substantial risk information notices most often contain toxicity data but may also
PPA-268
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
contain information on exposure, environmental persistence, or actions being taken to
reduce human health and environmental risks. It is an important information-
gathering tool that serves as an early warning mechanism; and
4. Focus: Rationale for decisions emerging from Focus meeting, including decisions on
whether or not to drop chemicals from further review.
Measurement results are calculated on a fiscal-year basis and draw on relevant information
received over the 12-month fiscal year.
Data Source: The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), the office responsible for
the implementation of the TSCA, will compare data submitted under TSCA Section 8(e) with
previously-submitted new chemical review data (submitted under TSCA Section 5 and contained
in the PMN) to determine the number of instances in which EPA failed to prevent the
introduction of new chemicals or microorganisms into commerce which pose an unreasonable
risk to workers, consumers or the environment. Inconsistencies between the 8(e) and previously-
submitted new chemical review data will be evaluated by applying the methods and steps
outlined below to determine whether the inconsistencies signify an "unreasonable risk."
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: EPA's methods for implementing this measure
involve determining whether EPA failed to prevent the introduction of chemicals or
microorganisms into commerce that pose an unreasonable risk to workers, consumers or the
environment, based on comparisons of 8(e) and previously-submitted new chemical review data.
The "unreasonable risk" determination is based on consideration of (1) the magnitude of risks
identified by EPA, (2) limitations on risk that result from specific safeguards applied, and (3) the
benefits to industry and the public expected to be provided by the new chemical substance. In
considering risk, EPA looks at anticipated environmental effects, distribution and fate of the
chemical substance in the environment, patterns of use, expected degree of exposure, the use of
protective equipment and engineering controls, and other factors that affect or mitigate risk.
These are the steps OPPT will follow in comparing the 8(e) data with the previously-submitted
new chemical review data.
1. Match all 8(e) submissions in the 8(e) database with associated TSCA Section 5
notices. TSCA Section 5 requires manufacturers to give EPA a 90-day advance notice
(via a pre-manufacture notice or PMN) of their intent to manufacture and/or import a
new chemical. The PMN includes information such as specific chemistry identity,
use, anticipated production volume, exposure and release information, and existing
available test data. The information is reviewed through the New Chemicals Program
to determine whether action is needed to prohibit or limit manufacturing, processing,
or use of a chemical.
2. Characterize the resulting 8(e) submissions by the PMN review phase. For example,
the 8(e) submissions were received: a) before the PMN notice was received by EPA,
b) during the PMN review process, or c) after the PMN review was completed.
PPA-269
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
3. Review of 8(e) data will focus on 8(e)s received after the PMN review period was
completed.
4. Comparison of hazard evaluation developed during PMN review with associated 8(e)
submission.
5. Report on the accuracy of the initial hazard determination.
6. Revised risk assessment developed to determine if there was an unreasonable risk
based on established risk assessment and risk management guidelines.
The databases used and the information retrieved are directly applicable to this measurement and
therefore suitable for measurement purposes.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003) and will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort.
Data Quality Reviews: This is a new performance measure and, therefore, there is no developed
track record of review and correction. However, appropriate oversight of the measurement
process will be provided. Information developed in the course of measurement will be presented
to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to technical outcomes
and to provide quality oversight. In addition, the National Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Advisory Council (NPPTAC), which consists of external experts providing independent review
and direction to OPPT, has provided comment on this measure.
Data Limitations: There are some limitations of EPA's review which result from differences in
the quality and completeness of 8(e) data provided by industry; for example, OPPT cannot
evaluate submissions that do not contain adequate information on chemical identity. The review
is also affected in some cases by a lack of available electronic information. In particular the pre-
1996 PMN cases are only retrievable in hard copy and may have to be requested from the
Federal Document Storage Center. This may introduce some delays to the review process.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure does not require inferences from statistical
samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error. OPPT will review all 8(e)
submissions received in the year with corresponding previously-submitted new chemical review
data, and not a sample of such submissions.
New/Improved Data or Systems: OPPT is currently developing an integrated, electronic system
that will provide real time access to prospective PMN review.
References: OPPT New Chemicals Program
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/, TSCA Section 8(e) - Substantial Risk
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/sect8e.htm,
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tsca8e/index/htm
PPA-270
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
"Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals identified as priority concerns
through assessment of Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) and other information
with risks eliminated or effectively managed
Performance Database: EPA will track the number of agency actions (e.g., regulatory,
voluntary), targeting risk elimination or management of high production volume chemicals,
using internal program databases or the Agency's Regulation and Policy Information Data
System (RAPIDS). Many types of Agency actions qualify as risk management or elimination
actions. Issuance of a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under TSCA is an example of
regulatory action that can be tracked by the RAPIDS Promulgation Data field. An example of a
non-regulatory risk management/elimination action is a written communication from EPA to
chemical manufacturers/users indicating the Agency's concerns and suggesting but not requiring
actions to address chemical risks (chemical substitution, handling protections, etc.). These
actions would be tracked by monitoring internal communications files. The results are calculated
on a calendar-year basis.
Data Source: RAPIDS stores official Agency data on progress of rule-making and other policy
program development efforts. Data are supplied by EPA programs managing these efforts. For
voluntary actions not tracked in RAPIDS, performance data are tracked internally by program
managers.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: As EPA identifies HPV chemicals that are priorities
for risk management action, following protocols currently under development, the Agency will
commence regulatory or non-regulatory actions to address identified risks. All such actions will
be recorded for the HPV chemical(s) subject to those actions, enabling EPA to report on progress
in responding to the risks on a chemical- or chemical-category-specific basis. This annual
performance measures (APM) commits the Agency to eliminate or effectively manage all such
risks. Using data contained in RAPIDS, in the case of regulatory risk management action, EPA's
progress towards meeting this APM will be documented by the sequence of formal regulatory
development steps documented in that system. Where risk management action takes
nonregulatory form, such as issuance of advisory communications to chemical manufacturers or
users, progress toward meeting this APM will be tracked by internal files documenting such
actions. The definition of risk is being addressed in the development of the protocols used in the
HPV screening/prioritization process.
QA/QC Procedures: RAPIDS entries are quality assured by senior Agency managers.
Data Quality Reviews: RAPIDS entries are reviewed by EPA's Regulatory Management Staff.
PPA-271
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: N/A
References: None
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
The cumulative number of chemicals for which VCCEP data needs documents are
issued by EPA in response to industry-sponsored Tier I risk assessments
Performance Database: Internal VCCEP program activity tracking database. Data needs
documents are issued by EPA to conclude work on all Tier I submissions. Documents may
indicate data are sufficient to reasonably demonstrate that children are not subject to significant
risks. Documents also may indicate that additional assessment and associated data development
are required, commencing Tier 2 work. The results are calculated on a calendar-year basis.
Data Source: Formal EPA files of VCCEP Tier I data needs communications.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: N/A
References: None
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of risk management plan audits completed
Performance Database: There is no database for this measure.
Data Source: EPA's Regional offices and the states provide the data to EPA headquarters.
PPA-272
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data are collected and analyzed by surveying EPA's
Regional offices to determine how many audits of facilities' risk management plans (RMPs)
have been completed.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are collected from states by EPA's Regional offices, with review at
the Regional and Headquarters' levels.
Data Quality Review: Data quality is evaluated by both Regional and Headquarters' personnel.
Data Limitations: Data quality is dependent on completeness and accuracy of the data provided
by state programs.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
Reference: N/A
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of TRI chemical forms submitted over the Internet using the Toxic Release
Inventory Made Easy (TRI-ME) and the Central Data Exchange (CDX)
Performance Database: TRI System (TRIS).
Data Source: Facility submissions of TRI data to EPA.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: As part of the regular process of opening the mail at
the TRI Reporting Center, submissions are immediately classified as paper or floppy disk. This
information is then entered into TRIS. The identification of an electronic submission via CDX is
done automatically by the software.
QA/QC Procedures: Currently, the mail room determines whether a submission is on paper or a
floppy disk during the normal process of entering and tracking submissions. Electronic
submissions via CDX are automatically tracked by the software. With an increase in electronic
reporting via CDX, the manual mail room processing will be significantly reduced. Information
received via hard copy are double-key entered. During the facility reconciliation process, the
data entered are checked to ensure "submission-type" identification is accomplished at no less
than 99 % accuracy. Accuracy is defined as accurate identification of document type.
Data Quality Reviews: Each month the Data Processing Center conducts data quality checks to
ensure 99 % accuracy of submission information captured in TRIS.
PPA-273
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Limitations: Occasionally, some facilities send in their forms in duplicative formats (e.g.,
paper, floppy, and/or through CDX). All submissions are entered into TRIS. The Data
Processing Center follows the procedures outlined in the document "Dupe Check Procedures" to
identify potential duplicate submissions. Submissions through CDX override duplicate
submissions by disk and/or hard copy. Floppy disk submissions override duplicate paper copy
submissions.
Error Estimate: The error rate for "submission-type" data capture has been assessed to be less
than 1%. The quality of the data is high.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: EPA continues to identify enhancements in E-
reporting capabilities via CDX.
References: www.epa.gov/TRI
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Emission inventory for power sectors in China and India
Performance Database: Output measure. No database. Mercury emission and use data will be
collected at targeted sites.
Data Source: EPA's Office of International Activities (OIA) and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) will collaborate with Chinese scientists and Indian government officials to
collect mercury use and emission data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures for field and laboratory, including protocols for internal
quality control checks and acceptance criteria will follow the Department of Energy's (DOE)
and EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory's (NERL- Research Triangle Park (RTF))
methodologies.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
PPA-274
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 4 Objective 2
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of Brownfields properties assessed
Number of Brownfields cleanup grants awarded
Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding
Number of acres of Brownfields property available for reuse
Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities
Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed
Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields properties
Performance Database: The Brownfields Management System (BMS) contains the
performance information identified in the above measures.
Key fields related to performance measures include:
Properties with Assessment Completed with Pilot/Grant Funding
Properties assessed with Targeted Brownfields Assessment Funding
Properties with Cleanup Complete
Acres Made Ready for Reuse
Cleanup/Redevelopment Jobs Leveraged
Assessment/Cleanup/Redevelopment Dollars Leveraged
Number of Participants Completing Training
Number of Participants Obtaining Employment
Data Source: Data are extracted from quarterly reports prepared by assessment, cleanup,
revolving loan fund (RLF), and job training cooperative agreement award recipients.
Information on Targeted Brownfields Assessments is collected from EPA Regions.
Methods, Assumptions and Sustainability: Cooperative agreement award recipients submit
reports quarterly on project progress to EPA. Data used to track performance measures are
extracted from quarterly reports by an EPA contractor. Data are then forwarded to Regional
Pilot managers for review and fmalization. Given the reporting cycle and the data entry/QA
period, there is typically a six month data lag for BMS data.
Note that accomplishments reported by Brownfields Assessment Grantees, Brownfields Cleanup
Grantees, Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grantees, Brownfields Job Training Grantees, and
Targeted Brownfields Assessments all contribute towards these performance measures.
"Number of Brownfields properties assessed" is an aggregate of assessments completed with
Assessment Grant funding and assessments completed with Targeted Brownfields Assessment
funding. Number of Brownfields properties cleaned up is an aggregate of properties cleaned up
by RLF Grantees and Cleanup Grantees. "Number of Acres Made Ready for Reuse" is an
aggregate of acreage assessed that does not require cleanup under Assessment Grants, acreage
cleaned up under RLF Grants, and acreage cleaned up under Cleanup Grants. "Number of
PPA-275
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
cleanup and redevelopment jobs leveraged" is the aggregate of jobs leveraged by Assessment,
Cleanup, and RLF Grantees. "Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at
Brownfields properties" is the aggregate of funds leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup, and RLF
Grantees. "Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed" is based on the "Number of
Participants Completing Training" and the "Number of Participants Obtaining Employment"
reported by Job Training Grantees.
QA/QC Procedures: Data reported by cooperative award agreement recipients are reviewed by
EPA Regional pilot managers for accuracy and to ensure appropriate interpretation of key
measure definitions. Reports are produced monthly with detailed data trends analysis.
Data Quality Reviews: No external reviews
Data Limitations: All data provided voluntarily by grantees.
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Brownfields Program recently developed the 'Property
Profile' and 'Job Training Profile' reporting forms to be used by Assessment, Cleanup, RLF, and
Job Training Grantees awarded under the Brownfields Law. These forms, approved by OMB,
allow EPA to collect standardized data and will improve data quality and reliability. The BMS
database has been updated to track and store the data reported in these forms.
References: For more information on the Brownfields program, see Reusing Land and
Restoring Hope: A Report to Stakeholders from the US EPA Brownfields Program
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/news/stake_report.htm); assessment demonstration pilots and
grants (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/assessment_grants.htm); cleanup and revolving loan
fund pilots and grants (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/rlflst.htm); job training pilots and grants
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/job.htm); and cleanup grants
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/cleanup_grants.htm).
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Border communities monitoring for a pollutant that has not previously been monitored
in that community.
Performance Database: The measure will allow EPA to "count" improvements within an
existing monitored area for example, installation of CO monitors in a community that did not
previously monitor for CO, even if that community already monitors for other pollutants. This is
an important change from the previous measure, which only allowed us to "count" a monitoring
activity if it occured in a completely new location. An internal database will be set up to track
the measure.
PPA-276
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Information on air releases will be contained in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS), a computer-based repository for information about air pollution in the United States.
Data Source: The information on installation of new monitors would come from the local and/or
regional environmental authorities. The data collected by the monitors will be quality
assured/quality controlled and stored in AIRS.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures:
The QA Handbook for Ambient Air Pollution Measurement Systems will serve as guidance for
the implementation and management of any Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network. The
document provides organizations with pertinent information and guidance in sampling, and
analyzing ambient air monitoring data and reporting the information to the AIRS network.
To ensure transparency and foster information exchange, the coordinating bodies disseminate
information regarding their activities and progress on specific projects by posting information to
Web sites and list servers, through print media and public meetings, as well as by participating in
environmental fairs and environmental education programs.
http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/reports.htm
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
EPA's OAQPS: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/qa/index.html#handbook
Air Data Systems: http://epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/air/
Envirofacts: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/air.html
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of environmental reviews initiated by FTAA countries following the enactment
of the 2002 Trade Promotion Act (TPA)
Latin American countries initiating environmental assessments of trade liberalization
Performance Database: None- manual collection
PPA-277
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Source: Project / Trade Agreement Specific
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: Verification does not involve any pollutant database analysis, but will
require objective assessment of: (1) tasks completed, (2) compliance with new regulation, and
(3) progress toward project goals and objectives.
Validating measurements under international programs presents several challenges. Technical
assistance projects, for instance, typically target developing countries, which often do not have
sound data collection and analysis systems in place. Non-technical projects, such as assistance in
regulatory reform, frequently must rely on more subjective measures of change, such as the
opinions of project staff or reviews by third-party organizations, including other U.S.
government organizations, of the long-term efficacy of the assistance provided.
EPA works with its trading partners on capacity building projects, which establish the framework
and tools to help partnering countries minimize the potential to degrade the environment and
harm human health. Projects will help prevent pollution at the source, will be tailored to partner-
country needs and be built on past US assistance.
Tracking development and implementation of these projects presents few challenges because
EPA project staff maintains close contact with their counterparts and any changes become part of
a public record.
Assessing the effectiveness of these projects or the environmental provisions in trade agreements
is more subjective. Aside from feedback from Agency project staff, EPA relies, in part, on
feedback from its trading partners in the target countries and regions and from non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and other third parties. Because EPA works to establish long-term
relationships with its trading partners, the Agency is often able to assess environmental
improvements in these countries and regions for a number of years following implementation of
the trade agreement.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
PPA-278
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 4 Objective 3
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide as part of the National Estuary
Program (NEP)
Performance Database: The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds has developed a
standardized format for data reporting and compilation, defining habitat protection and
restoration activities and specifying habitat categories. The key field used to calculate annual
performance is habitat acreage. Annual results have been reported since 2001 for the NEP
(results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).
Information regarding habitat protection is accessible on a web page that highlights habitat
loss/alteration, as well as the number of acres protected and restored by habitat type
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.htm. This allows EPA to provide a
visual means of communicating NEP performance and habitat protection and restoration
progress to a wide range of stakeholders and decision-makers.
Data Source: NEP documents such as annual work plans (which contain achievements made in
the previous year), annual progress reports and other implementation tracking materials, are used
to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. EPA aggregates the data
provided by each NEP to arrive at a national total for the entire Program. EPA is confident that
the data presented are as accurate as possible Each NEP reviews the information prior to
reporting to EPA. In addition, EPA conducts regular reviews of NEP implementation to help
ensure that information provided in these documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact
being achieved.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Measuring the number of acres of habitat restored and
protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of the habitat reported,-or of
the estuary overall, but it is a suitable measure of on-the-ground progress. Habitat acreage does
not necessarily correspond one-to-one with habitat quality, nor does habitat (quantity or quality)
represent the only indicator of ecosystem health. Nevertheless, habitat acreage serves as an
important surrogate and a measure of on-the-ground progress made toward EPA=s annual
performance goal of habitat protection and restoration in the NEP. EPA has defined and
provided examples of Aprotectionฎ and Arestorationฎ activities for purposes of measure tracking
and reporting (see citation for the PIVOT website in references below.) "Restored and protected"
is a general term used to describe a range of activities. The term is interpreted broadly to include
created areas, protected areas resulting from acquisition, conservation easement or deed
restriction, submerged aquatic vegetation coverage increases, permanent shellfish bed openings,
and anadromous fish habitat increases.
PPA-279
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the staff of the NEP based on their own
reports and from data supplied by other partnering agencies/organizations (that are responsible
for implementing the action resulting in habitat protection and restoration). The NEP staff are
requested to follow EPA guidance to prepare their reports, and to verify the numbers. EPA then
confirms that the national total accurately reflects the information submitted by each program.
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was approved
in July 2001. EPA requires that each organization prepare a document called a Quality
Management Plan (QMP) that documents the organization's data quality policy, which addresses
the quality, generation and use of the organization's data and identifies the environmental
programs to which the quality system applies (e.g., programs that rely on the collection or use of
environmental data.)
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews conducted yet.
Data Limitations: It is still early to determine the full extent of data limitations. Current data
limitations include: information that may be reported inconsistently (based on different
interpretations of the protection and restoration definitions), acreage that may be miscalculated
or misreported, and acreage that may be double counted (same parcel may also be counted by
partnering/implementing agency or need to be replanted multiple years). In addition, measuring
the number of acres of habitat restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements
in the health of the habitat reported (particularly in the year of reporting), but is rather a measure
of on-the-ground progress made by the NEPs.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: In 2004, NEP provided latitude and longitude data (where
possible) for each project. These data are then mapped to highlight where these projects are
located in each NEP study area. Not only does this assist both the individual NEP and EPA in
obtaining a sense of geographic project coverage, but it provides a basis from which to begin
exploring cases where acreage may be double-counted by different agencies. An on-line
reporting system is also being developed for the NEPs= use that will assist in tracking habitat
projects, and will help reduce EPA=s QA/QC time. Currently, this system is scheduled to be in
place by September 2005.
References: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as well as data
submitted by the individual National Estuary Programs, is displayed numerically, graphically,
and by habitat type in the Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool (PIVOT).
PIVOT data are publicly available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/
intro.htm. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (July 2001) is available on the Intranet
at http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/infopolicy.html.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
By 2008, working with partners, achieve a net increase of 400,000 acres of wetlands
PPA-280
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Database: The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service produces information on the characteristics, extent, and status of the Nation's wetlands
and deepwater habitats. This information is used by Federal, State, and local agencies, academic
institutions, U.S. Congress, and the private sector. The Emergency Wetland Resources Act of
1986 directs the Service to map the wetlands of the United States. The NWI has mapped 89
percent of the lower 48 states, and 31 percent of Alaska. The Act also requires the Service to
produce a digital wetlands database for the United States. About 42 percent of the lower 48 states
and 11 percent of Alaska are digitized. Congressional mandates require the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to produce a status and trends reports to Congress at ten-year intervals.
The status and trends report is designed to provide recent and comprehensive estimates of the
abundance of wetlands in the 48 conterminous States. This status and trends report indicates
whether there is an actual increase in wetland acreage or if wetlands are continuing to decrease.
Up-to-date status and trends information is needed to periodically evaluate the efficacy of
existing Federal programs and policies, identify national or regional wetland issues, and increase
public awareness of and appreciation for wetlands.
The last status and trends report1 provided the most recent and comprehensive estimates of the
current gains and losses for different types of wetlands in the United States on public and private
lands from calendar year 1986 to 1997. In calendar year 1997, there were an estimated 105.5
million acres of wetlands in the conterminous United States. Of this total, 100.5 million acres
(95 percent) are freshwater wetlands and 5 million acres (5 percent) are saltwater wetlands.
The President directed in his Earth Day 2004 announcement that the next National Wetlands
Inventory update, status and trends report, should be completed by the end of 2005, five years
ahead of the current schedule, and asked that the updates be done more frequently thereafter.
This new information will enhance Federal, State, Tribal, local government programs' policies
and decision making.
Data Source: The National Status and Trends Report is developed and published by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This is the only Federal study that provides statistically valid
estimates with a published standard error for all wetlands in the conterminous United States.
Aerial imagery is the primary data source, and it is used with reliable collateral data such as
topographic maps, coastal navigation charts, published soil surveys, published wetland maps,
and State, local or regional studies. A random number of sites are also field verified. All
photography is cataloged, numbered, tagged, and traced in a database management system.
For each plot, aerial imagery is interpreted and annotated in accordance with procedures
published by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The results are compared with previous era imagery,
and any changes recorded. The differences between the data sets are analyzed and a statistical
estimate of the change is produced.
1 Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, B.C. 82pp.
PPA-281
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
The five major kinds of wetlands are: 1) freshwater (or palustrine), 2) saltwater (or estuarine), 3)
riverine, 4) lacustrine (or lakes and other deepwater habitats), and 5) marine wetlands. For
analysis and reporting purposes, these types of wetlands were further divided into subcategories
such as freshwater forested wetland, freshwater emergent wetland, estuarine and marine
intertidal wetlands.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: An interagency group of statisticians developed the
design for the national status and trends study. The study was based on a scientific probability
sample of the surface area of the 48 coterminous States. The area sampled was about 1.93
billion acres and the sampling did not discriminate based on land ownership. The study used a
stratified, simple random sampling design. About 754,000 possible sample plots comprised the
total population. Geographic information system software was used to organize the information
of about 4,375 random sample plots. The plots were examined with the use of remote sensed
data in combination with field work. Estimates of change in wetlands were made over a specific
time period.
QA/QC Procedures: The Service has developed and implemented quality assurance measures
that provide appropriate methods to take field measurements, ensure sample integrity and
provide oversight of analyses, which includes reporting of procedural and statistical confidence
levels. The objective was to produce comprehensive, statistically valid acreage estimate of the
Nation's wetlands. Because of the sample-based approach, various quality control and quality
assurance measures were built into the data collection, review, analysis, and reporting stages.
This includes field verification of the plots. Six Federal agencies assist with field verification
work.
Data Quality Reviews: Not Applicable
Data Limitations: Certain habitats were excluded because of the limitations of aerial imagery
as the primary data source to detect wetlands. This was consistent with previous wetland status
and trends studies conducted by FWS.
Error Estimate: Estimated procedural error ranged from 4 to 6 percent of the true values when
all quality assurance measures have been completed. Procedural error was related to the ability
to accurately recognize and classify wetlands both from multiple sources of imagery and on the
ground evaluations. Types of procedural errors were missed wetlands, inclusion of upland as
wetland, misclassification of wetlands, or misinterpretation of data collection protocols. The
amount of procedural error is usually a function of the quality of the data collection conventions;
the number, variability, training and experience of data collection personnel; and the rigor of any
quality control or quality assurance measures.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Advances in computerized cartography were used to improve
data quality and geospatial integrity. Newer technology allowed the generation of existing
digital plot files at any scale to overlay directly over an image base.
References:
http://wetlands.fws.gov/index.html
PPA-282
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/Pubs Reports/publi.htm
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Annually, beginning in FY04 and in partnership with the Corps of Engineers and
states, achieve no net loss of wetlands in the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory
program
Performance Database: Since 1989, the goal of the Clean Water Act Section 404 program has
been no net loss of wetlands.
Historically, the Corps has collected limited data on wetlands losses and gains in its Regulatory
Analysis and Management System (RAMS) permit tracking database. The Corps has compiled
national Section 404 wetland permitting data for the last 10 years reflecting wetland acres
avoided (through the permit process), permitted for impacts, and mitigated. However,
limitations in methods used for data collection, reporting and analysis resulted in difficulties in
drawing reliable conclusions regarding the effects of the Section 404 program.
Data Source: Data included in RAMS is generally collected by private consultants hired by
permit applicants or Corps Regulatory Staff. Data input is generally done by Corps staff.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RAMS was designed to be an administrative aid in
tracking permits, thus it lacks many of the fields necessary to adequately track important
information regarding wetland losses and gains. Also, the database was modified differently for
each of the 38 Corps Districts making national summaries difficult. Furthermore, the database is
also proprietary making it difficult to retrofit without utilizing its original developers.
QA/QC Procedures: Historically, there has not been a high level of QA/QC with regard to data
input into RAMS. Its antiquated format and numerous administrative fields discourage use.
Lack of standard terms and classification also make all aspects of data entry problematic.
Data Quality Reviews: Independent evaluations published in 2001 by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) provided a critical evaluation of the
effectiveness of wetlands compensatory mitigation (the restoration, creation, or enhancement of
wetlands to compensate for permitted wetland losses) for authorized losses of wetlands and other
waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The NAS determined that available data was
insufficient to determine whether or not the Section 404 program was meeting its goal of no net
loss of either wetland area or function. The NAS added that available data suggested that the
program was not meeting its no net loss goal. Among its suite of recommendations, the NAS
noted that wetland area and function lost and regained over time should be tracked in a national
database and that the Corps should expand and improve quality assurance measures for data
entry.
In response to the NAS, GAO, and other recent critiques of the effectiveness of wetlands
compensatory mitigation, EPA and the Corps in conjunction with the Departments of
PPA-283
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and Transportation released the National Wetlands Mitigation
Action Plan on December 26, 2002. The Plan includes 17 tasks that the agencies will complete
over the next three years to improve the ecological performance and results of compensatory
mitigation.
One of the major goals articulated in the 2002 interagency National Wetlands Mitigation Action
Plan (MAP) is improving data collection and availability (including tracking and reporting on
acreage and function gains and losses). MAP includes three action items the agencies will
complete over the next two years that will improve their ability to track and report on wetlands
gains and losses. Additional details of the milestones shown below are contained in the MAP
http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/.
The Corps, EPA, USDA, DOT, and NOAA, in conjunction with states and Tribes, are
compiling and disseminating information regarding existing mitigation-tracking database
systems in FY04.
Building upon the analysis of existing mitigation data base systems, the Corps, EPA,
USDA, DOT, and NOAA will establish a shared mitigation database by FY05.
Utilizing the shared database, the Corps, in conjunction with EPA, USDA, DOT, and
NOAA, will provide an annual public report card on compensatory mitigation by fiscal
year 2005 to complement reporting of other wetlands programs.
Data Limitations: As previously noted, RAMS currently provides the only national data on
wetlands losses and gains in the Section 404 Program. Also, as previously noted, there are a
number of concerns regarding the conclusions that can be drawn from these numbers. Data
quality issues include:
1. Inability to separate restoration, creation, enhancement and preservation acreage from the
aggregate "mitigation" acreage reported;
2. Lack of data regarding how much designated mitigation acreage was actually undertaken, and
how much of that total was successful;
3. Lack of data regarding how much of the permitted impacts actually occurred; and
4. Limitations on identifying acres "avoided," because the figure is only based on the difference
between original proposed impacts and impacts authorized. Often, permit applicants who are
aware of the 404 program's requirements to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, make
initial site selection and site design decisions that minimize wetland impacts prior to submitting a
permit application. Such avoidance decisions benefit applicants, as their applications are more
likely to be accepted and processed with minor changes. This behavioral influence that the
program engenders is difficult to capture and quantify, but contributes considerable
undocumented "avoided" impacts.
Error Estimate: Not applicable
New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA and the Corps have acknowledged the need for
improved 404 tracking. The Corps is currently piloting a new national permit tracking database
called ORM to replace its existing database (RAMS). As part of the MAP, the Corps is working
with EPA and the other Federal agencies and states to ensure that the version of ORM that is
PPA-284
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
ultimately deployed will adequately track wetlands gains and losses. ORM is being designed to
provide improved tracking regarding:
Type of impacts
Type and quantity of habitat impacted (Using Hydrogeomorphic and Cowardin
classification systems)
Type and quantity of habitat mitigated (Using Hydrogeomorphic and Cowardin
classification systems)
Type and quantity of mitigation (restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation)
Differentiating stream mitigation (in linear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in acres)
Spacial tracking via GIS for both impact and mitigation sites (planned)
Functional losses (debits) at the impact site and functional gains at the mitigation site
(credits) if assessment tool is available and applied
References:
http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems so that overall ecosystem health
of the Great Lakes is improved
Performance Database: US EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will collect
and track the components of the index and publish the performance results as part of annual
reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and as online reporting of
GLNPO's monitoring program, . Extensive
databases for the indicator components are maintained by GLNPO (phosphorus concentrations,
contaminated sediments, benthic health, fish tissue contamination), by binational agreement with
Environment Canada (air toxics deposition), and by local authorities who provide data to EPA
(drinking water quality, beach closures). A binational team of scientists and natural resource
managers is working to establish a long term monitoring program to determine extent and quality
of coastal wetlands.
Data Source: Data for the index components are tracked internally and reported at the State of
the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC). The document, "Implementing Indicators 2003-A
Technical Report," presents detailed indicator reports as prepared by primary authors (attending
the conference), including references to data sources found in the summary document.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Index is based on a 40 point scale where the
rating uses select Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal wetlands,
phosphorus concentrations, Area of Concern (AOC) sediment contamination, benthic health, fish
tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition). Each
component of the Index is based on a 1 to 5 rating system, where 1 is poor and 5 is good.
Authors of SOLEC indicator reports use best professional judgment to assess the overall status of
the ecosystem component in relation to established endpoints or ecosystem objectives, when
PPA-285
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
available. Each of the index components is included in the broader suite of Great Lakes
indicators, which was developed through an extensive multi-agency process to satisfy the overall
criteria of necessary, sufficient and feasible. Information on the selection process is in the
document, "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4."
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management system in place1 that
conforms to the EPA quality management order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with
Federal policy for Quality Management.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's quality management system has been given "outstanding"
evaluations in previous peer and management reviews2. GLNPO has implemented all
recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality standards.
Data Limitations: Data limitations vary among the indicator components of the Index. The data
are especially good for phosphorus concentrations, fish tissue contamination, benthic health, and
air toxics deposition. The data associated with other components of the index (coastal wetlands,
AOC sediment contamination, beach closures, and drinking water quality) are more qualitative.
Some data are distributed among several sources, and without an extensive trend line.
Limitations for each of the index components are included in the formal indicator descriptions in
the document, "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4."
Error Estimate: Error statistics for the Great Lakes Index have not been quantified. Each unit
of the 40 point scale represents 2.5% of the total, so any unit change in the assessment of one of
the component indicators would result in a change of the index of that magnitude. The degree of
environmental change required to affect an indicator assessment, however, may be significantly
large.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The data system specifically for this index is being
developed. Data continue to be collected through the SOLEC process by various agencies,
including GLNPO. Efforts are currently in progress to integrate various Great Lakes monitoring
programs to better meet SOLEC objectives and to increase efficiencies in data collection and
reporting.
References:
1. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
2. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
3. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2003." ISBN 0-662-34798-6,
Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En40-l 1/35-2003E, and U.S.
4. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003. Available on CD
and online at .
PPA-286
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
5. Canada and the United States. "Implementing Indicators 2003 - A Technical Report." ISBN
0-662-34797-8 (CD-Rom), Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. Enl64-
1/2003E-MRC (CD-Rom), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-
R-03-003. 2003. Available on CD from U.S. EPA/Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago.
6. Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Health, Version 4." Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, and U.S. EPA,
Chicago. 2000. Available online at .
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
The average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) base monitoring
program1. The key fields for this measure are Lake Trout and Walleye (Lake Erie). Reporting
starts with 1972 data for Lake Michigan and 1977 or 1978 data for the other Lakes. In FY06, the
database will contain QA/QC data from fish collected in 2004.
Data are reported on a calendar year basis.
Data Source: GLNPO's ongoing base monitoring program, which has included work with
cooperating organizations such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Survey (USFWS).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This indicator provides concentrations of selected
organic contaminants in sport fish from the Great Lakes to: (1) determine time trends in
contaminant concentrations, (2) assess impacts of contaminants on the fishery, and (3) assess
potential human and wildlife exposures from consuming contaminated sport fish. The data
provide two elements of contaminant concentrations: The first element includes data from 600-
700 mm lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) whole fish composites (5 fish) from each of the lakes
(walleye, Stizostedion vitreum vitreum, in Lake Erie). These data are used to assess time trends in
organic contaminants in the open waters of the Great Lakes, using fish as biomonitors. These
data can also be used to assess the risks of such contaminants on the health of this important
fishery, and on wildlife that consume them.
The second element of the indicator focuses on assessing human exposures via consumption of
popular sport fish. Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) from each lake (rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, in Lake Erie) are collected during
the fall spawning run, and composite fillets (5 fish) are analyzed for organic contaminants to
assess human exposure. The coho salmon spawn at 3 years of age, and so their body burdens
reflect a more focused and consistent exposure time compared to the lake trout which may
integrate exposures over 4 to 10 yrs depending on the lake. Chinook salmon spawn after 4-5
years, and have higher (and thus more detectable) concentrations than the coho salmon and also
represent a consistent exposure time. Thus time trends for consistent age fish as well as
consistent size fish can be assessed from these data.
PPA-287
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management system in place2 that
conforms to the EPA quality management order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with
Federal policy for Quality Management. The Quality Assurance (QA) plan that supports the fish
contaminant program is approved and available on request3. The draft field sampling Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is being revised and will be submitted to the GLNPO QA officer
for review by September 30, 20034.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's quality management system has been evaluated as
"outstanding" in previous peer and management reviews5. GLNPO has implemented all
recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality standards.
Data Limitations: The top predator fish (lake trout) program was designed specifically for
lakewide trends. It is not well suited to portray localized changes.
Error Estimate: The goal of the fish contaminant program is to detect a 20% change in each
measured contaminant concentration between two consecutively sampled periods at each site.
The program was designed to reach that goal with 95% confidence.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The GLENDA database is a significant new system with
enhanced capabilities. Existing and future fish data will be added to GLENDA.
References:
1. " The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - A technical and Scientific Model For Interstate
Environmental Monitoring" September, 1990. EPA503/4-90-004.
2. "Great Lakes National Program Office Indicators. Fish Indicators."
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishcontaminants.html
3. "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants" , Dr. Deborah Swackhammer, Univ of
Minnesota Environ. Occ. Health, School of Public Health, EPA Grant #GL97524201-2,
7/7/02. De Vault, D. S. 1984. Contaminant analysis of fish from Great Lakes harbors and
tributary mouths. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office.
EPA 905/3-84-003.
4. De Vault, D. S. 1985. Contaminants in fish from Great Lakes harbors and tributary mouths.
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 14: 587-594.
5. De Vault, D. S., P. Bertram, D. M. Whittle and S. Rang. 1995. Toxic contaminants in the
Great Lakes. State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). Chicago and Toronto,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office and Environment
Canada.
PPA-288
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
6. De Vault, D. S., R. Hesselberg, P. W. Rodgers and T. J. Feist. 1996. Contaminant trends in
lake trout and walleye from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22:
884-895.
7. De Vault, D. S. and J. A. Weishaar. 1983. Contaminant analysis of 1981 fall run coho salmon.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905/3-83-
001.
8. De Vault, D. S. and J. A. Weishaar. 1984. Contaminant analysis of 1982 fall run coho salmon.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905/3-85-
004.
9. De Vault, D. S., J. A. Weishaar, J. M. Clark and G. Lavhis. 1988. Contaminants and trends in
fall run coho salmon. Journal of Great Lakes Research 14: 23-33.
10. De Vault, D. S., W. A. Willford, R. Hesselberg, E. Nortrupt and E. Rundberg. 1985.
Contaminant trends in lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) from the upper Great Lakes. Archives
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 15: 349-356.
11. De Vault, D. S., W. A. Willford, R. J. Hesselberg and D. A. Nortrupt. 1986. Contaminant
trends in lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) from the upper Great Lakes. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 15: 349-356.
12. Eby, L. A., C. A. Stow, R. J. Hesselberg and J. F. Kitchell. 1997. Modeling changes in
growth and diet on polychlorinated biphenyl bioaccumulation in "Coregonus hoyi". Ecological
Applications 7(3): 981-990.
13. Giesy, J. P., et al. 1995. Contaminants in fishes from Great Lakes influenced sections and
above dams of three Michigan rivers: III. Implications for health of bald eagles. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 29: 309-321.
14. Giesy, J. P., J. P. Ludwig and D. E. Tillett. 1994. Deformities in birds of the Great Lakes
region: assigning causality. Environmental Science and Technology 28(3): 128A-135A.
15. Giesy, J. P., et al. 1994. Contaminants in fishes from Great Lakes-influenced sections and
above dams of three Michigan rivers. II: Implications for health of mink. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 27: 213-223.
16. Glassmeyer, S. T., D. S. De Vault, T. R. Myers and R. A. Kites. 1997. Toxaphene in Great
Lakes fish: a temporal, spatial, and trophic study. Environmental Science and Technology 31:
84-88.
17. Glassmeyer, S. T., K. E. Shanks and R. A. Kites. 1999. Automated toxaphene quantitation
by GC/MS. Analytical Chemistry in press.
PPA-289
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
18. GLNPO. 1981. A Strategy for Fish Contaminant Monitoring in the Great Lakes. USEPA
Great Lakes National Program Office. .
19. Jeremiason, J. D., K. C. Hornbuckle and S. J. Eisenreich. 1994. PCBs in Lake Superior,
1978-1992: decreases in water concentrations reflect loss by volatilization. Environmental
Science and Technology 28(5): 903-914.
20. Kubiak, T. J., Harris, H. J., Smith, L. M., Schwartz, T. R., Stalling, D. L., Trick, J. A., Sileo,
L., Docherty, D. E., and Erdman, T. C. 1989. Microcontaminants and reproductive impairment
of the Forster's Tern on Green Bay, Lake Michigan - 1983. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 18: 706-727.
21. Mac, M. J. and C. C. Edsal. 1991. Environmental contaminants and the reproductive success
of lake trout in the Great Lakes. J. Tox. Environ. Health. 33: 375-394.
22. Mac, M. J., T. R. Schwartz, C. C. Edsall and A. M. Frank. 1993. Polychlorinated biphenyls
in Great Lakes lake trout and their eggs: relations to survival and congener composition 1979-
1988. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19(4): 752-765.
23. Madenjian, C. P., T. J. DeSorcie, R. M. Stedman, E. H. J. Brown, G. W. Eck, L. J. Schmidt,
R. J. Hesselberg, S. M. Chernyak and D. R. Passino-Reader. 1999. Spatial patterns in PCB
concentrations of Lake Michigan lake trout. Journal of Great Lakes Research 25(1): 149-159.
24. Madenjian, C. P., R. J. Hesselberg, T. J. Desorcie, L. J. Schmidt, R. M. Stedman, L. J.
Begnoche and D. R. Passino-Reader. 1998. Estimate of net trophic transfer efficiency of PCBs to
Lake Michigan lake trout from their prey. Environmental Science and Technology 32(7): 886-
891.
25. Pearson, R. F., K. C. Hornbuckle, S. J. Eisenreich and D. L. Swackhammer. 1996. PCBs in
Lake Michigan water revisited. Environ. Sci. & Technol. 30(5): 1429-1436.
26. Rodgers, P. W. and W. R. Swain. 1983. Analysis of poly chlorinated biphenyl (PCB) loading
trends in Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 9: 548-558.
27. Safe, S. H. 1994. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): environmental impact, biochemical
and toxic responses, and implications for risk. CRC Critical Reviews in Toxicology 24(2): 87-
149.
28. Schmidt, L. J., and Hesselberg, R. J. 1992. A mass spectroscopic method for analysis of
AHH-inducing and other polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and selected pesticides in fish.
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 23: 37-44.
29. Stow, C. A. 1995. Factors associated with PCB concentrations in Lake Michigan salmonids.
Environmental Science and Technology 29(2): 522-527'.
PPA-290
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
30. Stow, C. A., S. R. Carp and J. F. Amrheim. 1994. PCB concentration trends in Lake
Michigan coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha). Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 51: 1384-1390.
31. Stow, C. A. and S. R. Carpenter. 1994. PCB accumulation in Lake Michigan coho and
chinook salmon: individual-based models using allometric relationships. Environmental Science
and Technology 28: 1543-1549.
32. Stow, C. A., S. R. Carpenter, L. A. Eby, J. F. Amrhein and R. J. Hesselberg. 1995. Evidence
that PCBs are approaching stable concentrations in Lake Michigan fishes. Ecological
Applications 5: 248-260.
33. Stow, C. A. and S. S. Qian. 1998. A size-based probabilistic assessment of PCB exposure
from Lake Michigan fish consumption. Environmental Science and Technology 32: 2325-2330.
34. Swackhammer, D., J. Charles and R. Kites. 1987. Quantitation of toxaphene in
environmental samples using negative ion chemical ionization mass spectrometry. Analytical
Chemistry 59: 913-917.
35. Swackhammer, D. L. 1996. Studies of polychlorinated biphenyls in the Great Lakes. Issues
in Environmental Science and Technology 6: 137-153.
36. Swackhammer, D. L. and R. A. Kites. 1988. Occurrence and bioaccumulation of
organochlorine compounds in fishes from Siskiwit Lake. Environmental Science and
Technology 22: 543-548.
37. Swackhammer, D. L. and A. Trowbridge. 1997. LMMBS Methods Compendium: Vol. 2
Organics and Mercury Sample Analysis Techniques, Chapter 1, Section 042. USEPA. 905-R-97-
012b.
38. Trowbridge, A. G. and D. L. Swackhammer. 1999. Biomagnification of Toxic PCB
Congeners in the Lake Michigan Foodweb. Bioaccumulative Toxic Compounds in the
Environment. R. Lipnick, D. Muir, J. Hermens and K. C. Jones. Washington, DC, ACS
Symposium Series Monograph: in review.
39. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
40. Swackhammer, D. L. 2001. "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants. " Unpublished - in
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.
41. Swackhammer, D.L. February 2002. "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants."
Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.
42. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
PPA-291
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air in the Great Lakes basin will decline
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) integrated
atmospheric deposition network l (IADN) operated jointly with Canada. Reporting starts with
1992 data, collected through the joint US/Canadian Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Program
and includes, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
pesticides; however, this Performance Measure addresses only PCBs. Monitoring results from
2004 will be reported in 2006. Data are reported on a calendar year basis.
Data Source: GLNPO and Environment Canada are the principal sources of the data. Data also
come through in-kind support and information sharing with other Federal agencies, Great Lakes'
States, and Canada.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: There are five master IADN stations, one for each
lake, which are supplemented by satellite stations in other locations. The master stations are
located in remote areas and are meant to represent regional background levels. Concentrations
from the master stations are used for the performance measure. Concentrations from the satellite
stations in Chicago and Cleveland are also sometimes used to demonstrate the importance of
urban areas to atmospheric deposition to the Lakes.
Air samples are collected for 24 hours using hi-volume samplers containing an adsorbent.
Precipitation samples are collected as 28-day composites. Laboratory analysis protocols
generally call for solvent extraction of the organic sampling media with addition of surrogate
recovery standards. Extracts are then concentrated followed by column chromatographic
cleanup, fractionation, nitrogen blow-down to small volume (about 1 mL) and injection
(typically 1 uL) into gas chromatography instruments.
All IADN data are loaded and quality controlled using the Research Database Management
System (RDMQ), a Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program. RDMQ provides a unified set of
quality assured data, including flags for each data point that can be used to evaluate the usability
of the data. Statistical summaries of annual concentrations are generated by the program and
used as input into an atmospheric loading calculation. The loadings calculation is described in
detail in the Technical Summary referenced below. However, the averaged annual
concentrations rather than the loadings are used in the performance measure.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has a Quality Management system in place, which conforms to
the EPA quality management order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal
policy for Quality Management2. Quality Assurance Project Plans are in place for the laboratory
grantee, as well as for the network as a whole. A jointly-funded QA contractor conducts
laboratory audits and tracks QA statistics. Data from all contributing agencies are quality-
controlled using the SAS-based system.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's quality management system has been evaluated as
"outstanding" in previous peer and management reviews3. This program has a joint Canadian
PPA-292
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
US quality system and workgroup that meets twice a year. GLNPO has implemented all
recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality standards4.
A regular set of laboratory and field blanks is taken and recorded for comparison to the IADN
field samples. In addition, a suite of chemical surrogates and internal standards is used
extensively in the analyses. A jointly-funded QA contractor conducts laboratory audits and
intercomparisons and tracks QA statistics. As previously mentioned, data from all contributing
agencies are quality-controlled using a SAS-based system.
Data Limitations: The sampling design is dominated by rural sites that under emphasize urban
contributions to deposition; thus although the data are very useful for trends information, there is
less assurance of the representativeness of deposition to the whole lake. There are gaps in open
lake water column organics data, thus limiting our ability to calculate atmospheric loadings.
Error estimate: Concentrations have an error of +/- 40%, usually less. Differences between
laboratories have been found to be 40% or less. This is outstanding given the very low levels of
these pollutants in the air and the difficulty in analysis. The performance measure examines the
long-term trend.
New/Improved Data or Systems: GLNPO expects to post joint data that has passed quality
review to < http://binational.net/ >, a joint international web site, and to the IADN website at <
www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/ >.
References:
1. "Great Lakes National Program Office Indicators. Air Indicators."
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/atmospheric.html
Details of these analyses can be found in the Laboratory Protocol Manuals or the agency project
plans, which can be found on the IADN resource page
at:http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/resources/resources e.html
Overall results of the project can be found in "Technical Summary of Progress under the
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Program 1990-1996" and the Draft "Technical Summary of
Progress under the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition 1997-2002". The former can also be
found on the IADN resource page.
2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
4. "Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network Quality Assurance Program Plan - Revision 1.1.
Environment Canada and USEPA. June 29, 2001. Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
PPA-293
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Cumulative total of Areas of Concern within the Great Lakes Basin that have been
restored and delisted
Performance Database: US EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative total Areas of Concern (AOC) and post that information
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html> Forty-three AOCs have been identified: 26 located
entirely within the United States; 12 located wholly within Canada; and five that are shared by
both countries. Since 1987, GLNPO has tracked the 31 that are within the US or shared;
however, none of these are currently restored and delisted. Information is reported on a calendar
year basis.
Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with Great Lakes States, the US
Department of State and the International Joint Commission (IJC).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: US EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office is in
regular communication with the Great Lakes States, the US Department of State and the IJC, and
is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the de-listing of AOCs. Generally speaking, under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, an AOC is an area in the Great Lakes determined to
have significant beneficial use impairments, such as restrictions on fish and wildlife
consumption, fish tumors, eutrophication, beach closings, added costs to agriculture or industry.
In 1989, the IJC established a review process and developed AOC listing/delisting criteria
(http://www.ijc.org/rel/boards/annex2/buis.htm#tablel) for existing and future AOCs. In 2001,
the U.S. Policy Committee, led by GLNPO and including State, Tribal, and Federal agencies
responsible for Great Lakes environmental issues, developed delisting guidelines for domestic
AOCs (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html) and for the binational AOCs shared by
Michigan and Ontario http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html - appendix 5).
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management system in place1 that
conforms to the EPA quality management order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with
Federal policy for Quality Management.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's quality management system has been given "outstanding"
evaluations in previous peer and management reviews2. GLNPO has implemented all
recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality standards.
Data Limitations: one known.
Error Estimate: None.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NA
PPA-294
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
References:
GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system once there are any de-listed
US or Binational Areas of Concern. Information regarding Areas of Concern is currently
available online at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html
1. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-
02-009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
2. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Cubic yards of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes remediated (cumulative
from 1997)
Performance Database: Data tracking sediment remediation are compiled in two different
formats. The first is a matrix that shows the cumulative total of contaminated sediment that was
remediated in the Great Lakes basin from 1997 for each Area of Concern or other non-Areas of
Concern with sediment remediation. The second format depicts the yearly totals on a calendar
year basis graphically. These databases are reported approximately one year after the completion
of work.
Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data from various state and Federal project
managers across the Great Lakes region. These data are obtained directly from the project
manager via an information fact sheet the project manager completes for any site in the Great
Lakes basin that has performed any remedial work on contaminated sediment. The project
manager also indicates whether an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was used in
the collection of data at the site. This is used to decide if the data provided by the project
manager are reliable for GLNPO reporting purposes. If an approved QAPP was not used,
sediment data would likely not be reported by GLNPO
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The data collected to track sediment remediation in
the Great Lakes show the amount of sediment remediated for that year, the amount of sediment
remediated in prior years, and the amount of sediment remaining to be addressed for a particular
site. This format is suitable for year-to-year comparisons for individual sites.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO relies on the individual government/agency project managers to
provide information on whether an approved QAPP was in place during remediation of
contaminated sediment. The tracking database houses information on the calculated amount of
sediment remediated at individual sites as provided by the project managers. It is then GLNPO's
responsibility to determine if the data are usable based upon the information sheet provided by
the project managers.
Data Quality Review: The data, in both the graphic and matrix formats, are reviewed by
management, individual project managers, and GLNPO's Sediment Team Leader prior to being
PPA-295
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
released. GLNPO's quality management system has been given "outstanding" evaluations in
previous peer and management reviews. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from
these external audits and complies with Agency Quality standards.
Data Limitations: The data provided in the sediment tracking database should be used as a tool
to track sediment remediation progress at sites across the Great Lakes. Many of the totals for
sediment remediation are estimates provided by project managers. For specific data uses,
individual project managers should be contacted to provide additional information.
Error Estimate: The amount of sediment remediated or yet to be addressed should be viewed as
estimated data. A specific error estimate is not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Existing tracking systems are anticipated to remain in place.
References:
Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Matrix". Unpublished - in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Pie Charts". Unpublished - in USEPA
Great Lakes National Program Office files.
Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Compilation of Project Managers Informational Sheets".
Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in the Chesapeake Bay
Performance Database: SAV acres in Chesapeake Bay. Total acres surveyed and estimated
additional acres from 1978 through 2003, excluding the years 1979-1983 and 1988 when no
surveys were conducted. The FY 2006 Annual Performance Report for this measure will be
based on the results of the survey conducted the previous calendar year (2005). We expect to
receive the preliminary survey results for calendar year 2005 in April 2006.
Data Source: Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences provides the data (via an EPA Chesapeake
Bay Program (CBP) grant to Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences). EPA has confidence in the
third party data and believes the data are accurate and reliable based on QA/QC procedures
described below.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The SAV survey is a general monitoring program,
conducted to optimize precision and accuracy in characterizing annually the status and trends of
SAV in tidal portions of the Chesapeake Bay. The general plan is to follow fixed flight routes
over shallow water areas of the Bay, to comprehensively survey all tidal shallow water areas of
the Bay and its tidal tributaries. Non-tidal areas are omitted from the survey. SAV beds less
than 1 square meter are not included due to the limits of the photography and interpretation.
Annual monitoring began in 1978 and is ongoing. Methods are described in the Quality
PPA-296
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) on file for the EPA grant and at the VIMS web site
(http ://www.vims. edu/bio/sav/).
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance project plan for the EPA grant to the Virginia Institute
of Marine Sciences describes data collection, analysis, and management methods. This is on file
at the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office. The VIMS web site at
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/ provides this information as well. Metadata are included with the
data set posted at the VIMS web site (http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/metadata/recent.html).
Data Quality Reviews: This indicator has undergone extensive technical and peer review by
state, Federal and non-government organization partner members of the SAV workgroup and the
Living Resources subcommittee. Data collection, data analysis and QA/QC are conducted by the
principal investigators/scientists. The data are peer reviewed by scientists on the workgroup.
Data selection and interpretation, the presentation of the indicator, along with all supporting
information and conclusions, are arrived at via consensus by the scientists and resource manager
members of the workgroup. The workgroup presents the indicator to the subcommittee where
extensive peer review by Bay Program managers occurs.
There have been no data deficiencies identified in external reviews
Data Limitations: Due to funding constraints, there were no surveys in the years 1979-1983
and 1988. Spatial gaps in 1999 occurred due to hurricane disturbance and subsequent inability to
reliably photograph SAV. Spatial gaps in 2001 occurred due to post-nine-eleven flight
restrictions near Washington D.C. Spatial gaps in 2003 occurred due to adverse weather in the
spring and summer and Hurricane Isabel in the fall.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Some technical improvements (e.g., photointerpretation
tools) were made over the 22 years of the annual SAV survey in Chesapeake Bay.
References:
See Chesapeake Bay SAV special reports at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreports.html and
bibliography at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savchespub.html. The SAV distribution data files
are located at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savdata.html and also at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/88-data-2002.xls. The SAV indicator is
published at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=88.
FY 2006 Performance Measures:
Reduce nitrogen loads entering Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels (2002 Baseline: 51
million pounds/year reduced)
Reduce phosphorus loads entering Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels (2002 Baseline: 8
million pounds/year reduced)
Reduce sediment loads entering Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels (2002 Baseline: 0.8
million tons/year reduced)
PPA-297
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Database: Nutrient and Sediment Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. The
Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls. Data have been collected in
1985, 2000, 2001, 2002 and are expected on an annual basis after 2002. There is a two year data
lag. Load data are from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and
DC.
The F Y 2006 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
2004 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for calendar year 2004 in
April 2006.
Data Source: State/district data are provided to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for input
into the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data are of high quality. Data are consolidated by
watershed boundaries at the state level and provided to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for
input into the watershed model.
What is the Watershed Model?
A lumped parameter Fortran based model (HSPF) that mimics the effects of hydrology, nutrient
inputs, and air deposition on land and outputs runoff, groundwater, nutrients and sediment to
receiving waters. Ten years of simulation are used and averaged to develop the reduction effects
of a given set of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Using a ten-year average of actual
weather (hydrologic, temperature, wind, etc.) ensures wet, dry and average conditions for each
season are included. The effectiveness of the model is dependent upon the quality of the
assumptions, BMPs and landuse descriptions used. The model is calibrated extensively to real-
time monitoring, outside peer review and continual updates as better information, data collection
and computer processing power become available.
What are the input data?
The model takes meteorological inputs such as precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration,
wind speed, solar radiation, dewpoint, and cloud cover to drive the hydrologic simulation. The
changes in nutrient outputs are primarily determined by such factors as land use acreage, BMPs,
fertilizer, manure, atmospheric deposition, point sources, and septic loads.
BMPs: Watershed Model BMPs include all nutrient reduction activities tracked by the
jurisdictions for which a source has been identified, cataloged and assigned an efficiency.
Efficiencies are based on literature review, recommendations of the appropriate source
workgroup and approved by the Nutrient Subcommittee. It is the responsibility of the
jurisdictions to track and report all nutrient reduction activities within their borders and maintain
documentation to support submissions.
PPA-298
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Land use acreage is determined by combining analyses of satellite imagery and county-based
databases for agricultural activities and human population. Fertilizer is determined by estimated
application rates by crops and modified by the application of nutrient management BMPs.
Manure applications are determined by an analysis of animal data from the census of agriculture.
Atmospheric deposition is determined by an analysis of National Atmospheric Deposition
Program (NADP) deposition data and modified by scenarios of the Regional Acid Deposition
Model. Point Source loads are determined from Discharge Monitoring Reports. Septic loads are
estimated in a study commissioned by the CBP.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/1127.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/114.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/112.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
What are the model outputs?
The watershed model puts out daily flows and nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads for
input to the water quality model of the Chesapeake Bay. The daily loads are averaged over a 10-
year hydrologic period (1985-1994) to report an average annual load to the Bay. The effect of
flow is removed from the load calculations.
What are the model assumptions?
BMPs: Model assumptions are based on three conditions: knowledge, data availability and
computing power. The ability to alter what is used in the watershed model is a function of the
impact the change would have on calibration. In many cases there is new information, data or
methodologies that would improve the model, but changes are not possible because of the impact
on the current calibration.
Changes in manure handling, feed additives, new BMPs and some assumptions could be
incorporated into the model without impacting the calibration. In these cases, the changes were
made.
Other input assumptions, such as multiple manure application levels, increasing the number and
redefining some land uses, defining new nutrient or sediment sources, adjusting for varying
levels of management (range of implementation levels) are items scheduled for incorporation in
the new model update (2005).
Input assumptions are documented in the above publications. Assumptions of the actual model
code are in the HSPF documentation:
ftp://water.usgs.gov/pub/software/surface_water/hspf/doc/hspfhelp.zip
Data are collected from states and local governments programs. Methods are described at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data/index.htm, (refer to CBP Watershed Model Scenario Output
PPA-299
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Database, Phase 4.3). For more information contact Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov or
Jeff Sweeney jsweeney@chesapeakebay.net
QA/QC Procedures: State offices have documentation of the design, construction and
maintenance of the databases used for the performance measures, showing they conform to
existing U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA/NRCS) technical standards and specifications for nonpoint source data and EPA's
Permit Compliance System (PCS) standards for point source data. State offices also have
documentation of implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) based on USD A NRCS
standards and specification and the Chesapeake Bay Program's protocols and guidance. BMPs
are traditionally used to reduce pollutant loads coming from nonpoint sources such as
urban/suburban runoff, agriculture, and forestry activities.
References include: the USDA NRCS Technical Guide and Appendix H from the Chesapeake
Bay Program (contact Russ Mader at mader.russ@epa.gov or Kate Hopkins at
hopkins.kate@epa.gov). Quality assurance program plans are available in each state office.
Data Quality Reviews: All data are reviewed and approved by the individual jurisdictions
before input to the watershed model. QA/QC is also performed on the input data to ensure basic
criteria, such as not applying a BMP at a higher level than allowed. A specific level of input
should yield output within a specified range of values. Output is reviewed by both the CBPO
staff and the Tributary Strategy Workgroup as an additional level of QA/QC. Any values out of
the expected range is analyzed and understood before approval and public release. The model
itself is given a quarterly peer review by an outside independent group of experts. There have
been no data deficiencies identified in external reviews.
Data Limitations: Data collected from voluntary collection programs are not included in the
database, even though they may be valid and reliable. The only data submitted by state and local
governments to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office are data that are required for reporting
under the cost share and regulatory programs. State and local governments are aware that
additional data collection efforts are being conducted by non-governmental organizations,
however, they are done independently of the cost share programs and are not reported.
Error Estimate: There may be errors of omission, misclassification, incorrect georeferencing,
misdocumentation or mistakes in the processing of data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The next version of the watershed model is currently under
development and will be completed in 2005. The new version (phase 5) will have increased
spatial resolution and ability to model the effects of management practices. The phase 5
watershed model is a joint project with cooperating state and Federal agencies. Contact Gary
Shenk gshenk@chesapeakebay.net or see the web site at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/phase5.htm
PPA-300
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
References:
See http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data/index.httn, refer to CBP Watershed Model Scenario
Output Database, Phase 4.3. Contact Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov or Jeff Sweeney
j sweeney@chesapeakebay.net . The nutrient and sediment loads delivered to the Bay indicator
are published at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=l86. The nutrient and sediment
loads delivered to the Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls. See "Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model Application and Calculation of Nutrient and Sediment Loadings, Appendix H:
Tracking Best Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in the Chesapeake Bay Program, A
Report of the Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee", USEPA Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD, August 1998, available at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf. See USDA NRCS Field Office Technical Guide
available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems so that overall aquatic system
health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico is improved on the "good/fair/poor" scale
of the National Coastal Condition Report
Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin to reduce the size
of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico
Performance Database: (1) Louisiana Coastal Hypoxia Shelfwide Survey metadata (data
housed at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Data Center, Silver
Spring, Maryland). Funds for this research are provided by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program (NOAA/COP)
(2) Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) - Gulf surveys.
The data used in assessing performance under this measure have been collected annually on a
calendar year basis since 1982.
Data Source: (1) Hydrographic data are collected during annual surveys of the Louisiana
continental shelf. Nutrient, pigment and station information data are also acquired. The
physical, biological and chemical data collected are part of a long-term coastal Louisiana dataset.
The goal is to understand physical and biological processes that contribute to the causes of
hypoxia and use the data to support environmental models for use by resource managers.
(2) The Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) is a
state/Federal/university program for collection, management and dissemination of fishery-
independent data and information in the southeastern United States.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The distribution of hypoxia on the Louisiana shelf has
been mapped annually in mid-summer (usually late July to early August) over a standard 60- to
80- station grid since 1985. During the shelfwide cruise, data are collected along transects from
the mouth of the Mississippi River to the Texas border. Information is collected on a wide range
PPA-301
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
of parameters, including conductivity/temperature/depth (CTD), light penetration, dissolved
oxygen, suspended solids, nutrients, phytoplankton, and chlorophyll. Hydrographic, chemical,
and biological data also are collected from two transects of Terrebonne Bay on a monthly basis,
and bimonthly, off Atchafalaya Bay. There is a single moored instrument array in 20-m water
depth in the core of the hypoxic zone that collects vertical conductivity/temperature data, as well
as near-surface, mid, and near-bottom oxygen data; an upward directed Acoustic Doppler
Current Profiler (ADCP) on the seabed measures direction and speed of currents from the seabed
to the surface. There is also an assortment of nutrient and light meters.
Station depths on the cruises range from 3.25 to 52.4 meters. Northern end stations of transects
are chosen based on the survey vessel's minimum depth limits for each longitude.
Standard data collections include hydrographic profiles for temperature, salinity, dissolved
oxygen, and optical properties. Water samples for chlorophyll a and phaeopigments, nutrients,
salinity, suspended sediment, and phytoplankton community composition are collected from the
surface, near-bottom, and variable middle depths.
The objective is to delimit and describe the area of midsummer bottom dissolved oxygen less
than 2 (mg. L).
Details of data collection and methodology are provided in referenced reports.
QA/QC Procedures: NOAA does not require written QA/QC procedures or a Quality
Management Plan; however, the procedures related to data collection are covered in metadata
files.
The SEAMAP Data Management System (DMS) conforms to the SEAMAP Gulf and South
Atlantic DMS Requirements Document developed through a cooperative effort between National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and other SEAMAP participants.
Data Quality Reviews: (1) Essential components of the environmental monitoring program in
the Gulf of Mexico include efforts to document the temporal and spatial extent of shelf hypoxia,
and to collect basic hydrographic, chemical and biological data related to the development of
hypoxia over seasonal cycles. All data collection protocols and data are presented to and
reviewed by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force (the Task
Force) in support of the adaptive management approach as outlined in the Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (the Action
Plan).
(2) Biological and environmental data from all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys are included in the
SEAMAP Information System, managed in conjunction with National Marine Fisheries Service
- Southeast Fisheries Science Center (NMFS-SEFSC). Raw data are edited by the collecting
agency and verified by the SEAMAP Data Manager prior to entry into the system. Data from all
SEAMAP-Gulf surveys during 1982-2003 have been entered into the system, and data from
2004 surveys are in the process of being verified, edited, and entered for storage and retrieval.
PPA-302
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Limitations: Monitoring for shelf-wide conditions are currently performed each year
primarily, but not exclusively, in July. The spatial boundaries of some monitoring efforts are
limited by resource availability. Experience with the datasets has shown that when data are
plotted or used in further analysis, outlying values may occasionally be discovered.
Error Estimate^ (1) The manufacturers state +/- 0.2mg/L as the error allowance for both
SeaBird and Hydrolab oxygen sensors.
References:
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task force.2001. Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington,
DC.
Rabalais N.N., R.E. Turner, Dubravko Justic, Quay Dortch, and WJ. Wiseman. 1999.
Characterization of Hypoxia. Topic 1 Report for the Integrated assessment on Hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 15. Silver Spring
Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Hendee, J.C. 1994. Data management for the nutrient enhanced coastal ocean productivity
program. Estuaries 17:900-3
Rabalais, Nancy N., WJ. Wiseman Jr., R.E. Turner ; Comparison of continuous records of near-
bottom dissolved oxygen from the hypoxia zone of Louisiana. Estuaries 19:386-407
SEAMAP Information System http://www.gsmfc.org/sis.html
PPA-303
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 4 Objective 5
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Completed dose-response assessments, provisional values, or pathogen risk assessments
Comprehensive guidance document for building owners and managers on restoration
of buildings after terrorist contamination with biological or chemical hazards
Comprehensive guidance document for emergency and remedial response personnel
and water utility owners and operators for the restoration of water systems after
terrorist contamination with biological or chemical hazards
Comprehensive guidance package including data, methodologies, and other risk
assessment tools that will assist emergency responders in establishing remediation goals
at incident sites
Report on a protocol to screen environmental chemicals for their inability to interact
with the male hormone receptor
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
PPA-304
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 5 Objective 1
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that pollutants be reduced,
treated, or eliminated and protection of populations or ecosystems
Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of
concluded enforcement actions
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of improved
environmental management practices
Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved
environmental management practices as a result of concluded enforcement actions
(i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs)
Percentage of audits or other actions that result in the reduction, treatment, or
elimination of pollutants and protection of populations or ecosystems
Percentage of audits or other actions that result in improvements in environmental
management practices
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audits or other
actions
Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved
environmental management practices as a result of audits or other actions
Performance Databases: The Integrated Compliance Information System, (ICIS), which tracks
EPA civil enforcement (e.g., judicial and administrative) actions. The Criminal Case Reporting
System (CCRS) is the new enhanced data base for tracking criminal enforcement actions.
Data Source: Most of the essential data on environmental results in ICIS are collected through
data developed originally through the use of the Case Conclusion Data Sheet (CCDS), which
Agency staffs begin preparing after the conclusion of each civil (judicial and administrative)
enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS in 1996 to capture relevant information on the
results and environmental benefits of concluded enforcement cases. The information generated
through the CCDS is used to track progress for several of the performance measures. The CCDS
form consists of 27 specific questions which, when completed, describe specifics of the case; the
facility involved; information on how the case was concluded; the compliance actions required to
be taken by the defendant(s); the costs involved; information on any Supplemental
Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the settlement; the amounts and types of any
penalties assessed; and any costs recovered through the action, if applicable. The CCDS
documents whether the facility/defendant, through injunctive relief, must: (1) reduce pollutants;
and (2) improve management practices to curtail, eliminate or better monitor and handle
PPA-305
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
pollutants in the future. The Criminal Enforcement Program also maintains a separate case
conclusion data form and system for compiling and quantifying the results of criminal
enforcement prosecution, including pollution reduction. The criminal enforcement case
conclusion form and system is currently being revised.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For enforcement actions which result in pollution
reductions, the staff estimate the amounts of pollution reduced for an immediately implemented
improvement, or an average year once a long-term solution is in place. There are established
procedures for the staff to calculate, by statute, (e.g., Clean Water Act), the pollutant reductions
or eliminations. The procedure first entails the determination of the difference between the
current Aout of complianceฎ concentration of the pollutant(s) and the post enforcement action
Ain complianceฎ concentration. This difference is then converted into standard units of measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures [See references] are in
place for both the CCDS and ICIS entry. There are a Case Conclusion Data Sheet Training
Booklet [See references] and a Case Conclusion Data Sheet Quick Guide [See references], both
of which have been distributed throughout Regional and Headquarters= (HQ) offices. Separate
CCDS Calculation and Completion Checklists [See references] are required to be filled out at the
time the CCDS is completed. Criminal enforcement pollution reduction measures are quality
assured by the program at the end of the fiscal year.
Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are prepared for each Office within The Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). The Office of Compliance (OC) has
established extensive processes for ensuring timely input, review and certification of ICIS
information in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003. OC=s QMP, effective for 5 years, was approved July 29,
2003 by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) and is required to be re-approved in
2008. OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall
accuracy of ICIS information to satisfy the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance
policies on performance measurement.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in the CCDS and ICIS are required by policy to
be reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy. ICIS data is
reviewed quarterly and certified at mid-year and end-of-year.
Data Limitations: The pollutant reductions or eliminations reported on the CCDS are estimates
of what will be achieved if the defendant carries out the requirements of the settlement.
Information on expected outcomes of state enforcement is not available. The estimates are based
on information available at the time a case is settled or an order is issued. In some instances, this
information will be developed and entered after the settlement, during continued discussions
over specific plans for compliance. Because of the time it takes to agree on the compliance
actions, there may be a delay in completing the CCDS. Additionally, because of unknowns at
the time of settlement, different levels of technical proficiency, or the nature of a case, OECA=s
expectation is that based on information on the CCDS, the overall amounts of pollutant
reductions/eliminations will be prudently underestimated.
PPA-306
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Error Estimate: Not available
New & Improved Data or Systems: In November 2000, EPA completed a comprehensive
guidance package on the preparation of the Case Conclusion Data Sheet. This guidance, issued
to headquarters= and regional managers and staff, was made available in print and CD-ROM,
and was supplemented in FY 2002 [See references]. The guidance contains work examples to
ensure better calculation of the amounts of pollutants reduced or eliminated through concluded
enforcement actions. EPA trained each of its ten regional offices during FY 2002. OC=s
Quality Management Plan was approved by OEI July 29, 2003, and is effective for five years.
[See references]. A new criminal enforcement case management, tracking and reporting system
(Criminal Case Reporting System) will come on line during FY 2005 that will replace the
existing criminal docket (CREVIDOC). This new system allows for a more user friendly database
and greater tracking, management, and reporting capabilities.
References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life Cycle
Management Guidance, (IRM Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994, reference Chapter
17 for Life Cycle Management). Case Conclusion Data Sheets: Case Conclusion Data Sheet,
Training Booklet, issued November 2000 available:
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning/caseconc.pdf: Quick Guide for Case
Conclusion Data Sheet, issued November 2000. Information Quality Strategy and OC=s Quality
Management Plans: Final Enforcement and Compliance Data Quality Strategy, and Description
of FY 2002 Data Quality Strategy Implementation Plan Projects, signed March 25, 2002. ICIS:
U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, ICIS Phase I, implemented June
2002. Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the public through the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of inspections, civil investigations, and criminal investigations conducted
Performance Databases: Output measure. Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA)
integrates data from major enforcement and compliance systems, such as the Permit Compliance
System (PCS), Air Facilities Subsystem (AFS), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Information System (RCRAInfo), Integrated Compliance Information system (ICIS) for Clean
Air Act (CAA) 112(r), National Compliance Database (NCDB), FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System
(FTTS). There is also manual reporting of specific media inspections and all civil investigations.
The Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS), which is scheduled to come on line during the
second quarter of FY 2005, is a criminal case management, tracking and reporting system.
Information about criminal cases investigated by the U.S. EPA-Criminal Investigation Division
(CID) is entered into CCRS at case initiation, and investigation and prosecution information is
tracked until case conclusion.
Data Source: EPA=s regional and Headquarters= offices. U.S. EPA-CID offices.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
PPA-307
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
QA/QC Procedures: All the systems have been developed in accordance with the Office of
Information Management=s Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data validation
processes, internal screen audit checks and verification, system and user documents, data quality
audit reports, third-party testing reports, and detailed report specifications for showing how data
are calculated. For CRIMDOC (and the forthcoming CCRS) , the system administrator performs
regularly scheduled quality assurance/quality control checks of the CRIMDOC database to
validate data and to evaluate and recommend enhancements to the system.
Data Quality Review: EPA is now using updated monitoring strategies [See references] which
clarify reporting definitions and enhance oversight of state and local compliance monitoring
programs. In FY2003, OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual executive certification of
the overall accuracy of information to satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's information quality
guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance policies on performance
measurement.
Data Limitations: For all systems, there are concerns about quality and completeness of data
and the ability of existing systems to meet data needs. Incompatible database structures/designs
and differences in data definitions impede integrated analyses. There is also manual reporting of
specific media inspections and all civil investigations. Additionally, there are incomplete data
available on the universe of regulated facilities because not all are inspected/permitted. In
addition, the targets for each measure such as the numbers of inspections, and civil and criminal
investigations are based on the resources redirected to the state and tribal enforcement grant
program.
Error Estimate: N/A
New & Improved Data or Systems: PCS modernization is underway and is scheduled for
completion in 2007. An Interim Data Exchange Format (IDEF) has been established and will
support the transfer of data from modernized state systems into the current PCS data system
while PCS is being modernized. EPA is addressing the quality of the data in the major systems
and each Office within OECA has developed a Quality Management Plan (data quality
objectives, quality assurance project plans, baseline assessments). A new Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS) supports core program needs and consolidates and streamlines
existing systems. Additionally, OECA began implementing its Data Quality Strategy in FY
2002. A new case management, tracking and reporting system (Criminal Case Reporting
System) is currently being developed that will replace CRIMDOC. This new system will be a
more user-friendly database with greater tracking, management and reporting capabilities.
References: Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring Strategy, April 25, 2001,
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/cmspolicy.pdf
AFS: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/air/afssystem.html.
PCS: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.html.
RCRAinfo: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/index.htm.
For CRIMDOC: CREVI-DOC U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Internal enforcement confidential database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the
public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
PPA-308
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Information Quality Strategy and OC=s Quality Management Plans: Final Enforcement and
Compliance Data Quality Strategy, and Description of FY 2002 Data Quality Strategy
Implementation Plan Projects, signed March 25, 2002
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site
compliance inspections and evaluations
Performance Databases: ICIS and manual reporting by regions
Data Sources: EPA regional offices and Office of Regulatory Enforcement (specifically, the
Clean Air Act (CAA)- Mobile Source program) and Office of Compliance - Agriculture
Division.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: A new measurement tool, the Inspection Conclusion
Data Sheet, (ICDS) will be used to analyze results from inspections/evaluations conducted under
some of EPA=s major statutes. EPA will analyze data on the three pieces of information from
the ICDS: on-site actions taken by facilities, deficiencies observed, and compliance assistance
provided. The inspectors complete the Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS) for each
inspection or evaluation subject to ICDS reporting and the information is either entered into ICIS
or reported manually by the Regions and HQ programs.
QA/QC Procedures: ICIS has been developed per Office of Information Management
Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data validation processes, internal screen audit
checks and verification, system and user documents, data quality audit reports, third party testing
reports, and detailed report specifications for showing how data are calculated.
Data Quality Review: Regional manual reports are reviewed and checked against the
inspection or evaluation data entered into other Agency databases (Air Facilities Subsystem
(AFS), Permit Compliance System (PCS), Online Tracking Information System (OTIS),
Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA)). Information contained in the CCDS, ICDS
and ICIS are required by policy to be reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for
completeness and accuracy. In FY2003, OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual
executive certification of the overall accuracy of information to satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's
information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance policies on
performance measurement. ICIS data are reviewed quarterly and certified at mid-year and end of
year.
Data Limitations: ICIS is currently the database of record for CAA 112(r) inspections and
audits. It is not the official database of record for inspections and evaluations for other programs,
and as a result the regions have to enter inspection data into both ICIS and other Agency
databases. This can result in redundant, incomplete, or contradictory data.
Error Estimate: N/A
PPA-309
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
New & Improved Data or Systems: The new Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS) will support core program needs and consolidate and streamline existing systems. As ICIS
becomes more widely used by the regions and HQ programs some of the problems with data
entry and reporting should be resolved. As various older systems become modernized (e.g.,
PCS), they will incorporate the ICDS data set as part of the system. This should minimize data
entry and reporting problems.
References: ICIS: U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, ICIS Phase I,
implemented June 2002. Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the
public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance
assistance centers and clearinghouse reporting that they improved environmental
management practices as a result of their use of the centers or the clearinghouse
Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance
assistance centers and clearinghouse reporting that they reduced, treated, or eliminated
pollution as a result of their use of the centers or the clearinghouse
Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance
assistance centers and clearinghouse reporting that they increased their understanding
of environmental requirements as a result of their use of the centers or the
clearinghouse
Performance Database: EPA Headquarters manages data on the performance of the centers
and clearinghouse respondents manually before entering it into ICIS.
Data source: Headquarters will enter manually collected information into ICIS upon
completion and delivery of media and sector-specific compliance assistance provided by the
EPA-sponsored compliance assistance centers and the clearinghouse. ICIS is designed to capture
outcome measurement information such as increased awareness/understanding of environmental
laws, changes in behavior and environmental improvements as a result of the compliance
assistance provided.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: Automated data checks and data entry guidelines are in place for ICIS.
Data from manual systems will be validated with internal checks, third party testing reports, and
detailed reports showing how data are calculated.
Data Quality Reviews: Data from manual systems will be validated with internal checks, third
party testing reports, and detailed reports showing how data are calculated.
Information contained in the ICIS is reviewed by Regional and Headquarters staff for
completeness and accuracy. In FY2003, OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual
executive certification of the overall accuracy of information to satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's
information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance policies on
PPA-310
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
performance measurement. ICIS data are reviewed quarterly and certified at mid-year and end of
year.
Data Limitations: None
Error Estimate: None
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to improve and/or modify elements of the
compliance assistance module in ICIS based on use of the system.
References: US EPA, Integrated Compliance Information System Compliance Assistance
Module, February 2004; US EPA, Compliance Assistance in the Integrated Compliance
Information System Guidance, February 20, 2004.
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA
reporting that they improved environmental management practices as a result of EPA
assistance
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA
reporting that they increased their understanding of environmental requirements as a
result of EPA assistance
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct assistance from EPA reporting that
they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA assistance
Performance Database: EPA Headquarters will manage data on regulated entities receiving
direct compliance assistance from EPA through ICIS.
Data source: Headquarters and EPA=s Regional offices will enter information in ICIS upon
completion and delivery of media and sector-specific compliance assistance including
workshops, training, on-site visits and distribution of compliance assistance tools. ICIS is
designed to capture outcome measurement information such as increased
awareness/understanding of environmental laws, changes in behavior and environmental
improvements as a result of the compliance assistance provided.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC: Automated data checks and data entry guidelines are in place for ICIS.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in the ICIS is reviewed by Regional and
Headquarters staff for completeness and accuracy. In FY2003, OECA instituted a requirement
for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of information to satisfy the
GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and
compliance policies on performance measurement. ICIS data are reviewed quarterly and certified
at mid-year and end of year.
PPA-311
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data Limitations: None
Error Estimate: None
New & Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to improve and/or modify elements of the
compliance assistance module in ICIS based on use of the system.
References: US EPA, Integrated Compliance Information System Compliance Assistance
Module, February 2004; US EPA, Compliance Assistance in the Integrated Compliance
Information System Guidance, February 20, 2004.
PPA-312
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 5 Objective 2
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of pounds reduced (in millions) in generation of priority list chemicals from
2001 baseline of 88 million pounds
Performance Database: Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) provides facility/chemical-specific
data quantifying the amount of TRI-listed chemicals entering wastes associated with production
processes in each year. The total amount of each chemical in production-related wastes can be
broken out by the methods employed in managing such wastes, including recycling, energy
recovery, treatment, and disposal/release. Amounts of these wastes that are not recycled are
tracked for this performance measure. The performance measure uses the Chemical Abstract
System (CAS) numbers for the 23 chemicals identified by EPA as priority chemicals
(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/chemlist.htm).
Data Source: Regulated facilities report facility-specific, chemical-specific release, waste and
recycling data to EPA. For example, in calendar year 1999, 22,639 facilities filed 84,068 TRI
reports.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: TRI data are collected as required by Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and expanded by the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990. (40 CFR Part 13101; www.epa.gov/tri/). Only certain facilities in
specific Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes are required to report annually the
quantities of over 650 listed toxic chemicals and chemical categories released to each
environmental medium and otherwise managed as waste (40 CFR Part 13101;
www.epa.gov/tri/). Regulation requires covered facilities to use monitoring, mass balance,
emission factors and/or engineering approaches to estimate releases and recycling volumes. For
purposes of the performance measure, data controls are employed to facilitate cross-year
comparisons: a subset of chemicals and sectors are assessed that are consistently reported in all
years; data are normalized to control for changes in production using published U.S. Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) gross product indices (chain-type quantity index for the
manufacturing sector).
QA/QC Procedures: Most facilities use EPA-certified automated Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) FORM R reporting tools, which contain automated error checking mechanisms. Upon
receipt of the facilities' reports, EPA conducts automated edits, error checks, data scrubs,
corrections and normalization during data entry and subsequent processing. The Agency does
not control the quality of the data submitted by the regulated community. EPA does, however,
work with the regulated community to improve the quality of their estimates.
Data Quality Review: The quality of the data contained in the TRI chemical reports is
dependent upon the quality of the data that the reporting facility uses to estimate its releases and
other waste management quantities. Use of TRI Form R by submitters and EPA's data reviews
help assure data quality. The GAO Report Environmental Protection: EPA Should Strengthen Its
Efforts to Measure and Encourage Pollution Prevention (GAO - 01 - 283,
PPA-313
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01283.pdf), recommends that EPA strengthen the rule on
reporting of source reduction activities. Although EPA agrees that source reduction data are
valuable, the Agency has not finalized regulations to improve reporting of source reduction
activities by TRI-regulated facilities.
Data Limitations: Use of the data should be based on the user's understanding that the Agency
does not have direct assurance of the accuracy of the facilities' measurement and reporting
processes. TRI release data are reported by facilities on a good faith, best-estimate basis. EPA
does not have the resources to conduct on-site validation of each facility's reporting data, though
on-site investigations do occur each year at a subset of reporting facilities.
Error Estimate: From the various data quality efforts, EPA has learned of several reporting
issues such as incorrect assignment of threshold activities and incorrect assignment of release
and other waste management quantities (EPA-745-F-93-001; EPA-745-R-98-012;
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data_quality_reports/index.htm; www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm.)
For example, certain facilities incorrectly assigned a 'processing' (25,000 Ib) threshold instead of
an 'otherwise use' (10,000 Ib) threshold for certain non-persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic
(PBT) chemicals, so they did not have to report if their releases were below 25,000 Ibs. Also, for
example, some facilities incorrectly reported fugitive releases instead of stack releases of certain
toxic chemicals.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to develop regulations for improving reporting of
source reduction activities by TRI reporting facilities.
References: www.epa.gov/tri/ and additional citations provided above. (EPA-745-F-93-
001 ;EP A-745-R-98-012:http ://www. epa. gov/tri/report/index.htm:
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data quality reports/index.htm; www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indices are available at
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Specific annual reductions in six media/resource areas: water use, energy use, materials
use, solid waste, air releases, and water discharges
Performance Databases: Both the Performance Track On-Line (a Domino database) and the
Performance Track Members Database (a Microsoft Access database) store information that
facilities have provided to EPA in applications and annual performance reports. Performance
Track members select a set of environmental indicators on which to report performance over a
three-year period of participation. The externally reported indicators (listed above) may or may
not be included in any particular facility's set of indicators. Performance Track aggregates and
reports only that information that a facility voluntarily reports to the Agency. A facility may
make progress towards one of the above indicators, but if it is not among its set of
"commitments", then Performance Track's data will not reflect the changes occurring at the
facility. Similarly, if a facility's performance declines in any of the above areas and the indicator
PPA-314
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
is not included among its set of commitments, that decline will not be reflected in the above
results.
Members report on results in a calendar year. Fiscal year 2006 corresponds most closely with
members' calendar year 2006. That data will be reported to the Performance Track program by
April 1, 2007. The data will then be reviewed, aggregated, and available for external reporting in
August 2007. (Calendar year 2005 data will become available in August of 2006.)
Data Source: All data are self-reported and self-certified by member facilities. As described
below, Performance Track engages in quality control to the extent possible, but it does not
conduct formal auditing. However, a criterion of Performance Track membership is the
existence of an environmental management system (EMS) at the facility, a key element of which
is a system of measurement and monitoring. Most Performance Track facilities have had
independent third-party audits of their EMSs, which create a basis for confidence in the
facilities' data. It is clear from submitted reports that some facilities have a tendency to estimate
or round data. Errors are also made in converting units and in calculations. In general, however,
EPA is confident that the externally reported results are a fair representation of members'
performance.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data collected from members' applications and
annual performance reports are compiled and aggregated across those members that choose to
report on the given indicator. The data reflect the performance results at the facility; any
improvements or declines in performance are due to activities and conditions at the specific
facility as a whole. However, in some cases, facilities report results for specific sections of a
facility and this may not be clear in the reports submitted to the program. For example, Member
A commits to reducing its VOCs from 1000 tons to 500 tons over a 3-year period. In Year 1, it
reports a reduction of VOCs from 1000 tons to 800 tons. Performance Track aggregates this
reduction of 200 tons with results from other facilities. But unbeknownst to Performance Track,
the facility made a commitment to reduce its VOCs from Production Line A and is only
reporting on its results from that production line. The facility is not intentionally hiding
information from EPA, but mistakenly thought that its commitment could focus on
environmental management activities at Production Line A rather than across the entire facility.
Unfortunately, due to increased production and a couple of mishaps by a sloppy technician, VOC
emissions at Production Line B increased by 500 tons in Year 1. Thus, the facility's VOC
emissions actually increased by 300 tons in Year 1. Performance Track's statement to the public
that the facility reduced its emissions by 200 tons is therefore misleading.
The data can be used to make year-to-year comparisons, but reviewers and analysts should bear
in mind that Performance Track membership is constantly in flux. Although members should
retain the same set of indicators for their three-year participation period, as new members join
the program and others leave, the baseline constantly changes.
Due to unavoidable issues regarding the timing of the application period, a small subset of
reported data will represent two years of performance at certain facilities, i.e., the baseline will
be two years prior rather than one year.
PPA-315
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
QA/QC Procedures: Data submitted with applications and annual performance reports to the
program are reviewed for completeness and adherence to program formatting requirements. In
cases where it appears possible that data is miscalculated or misreported, EPA or contractor staff
follows up with the facility. If the accuracy of data remains under question or if a facility has
provided incomplete or non-standard data, the database is coded to ensure that the data is
excluded from aggregated and externally reported results.
Additionally, Performance Track staff visit up to 20% of Performance Track member facilities
each year. During those visits, facilities are asked about their data collection systems and about
the sources of the data reported to the program.
Performance Track contractors conduct a quality review of data entered manually into the
database. Performance Track staff conduct periodic checks of the entered data.
As described, Performance Track is quality controlled to the extent possible, but is not audited in
a formal way. However, a prerequisite of Performance Track membership is an environmental
management system (EMS) at the facility, a key element of which is a system of measurement
and monitoring. Most Performance Track facilities have had independent third-party audits of
their EMSs, which create a basis for confidence in the facilities' data.
A Quality Management Plan is under development.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A.
Data Limitations: Potential sources of error include miscalculations, faulty data collection,
misreporting, inconsistent reporting, and nonstandard reporting on the part of the facility. Where
facilities submit data outside of the Performance Track On-Line system, Performance Track staff
or contractors must enter data manually into the database. Manually entered data is sometimes
typed incorrectly.
It is clear from submitted reports that some facilities have a tendency to estimate or round data.
Errors are also made in converting units and in calculations. In general, however, EPA is
confident that the externally reported results are a fair representation of members' performance.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: Since spring 2004, all Performance Track
applications and annual performance reports have been submitted electronically (i.e., through the
Performance Track On-Line system), thus avoiding the need for manual data entry.
Additionally, the program is implementing a new requirement that all members gain third-party
assessments of their EMSs. Also, the program has reduced the chances that data may reflect
process-specific (rather than facility-wide) data by paying additional attention to the issue in the
review process and by instituting "facility-wide data" requirements for all indicators.
PPA-316
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
References: Members' applications and annual performance reports can be found on the
Performance Track website at http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/particip/alphabet. htm.
Performance Track On-Line and the Performance Track Members Database are not generally
accessible. Performance Track staff can grant access to and review of the databases by request.
PPA-317
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 5 Objective 3
FY 2006 Performance Measures:
Increase tribes' ability to develop environmental program capacity by ensuring that
100 percent of federally recognized tribes have access to an environmental presence
Develop or integrate 15 (cumulative) EPA and interagency data systems to facilitate the
use of EPA Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture (TPEA) information in setting
environmental priorities and informing policy decisions
Eliminate 20 percent of the data gaps for environmental conditions for major water,
land, and air programs as determined through the availability of information in the
TPEA
Increase implementation of environmental programs in Indian country to 189
(cumulative total) as determined by program delegations, approvals, or primacies
issued to tribes and direct implementation activities by EPA
Increase by 50 percent the number of tribes with environmental monitoring and
assessment activities under EPA approved quality assurance procedures
Increase by 50 percent the number of tribes with multimedia programs reflecting
traditional use of natural resources as determined by use of PPS, EPA/Tribal
Environmental Agreements, and other innovative EPA agreements that reflect holistic
program integration
Performance Database: EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) developed an
information technology infrastructure, named the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture
(TPEA), under the auspices of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16 on
federal data coordination. The TPEA is a suite of ten secure Internet-based applications that
track progress toward environmental program implementation in Indian country. One TPEA
application, the Goal 5 / Objective 3 Reporting System, tracks progress in achieving the six
strategic measures under Goal 5 Objective 3 of EPA's National Strategic Plan - "Build Tribal
Capacity" (see Appendix A for site addresses and passwords.
Measure 1. Increase tribes' ability to develop environmental program capacity by ensuring
that 100 percent of federally recognized tribes have access to an environmental presence.
Access to an environmental presence is measured by the level of General Assistance Program
funds available to support tribes in hiring staff and acquiring resources to operate an
environmental program. That level has changed over time. Presently, $110,000 is considered
the average annual cost for a tribe to maintain an environmental presence.
PPA-318
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Measure 1 is measured as a percentage. The number of tribal entities that have access to an
environmental presence is calculated from the annual General Assistance Program appropriation,
less recisions and an annual set aside which supports nationally significant programs, divided by
$110,000. That number is compared to the number of tribal entities eligible to receive GAP
funding and reported as a percentage.
Values for appropriations and recision are public records in the EPA annual budget. The GAP
set aside values are maintained by AIEO. The $110,000 level to maintain an environmental
presence was determined by consensus of the EPA Regional Indian Coordinators.
Measure 2. Develop or integrate 15 (cumulative) EPA and interagency data systems to
facilitate the use of EPA Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture (TPEA) information in
setting environmental priorities and informing policy decisions.
A Tribal Information Management System (TIMS) is the vehicle for organizing and integrating
the various data sources used in the TPEA (see Appendix A). Current TPEA data sources are
existing federal databases, both from EPA and other agencies, supplemented by data collected
from the EPA regions as appropriate. All data sources are identified and referenced in the
application. EPA continues to take advantage of new technology to establish direct links with
other federal agency data systems (including the U.S. Geological Service, Bureau of
Reclamation, and Indian Health Service) to further develop this integrated, comprehensive,
multi-agency Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture, following the business rules and models of
the Federal Enterprise Architecture
Presently, 45 data layers are identified in the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture.
Commitments for the incorporation of additional data sources are reported annually in the Goal 5
/ Objective 3 Reporting System.
Measure 3. Eliminate 20 percent of the data gaps for environmental conditions for major
water, land, and air programs as determined through the availability of information in the
TPEA.
Identification of data gaps in environmental information is an issue both for EPA as an agency
(EPA working draft, 2004) and other organizations that attempt to analyze data from a national
perspective (Heinz Center, 2002). As EPA identifies environmental data gaps, AIEO will
coordinate with other Agency programs to eliminate those gaps, with special emphasis on gaps
in Indian country.
Thirty data gaps are listed for measure 3. These were identified by a Baseline Assessment
working group made up of EPA Headquarters and Regional staff responsible for management of
tribal programs. Some obvious issues in Indian country, such as open dumps and hazardous
waste sites-are not on the list of data gaps because national systems already exist to identify and
verify that information (Indian Health Service Open Dumps Report to Congress, and EPA
RCRAinfo data system).
PPA-319
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Measure 3 is measured as a percentage, which when applied to the total number of gaps equals
the elimination of six data gaps by 2008. Commitments for the elimination of data gaps are
reported annually in the Goal 5 Objective 3 Reporting System.
Measure 4. Increase implementation of environmental programs in Indian country to 189
(cumulative total) as determined by program delegations, approvals, or primacies issued to
tribes and direct implementation activities by EPA.
Measure 4 is tracked by: 1) Treatment in a manner similar to a State (TAS) approvals, or
primacies; 2) the execution of Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements (DITCA);
and 3) GAP grants that have provisions for the implementation of solid waste or hazardous waste
programs. EPA Regional project officers managing tribal grants input data by tribe and the
system cumulates it nationally. Thus, it is possible, and even likely, that a tribe will contribute to
a target in multiple ways.
Measure 4 implementation activities are input continuously by regional tribal program officers,
and then summed annually, at the end of the fiscal year.
Measure 5. Increase by 50 percent the number of tribes with environmental monitoring
and assessment activities under EPA approved quality assurance procedures.
Measure 5 measures active Quality Assurance Project Plans. Data are input by regional tribal
program officers from information maintained by regional Quality Assurance Officers. Because
all ongoing environmental monitoring programs are required to have active Quality Assurance
Project Plans, expired plans are removed from the measure 5 list.
Measure 5 active Quality Assurance Project Plans are input continuously by regional tribal
program officers, and then summed annually, at the end of the fiscal year.
Measure 6. Increase by 50 percent the number of tribes with multimedia programs
reflecting traditional use of natural resources as determined by use of PPGs, EPA/Tribal
Environmental Agreements, and other innovative EPA agreements that reflect holistic
program integration.
Measure 6 reports on Performance Partnership Grants, Tier I & II Tribal Environmental
Agreements (TEAs) Memoranda of Agreement, and Memoranda of Understanding. These data
are input by tribal project officers at the EPA regions and summed. As in measure 4, it is
possible, that a tribe will contribute to the target in more than one way.
Measure 6 TEAs, PPGs, MOAs and MOUs are input continuously by Regional Tribal Program
Officers, and then summed annually, at the end of the fiscal year.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Goal 5 Objective 3 Reporting System contains all
the information for reporting the six strategic measures. Measures 4, 5, and 6 assume the
Regional Tribal Program Officers input accurate data. Measure 4 can be verified from the
records of the Integrated Grants Management System. Measure 5 can be verified from Regional
PPA-320
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Quality Assurance Officer databases. Measure 6 can be verified from official correspondence
files between EPA Regions and Tribes, or from project officer case files.
QA/QC Procedures: Data used in the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture contains quality
assurance and metadata documentation prepared by the originating agency or program.
Additionally, because the information in the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture will be used
for budget and strategic planning purposes, AIEO requires adherence to the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer's Information Quality Guidelines (EPA, 2003.)
Data Quality Reviews: Data correction and improvement is an ongoing component of the
Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture. A special application, the Tribal Information
Management System (TIMS) Data Center (see Appendix A), was developed to support
submission of corrections to boundary information, narrative profiles, and factual database
information - particularly latitude and longitude coordinates for facilities. AIEO will collect and
pass along recommendations regarding the correction or modification of databases whenever
errors are detected or suggestions for database improvement are received. Each database
manager will retain the responsibility of addressing the recommended change according to their
quality assurance protocols. Because the data submittals will be used for budget or strategic
planning purposes, AIEO will require that all submittals meet the OCFO's Information Quality
Guidelines (EPA, 2003).
Data Limitations: The largest part of the data used by the Tribal Program Enterprise
Architecture has not been coded to particular tribes by the recording agency. AIEO uses new
geographic data mining technologies to extract records based on the geographical coordinates of
the data points. For example, if a regulated facility has latitude and longitude coordinates that
place it in the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation, then it is assigned to the Arapaho and
Shoshone Tribes of the Wind River Reservation. This technique is extremely powerful because
it Atribally enablesฎ large numbers of information systems which were previously incapable of
identifying tribes. This will be applied to all EPA databases. There are limitations, however.
When database records are not geographically identified with latitude and longitude, the
technique does not work and the record is lost to the system. For EPA regulated facilities in the
Facility Registry System, AIEO estimates that 64% have latitude and longitude recorded.
Error Estimate: Analysis of variation of reservation boundary coverages available to EPA
indicates deviations of up to 5%. Another source of error comes from records that are not
sufficiently described geographically to be assigned to specific tribes. For some agencies, such
as the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the geographic record is complete, so there is no
error from these sources. It is estimated that 36% of the regulated facilities in EPA's regulatory
databases are not geographically described, and thus will not be recognized by the AIEO
methodology.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The technologies used by the Tribal Enterprise Architecture
are new, secure and state-of-the-art. The geographic interface is a product called ARC/IMS,
which is a web-based application, with a fully functional Geographic Information System (GIS),
scalable and rendered in 3-dimensions. The Tribal Enterprise Architecture uses XML protocols
to attach to and display information seamlessly and in real-time from cooperating agency data
PPA-321
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
systems without having to download the data to an intermediate server. In addition, the baseline
assessment project has developed web-based, secure data input systems that allow regional
project officers to input programmatic data directly into performance reporting systems, TIMS
and other customizable reports.
References:
Office of Chief Financial Officer Information Quality Guidelines are found at
http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.htm
PPA-322
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 5 Objective 4
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percent of respondents to survey of vendors of ETV-verified technologies stating that
ETV information positively influenced sales and/or vendor innovation.
Performance Database: No internal tracking system
Data Source: Responses from a census of vendors who have participated in or completed the
ETV program between FY 2001 to approximately six months before the survey is administered,
or a statistically representative sample of this population. The anticipated completion date for
the report from the vendor survey is January 2006. Data will be available for inclusion in the FY
2006 Annual Performance Report.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data collection methodology is anticipated to be a
combination of web technology and telephone interviewing; the final mode of delivery will be
determined as the project progresses. Data collection is scheduled for May through July 2005.
The schedule may need to be adjusted depending upon survey development, testing and the
Information Collection Request process. The information is a direct measure of the research
outcomes for this program.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA anticipates testing instrument validity, with a field test in February
2005, to make sure what was designed to be measured is being measured. As a result, questions
which don't elicit information on the constructs of interest will be deleted and others will be
added if the constructs are not fully developed/addressed by the initial list of questions. The goal
is to reduce the amount of non-random error as much as possible before the survey is
administered.
Data Quality Reviews: The respondent will enter data using a web questionnaire, minimizing
and/or eliminating data entry by contractor personnel. The questionnaire will be designed using
well accepted survey development practices and will include background information and
instructions designed to maximize the likelihood that the questionnaires will be completed
correctly. EPA also anticipates using Advanced Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing
equipment and processes which allow the interviewer to thoroughly check data entry at the time
the respondent answers the question. This also should assure a high quality data set.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA anticipates that future vendor surveys will either be
performed "en masse," approximately four to five years apart, or on an ongoing periodic basis, at
intervals to be determined based on the results of the 2005 survey.
PPA-323
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
References: Miller, Delbert C. and Neil J. Salkind. Handbook of Research Design and Social
Measurement, Sixth Edition. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA. 2002.
PPA-324
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Performance Measure:
Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPA's 21 laboratories from
the 1990 base
Performance Database: The Agency's contractor provides energy consumption information
quarterly and annually. The Agency keeps the energy consumption data in the "Energy
Reporting System." The contractor is responsible for validating the data.
Data Source: The Agency's contractor collects quarterly energy data from each of EPA's
laboratories. The data are based on metered readings from the laboratory's utility bills for certain
utilities (natural gas, electricity, purchased steam, chilled water, high temperature hot water, and
potable water) and from on-site consumption logs for other utilities (propane and fuel oil). The
data from the on-site consumption logs are compared to invoices to verify that reported
consumption and cost data are correct.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch compares reported energy
use at each facility against previous years' data to see if there are any significant and
unexplainable increases or decreases in energy quantities and costs.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: EPA does not have a formal meter verification program to ensure that an on-
site utility meter reading corresponds to the charges included in the utility bill.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
The Central Data Exchange (CDX) will fully support electronic data exchange
requirements for major EPA environmental systems, enabling faster receipt,
processing, and quality checking of data
States will be able to exchange data with CDX through state nodes in real time, using
new web-based data standards that allow for automated data-quality checking
States, tribes, laboratories, and others will choose to use CDX to report environmental
data electronically to EPA, taking advantage of automated data quality checks and on-
line customer support
Customer-help desk calls resolved in a timely fashion
PPA-325
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Database: CDX Customer Registration Subsystem.
Data Source: Data are provided by state, private sector, local, and tribal government CDX users.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: All CDX users must register before they can begin
reporting to the system. The records of registration provide an up-to-date, accurate count of
users. Users identify themselves with several descriptors.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC have been performed in accordance with a CDX Quality
Assurance Plan [Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Interim Central Data Exchange System.
Document number: EP005T7. Sept. 17, 2001] and the CDX Design Document v.3. Appendix K
registration procedures [Central Data Exchange Electronic Reporting Prototype System
Requirements: Version 3; Document number: EP005S3. December 2000]. Specifically, data are
reviewed for authenticity and integrity. The CDX Quality Assurance Plan was updated in FY
2004 [Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Central Data Exchange," 10/8/2004; contact:
Wendy Timm, 202 566 0725] to incorporate new technology and policy requirements. Work is
underway to complete the revision of the Design Document. Automated edit checking routines
are performed in accordance with program specifications and CDX quality assurance guidance
[Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Interim Central Data Exchange System. Document
number: EP005T7. Sept. 17, 2001].
Data Quality Reviews: CDX successfully completed independent security risk assessment in the
summer 2001. In addition, routine audits of CDX data collection procedures and customer
service operations are provided weekly to CDX management and staff for review. Included in
these reports are performance measures such as the number of CDX new users, number of
submissions to CDX, number of help desk calls, number of calls resolved, ranking of
errors/problems, and actions taken. These reports are reviewed and actions discussed at weekly
project meetings.
Data Limitations: The CDX system collects, reports, and tracks performance measures on data
quality and customer service. While its automated routines are sufficient to screen systemic
problems/issues, a more detailed assessment of data errors/problems generally requires a
secondary level of analysis that takes time and human resources.
Error Estimate: CDX incorporates a number of features to reduce errors, such as pre-
populating data whenever possible, edit checks, etc. The possibility of an error in the number of
states registered for CDX, e.g., double-counting of some sort, is extremely remote (far less than 1
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: CDX coalesces the registration/submission
requirements of many different state-to-EPA, private sector-to-EPA, and local and tribal
governments-to-EPA data exchanges into a single web-based system. The system allows for a
more consistent and comprehensive management and performance tracking of many different
external customers. The creation of a centralized registration system, coupled with the use of
web forms and web-based approaches to submitting the data, invite opportunities to introduce
automated quality assurance procedures for the system and reduce human error.
PPA-326
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Establish an improved suite of environmental indicators for use by EPA's programs
and partners in the Agency's strategic planning and performance measurement process
Performance Database: Initial collection of indicators compiled during the drafting of EPA's
"Report on the Environment," supplemented by indicators currently used in the Agency's
strategic planning and performance measurement process (e.g., EPA's Strategic Plan, Annual
Performance Plan, Annual Performance Report, Annual Operating Plan, and National
Environmental Performance Partnership Agreements), will comprise an Agency baseline of
indicators (http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Office of Environmental Information (OEI), the
Office of Research and Development (ORD), and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO) will review the planning documents and establish a baseline of indicators in
consultation with key Agency steering committees.
QA/QC Procedures: As the baseline is established, protocols also will be developed to ensure
that the data supporting the indicators are accurate and complete.
Data Quality Reviews: To be determined and conducted once a baseline has been established.
Data Limitations: The challenge is to develop suitable indicators with sufficient data of known
quality.
Error Estimate: To be determined.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The baseline indicators and supporting data are
in development.
References: EPA's "Draft Report on the Environment" and "Technical Support Document"
(EPA pub. no. 260-R-02-006). Draft Report on the Environment Technical Document
(Publication # EPA 600-R-03-050). Both Dated June 2003
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/roePDF.htm
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB to assess Agency security programs
reported annually to OMB under the Federal Information Security Management Act
(FISMA)
PPA-327
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Database: Automated Security Self-Evaluation and Remediation Tracking
(ASSERT) database.
Data Source: Information technology (IT) system owners in Agency Program and Regional
offices.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Annual IT security assessments are conducted using
the methodology mandated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the National
Institute of Standards, and Technology (NIST) Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information
Technology Systems. ASSERT has automated and web-enabled this methodology.
QA/QC Procedures: Automated edit checking routines are performed in accordance with
ASSERT design specifications to ensure answers to questions in ASSERT are consistent. The
Office of Inspector General consistent with ง3545 FISMA, and the Chief Information Officer's
information security staff conduct independent evaluations of the assessments. The Agency
certifies results to OMB in the annual FISMA report.
Data Quality Reviews: Program offices are required to develop security action plans composed
of tasks and milestones to address security weaknesses. Program offices self-report progress
toward these milestones. EPA's information security staff review these self-reported data,
conduct independent validation of a sample, and discuss anomalies with the submitting office.
Data Limitations: Resources constrain the security staffs ability to validate all of the self-
reported compliance data submitted by program systems' managers.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Annual Information Security Reports to OMB: http://intranet.epa.gov/itsecurity/progreviews/:
OMB guidance memorandum: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/2003.html:
ASSERT web site: https://cfint.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/; NIST Special Publication 800-26, Security
Self Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems, November 2001:
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html: and, Federal Information Security
Management Act, PL 107-347: http://csrc.nist.gov/policies/FISMA final.pdf
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Number of actions taken for environmental improvement, reductions in environmental
risks, and recommendations made for environmental improvement
Number of actions taken for improvement in business practices,
criminal/civil/administrative actions, potential dollar return, and recommendations
made for improved business practices
PPA-328
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Database: The OIG Performance Measurement and Results System captures and
aggregates information on an array of measures in a logic model format, linking immediate
outputs with long-term intermediate outcomes and results. Because intermediate and long-term
results may not be realized for several years, only verifiable results are reported in the year
completed, while others remain prospective until completed and verified. Database measures
include numbers ofl) recommendations for environmental and management improvement; 2)
legislative, regulatory policy, directive, or process changes; 3) environmental, program, and
resource integrity risks identified, reduced, or eliminated; 4) best practices identified and
transferred; 5) examples of environmental and management improvements; 6) monetary value of
funds questioned, saved, fined, or recovered; and 7) public or congressional inquiries resolved.
Data Source: Designated OIG staff enters data into the system. Data are from OIG
performance evaluations, audits, research, court records, EPA documents, data systems, and
reports that track environmental and management actions or improvements made and risks
reduced or avoided. OIG also collects independent data from EPA's partners and stakeholders.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: OIG performance results are a chain of linked events,
starting with OIG outputs (e.g., recommendations, reports of best practices, and identification of
risks). The subsequent actions taken by EPA or its stakeholders/partners, as a result of OIG's
outputs, to improve operational efficiency and environmental program delivery are reported as
intermediate outcomes. The resulting improvements in operational efficiency, risks
reduced/eliminated, and conditions of environmental and human health are reported as outcomes.
By using common categories of performance measures, quantitative results can be summed and
reported. Each outcome is also qualitatively described, supported, and linked to an OIG product
or output. The OIG can only control its outputs, and has no authority, beyond its influence, to
implement its recommendations that lead to environmental and management outcomes.
QA/QC Procedures: All performance data submitted to the database require at least one
verifiable source assuring data accuracy and reliability. Data quality assurance and control are
performed as an extension of OIG products and services, subject to rigorous compliance with the
Government Auditing Standards of the Comptroller General1, and regularly reviewed by OIG
management, an independent OIG Management Assessment Review Team, and external
independent peer reviews.
Data Quality Reviews: There have not been any previous audit findings or reports by external
groups on data or database weaknesses in the OIG Performance Measurement and Results
System. All data reported are audited internally for accuracy and consistency.
Data Limitations: All OIG staff are responsible for data accuracy in their products and
services. However, there is a possibility of incomplete, miscoded, or missing data in the system
due to human error or time lags. Data supporting achievement of results are often from indirect
or external sources, with their own methods or standards for data verification/validation.
1 Government Auditing Standards (2003 Revision), General Accounting Office,
GAO-03-673G, June 2003
PPA-329
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Error Estimate: The error rate for outputs is estimated at +/-2%, while the error rate for
reported long-term outcomes is presumably greater because of the longer period needed for
tracking results. Errors tend to be those of omission.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OIG developed the Performance Measurement and
Results System as a prototype in FY 2001 and anticipates replacing it in FY 2005 with a more
sophisticated system designed to integrate data collection and analysis. We also expect the
quality of the data to improve as staff gain greater familiarity with the system and measures. This
system is a best practice in government for linking an array of measures from outputs to eventual
results and impacts. With enhanced linkages to customer satisfaction results and resource
investments, it will provide a full-balanced scorecard with return on investment information for
accountability and decision making.
References: All OIG non-restricted performance results are referenced in the OIG Performance
Measurement and Results System with supporting documentation available either through the
OIG Web Site or other Agency databases. The OIG Web Site is www.epa.gov/oig.2
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
Agency's audited Financial Statements meet the new accelerated schedule and receive
an unqualified opinion.
Performance Database: Output measure. There is no performance database.
Data Source: OMB acknowledgement of receipt of financial statements; OIG audit report.
QA/QC Procedures: The Agency's financial statements are subject to OCFO management
review and an OIG audit.
Data Quality Review: The annual financial audit opinion, rendered by the OIG, is a gauge of
the accuracy and fair presentation of the financial activity and financial balances of the Agency.
The unqualified opinion is rendered by the OIG.
Data Limitations: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Fiscal Year 2004 EPA Annual Report
FY 2006 Performance Measure:
The number of financial and resource performance metrics where the Agency has
met pre-established Agency or Government-wide performance goals.
2 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Evaluations, and Other Publications, Available on the
Internet at www.epa.gov/oig, last updated July 8, 2004
PPA-330
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Database: Internal tracking using an Excel spreadsheet.
Data Source: The data to track the fourteen key financial and resource performance measures
originate from the following sources: Financial Management Officer certification, Senior
Resource Officer certification, EPAYS payroll system, Integrated Federal Management System
(IFMS) system, and the General Services Administration (GSA). The performance measure
summarizes EPA's performance against pre-established Agency or government-wide
performance goals using these reporting mechanisms.
QA/QC Procedures: Data compiled from Financial Management Officer and Senior Resource
Officer certifications are accepted only by email or as signed certifications. The IFMS and
EPAYS systems are audited annually by independent federal auditors. GSA is also required to
have its financial records audited annually by independent auditors.
Data Quality Review: Data are reviewed periodically throughout the year by management and
appropriate actions are identified when there are necessary corrections. Both the EPAYS payroll
system and the IFMS accounting system are audited annually by the Inspector General. GSA
data are verified annually through their annual audit process.
Data Limitations: Financial data are timely and accurate. Annual audits check for accuracy
and completeness. Certified financial data are as accurate as the certifier's review.
New/Improved Data or Systems: People Plus payroll system will supercede the EPAYS
system in FY 2005.
References: Internal performance tracking using an Excel spreadsheet is posted on the EPA
website at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/govwide/index.htm
PPA-331
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Index - Program Performance and Assessment
Brownfields 1,7,8,26,93,97, 110, 111, Endocrine Disrupters.. 31, 32, 101, 118, 119
112, 150, 275, 276 Environmental Education 1, 24, 32, 33
Civil Enforcement 1, 16, 17, 18,27, 150 Exchange Network 137
Climate Protection Program 68, 69 Human Health Risk Assessment 117
Compliance Incentives 127 Information Security 140, 141, 327, 328
Compliance Monitoring 308 Marine Pollution 218
Criminal Enforcement 1, 18, 19, 20, 21, 150, Science Advisory Board . 170, 175, 267, 268
158, 306 Wetlands 157, 226, 279, 281, 284
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES - ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Goal 1- Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective: Healthier Outdoor Air
EPA cooperates with other Federal, state, Tribal, and local agencies in achieving goals related to
ground level ozone and PM. EPA continues to work closely with the Department of Agriculture
and the Forest Service in developing its burning policy and reviewing practices that can reduce
emissions. EPA, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Army Corps of Engineers
work with state and local agencies to integrate transportation and air quality plans, reduce traffic
congestion, and promote livable communities. EPA continues to work with the Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, in developing its regional haze program and deploying the
IMPROVE visibility monitoring network. The operation and analysis of data produced by the
PM monitoring system is an example of the close coordination of effort between the EPA and
state and Tribal governments.
For pollution assessments and transport, EPA is working with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) on technology transfer using satellite imagery. In FY 2006, EPA
will be working to further distribute NASA satellite products to and NOAA air quality forecast
products to Regions, states, local agencies, and Tribes to provide better understanding of air
quality on a day-to-day basis and to assist with PM forecasting. EPA will also work with NASA
in FY 2005 to develop a better understanding of PM formation using satellite data. EPA works
with the Department of the Army, Department of Defense on advancing emission measurement
technology and with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce for meteorological support for our modeling and monitoring efforts.
To better understand the magnitude, sources, and causes of mobile source pollution, EPA works
with the Departments of Energy (DOE) and Transportation (DOT) to fund research projects. A
program to characterize the exhaust emissions from light-duty gasoline vehicles is being co-
funded by DOE and DOT. Other DOT mobile source projects include TRANSIMS
(TRansportation ANalysis and SEVIulation System) and other transportation modeling projects;
DOE is funding these projects through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. EPA also
works closely with DOE on refinery cost modeling analyses and the development of clean fuel
programs. For mobile sources program outreach, the Agency is participating in a collaborative
effort with DOT's Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration
designed to educate the public about the impacts of transportation choices on traffic congestion,
air quality, and human health. This community-based public education initiative also includes the
Centers for Disease Control. In addition, EPA is working with DOE to identify opportunities in
the Clean Cities program. EPA also works with other Federal agencies such as the U.S. Coast
Guard on air emission issues. Other programs targeted to reduce air toxics from mobile sources
are coordinated with DOT. These partnerships can involve policy assessments and toxic
emission reduction strategies in different regions of the country.
Appendix-1
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
To develop new continuous source monitoring technology for toxic metals emitted from
smokestacks, EPA has partnered with the Department of Defense (DOD). This partnership will
provide a new source monitoring tool that will streamline source monitoring requirements that a
number of DOD incinerators are required to meet and improve the operation of DOD
incinerators with real-time emissions information resulting in reduced releases of air toxics to the
environment. In time, this technology is expected to be available for use at non-DOD facilities.
For the clean fuel programs, EPA works closely with the DOE on refinery cost modeling
analyses. For mobile sources program outreach, the Agency is participating in a collaborative
effort with DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) designed to educate the public about the impacts of transportation choices on traffic
congestion, air quality, and public health. This community-based public education initiative also
includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In addition, EPA works with DOE to identify
opportunities in the Clean Cities program. EPA also works cooperatively with DOE to better
characterize gasoline PM emissions and characterize the contribution of gasoline vehicles and
engine emissions to ambient PM levels.
To reduce air toxic emissions that do not inadvertently increase worker exposures, EPA is
continuing to work closely with the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) to coordinate the development of EPA and OSHA standards. EPA also
works closely with other health agencies such as the CDC, the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health on health risk characterization. To assess atmospheric deposition and characterize
ecological effects, EPA works with the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Agency has worked extensively with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
on the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Study to identify mercury accumulations in
humans. EPA also has worked with DOE on the 'Fate of Mercury' study to characterize
mercury transport and traceability in Lake Superior.
To determine the extent to which agricultural activities contribute to air pollution, EPA will
continue to work closely with the USDA through the joint USD A/EPA AAQTF. The AAQTF is
a workgroup set up by Congress to oversee agricultural air quality-related issues and to develop
cost-effective ways in which the agricultural community can improve air quality. In addition, the
AAQTF coordinates research on agricultural air quality issues to avoid duplication and ensure
data quality and sound interpretation of data.
In developing regional and international air quality programs and projects, EPA works primarily
with the Department of State, the Agency for International Development, and the Department of
Energy as well as with regional organizations. EPA's international air quality management
program will complement EPA's programs on children's health, Trade and the Environment, and
trans-boundary air pollution. In addition, EPA will partner with others worldwide, including
international organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme, the European
Appendix-2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Union, the OECD, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and our colleagues in Canada,
Mexico, Europe, and Japan.
EPA works primarily with the Department of State, the Agency for International Development,
and the Department of Energy in developing international air quality programs and projects, and
in working on regional agreements as well as with regional organizations.
Objective: Healthier Indoor Air
EPA works closely through a variety of mechanisms with a broad range of Federal, state, Tribal,
and local government agencies, industry, non-profit organizations, and individuals, as well as
other nations, to promote more effective approaches to identifying and solving indoor air quality
problems. At the Federal level, EPA works closely with several departments or agencies:
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to develop and conduction programs aimed
at reducing children's exposure to known indoor triggers of asthma, including secondhand
smoke;
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to develop and conduction programs
aimed at reducing children's exposure to known indoor triggers of asthma, including
secondhand smoke;
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on home health and safety
issues, especially those affecting children;
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to identify and mitigate the health
hazards of consumer products designed for indoor use;
Department of Education (DoEd) to encourage construction and operation of schools
with good indoor air quality; and
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to encourage USDA Extension Agents to conduct
local projects designed to reduce risks from indoor air quality
EPA plays a leadership role on the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks to Children, particularly with respect to asthma and school environmental health
issues.
As Co-chair of the interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality (CIAQ), EPA works with the
CPSC, the Department of Energy, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to review EPA draft publications, arrange the
distribution of EPA publications, and coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies with those of
state and local agencies concerned with indoor air issues.
Objective: Protect the Ozone Layer
In an effort to curb the illegal importation of ODSs, an interagency task force was formed
consisting of representatives from EPA, the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, State,
and Commerce, and the Internal Revenue Service. Venting of illegally imported chemicals has
Appendix-3
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
the potential to prevent the United States from meeting the goals of the Montreal Protocol to
restore the ozone layer.
EPA works very closely with the Department of State and other Federal agencies as appropriate
in international negotiations among Parties to the Protocol. EPA works with the Office of the
United States Trade Representative to analyze potential trade implications in stratospheric
protection regulations that affect imports and exports.
EPA is working with USDA and the Department of State to facilitate research and development
of alternatives to methyl bromide. EPA collaborates with these agencies to prepare U.S. requests
for emergency and critical use exemptions of methyl bromide. EPA is providing input to USDA
on rulemakings for methyl bromide-related programs. EPA consults with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) on the potential for domestic methyl bromide needs.
EPA also coordinates closely with FDA to ensure that sufficient supplies of CFCs are available
for the production of life-saving metered-dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and other lung
diseases. This partnership between EPA and FDA combines the critical goals of protecting
public health and limiting damage to the stratospheric ozone layer.
EPA works with the Centers for Disease Control and the National Weather Service to coordinate
the Ultraviolet Radiation (UV) Index and the health messages that accompany index reports.
EPA is a member of the Federal Council on Skin Cancer Prevention, which educates and protects
all Federal employees from the risks of overexposure to UV radiation.
In addition to collecting its own UV data, EPA coordinates with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to
monitor the state of the stratospheric ozone layer. EPA works with NASA on assessing essential
uses and other exemptions for critical shuttle and rocket needs, as well as effects of direct
emissions of high-speed aircraft flying in the stratosphere.
EPA coordinates with the Small Business Administration to ensure that proposed rules are
developed in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Objective: Radiation
In addition to the specific activities described above, EPA continues to work with Federal
agencies including NRC, DOE, and DHS to prevent metals and finished products suspected of
having radioactive contamination from entering the country. EPA also works with the
Department of Transportation on initiatives to promote use of non-nuclear density gauges for
highway paving, and with the DOE and NRC to develop state-of-the-art tracking systems for
radioactive sources in U.S. commerce.
Appendix-4
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Objective: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Voluntary climate protection programs government-wide stimulate the development and use of
renewable energy technologies and energy efficient products that will help reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. The effort is led by EPA and DOE with significant involvement from USD A, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology.
Agencies throughout the government make significant contributions to the climate protection
programs. For example, DOE will pursue actions such as promoting the research, development,
and deployment of advanced technologies (for example, renewable energy sources). The
Treasury Department will administer proposed tax incentives for specific investments that will
reduce emissions. EPA is working with DOE to demonstrate technologies that oxidize
ventilation air methane from coal mines. EPA is broadening its public information transportation
choices campaign as a joint effort with DOT. EPA coordinates with each of the above-
mentioned agencies to ensure that our programs are complementary and in no way duplicative.
This coordination is evident in work recently completed by an interagency task force, including
representatives from the Department of State, EPA, DOE, USDA, DOT, OMB, Department of
Commerce, USGCRP, NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Defense, to prepare the Third
National Communication to the Secretariat as required under the FCCC. The FCCC was ratified
by the United States Senate in 1992. A portion of the Third National Communication describes
policies and measures (such as ENERGY STAR and EPA's Clean Automotive Technology
initiative) undertaken by the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, implementation status of
the policies and measures, and their actual and projected benefits. One result of this interagency
review process has been a refinement of future goals for these policies and measures which were
communicated to the Secretariat of the FCCC in 2002. The "U.S. Climate Action Report 2002:
Third National Communication of the United States of America under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change" is available at:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/usnc3.pdf.
EPA works primarily with the Department of State, the Agency for International Development,
and the Department of Energy as well as with regional organizations in implementing climate-
related programs and projects. In addition, EPA partners with others worldwide, including
international organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme, the United
Nations Development Programme, the International Energy Agency, the OECD, the World
Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and our colleagues in Canada, Mexico, Europe and Japan.
EPA works primarily with the Department of State, the Agency for International Development as
well as local and regional foreign governments in implementing climate-related programs and
projects. In addition, EPA partners with others worldwide, including international organizations
such as the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Development
Programme, the International Energy Agency, the OECD, the World Bank, the Asian
Development Bank, and our colleagues in Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Japan.
Appendix-5
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
As noted, EPA works with the National Park Service in operating CASTNET. DOE will pursue
actions such as promoting the research, development, and deployment of advanced technologies
(for example, renewable energy sources). In the case of fuel cell vehicle technology, EPA is
working closely with DOE as the Administration's FreedomCAR initiative develops, taking the
lead on emissions-related issues.
The President's call for a greatly expanded and coordinated interagency PM research effort led to
the creation, in 1999, of the Particulate Matter Workgroup, which is administered by the Air
Quality Research Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR). This workgroup, co-chaired by EPA and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS), has completed its Strategic Research Plan for Paniculate Matter1 to
guide the coordinated Federal research program over the next 5 to 10 years.
The body of national PM research dealing with atmospheric sciences is coordinated under
NARSTO2. Its membership of more than 65 organizations includes all major Federal, state, and
provincial governments; private industry; and utility sponsors of atmospheric sciences research
in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. NARSTO recently released an assessment of PM atmospheric
science, "Particulate Matter Science for Policy Makers: A NARSTO Assessment,"3 to assist
policy makers as they implement their national air quality standards for PM. It presents the latest
understanding of the PM atmospheric phenomena over North America, and recommends
additional work to fill identified gaps.
EPA's Air Toxics Research Program is coordinated as needed with other Federal agencies, such
as the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National
Toxicology Program (as a source of toxicity testing data). The Health Effects Institute conducts
complementary research related to air toxics that is coordinated with EPA activities. In
addition, EPA conducts research on advanced source measurement approaches jointly with the
Department of Defense through the Strategic Environmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP).
Goal 2- Clean and Safe Water
Objective: Protect Human Health
The 1996 SDWA amendments include a provision that mandates joint EPA/Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) study of waterborne diseases and occurrence studies in public water supplies.
1 Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Air Quality Research Subcommittee (2002). Strategic Research Plan for
Particulate Matter. . Accessed 2004 Feb 3.
2 Formerly an acronym for "North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone," the term NARSTO is now simply a
wordmark signifying a public-private partnership across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico for dealing with multiple features of
tropospheric pollution, including ozone and suspended particulate matter.
3 NARSTO (2003). Particulate Matter Science for Policy Makers: A NARSTO Assessment, www.cgenv.
com/narsto. Accessed 2004 Feb 3.
Appendix-6
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
As noted, EPA works with the National Park Service in operating CASTNET. DOE will pursue
actions such as promoting the research, development, and deployment of advanced technologies
(for example, renewable energy sources). In the case of fuel cell vehicle technology, EPA is
working closely with DOE as the Administration's FreedomCAR initiative develops, taking the
lead on emissions-related issues.
The President's call for a greatly expanded and coordinated interagency PM research effort led to
the creation, in 1999, of the Particulate Matter Workgroup, which is administered by the Air
Quality Research Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR). This workgroup, co-chaired by EPA and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS), has completed its Strategic Research Plan for Paniculate Matter1 to
guide the coordinated Federal research program over the next 5 to 10 years.
The body of national PM research dealing with atmospheric sciences is coordinated under
NARSTO2. Its membership of more than 65 organizations includes all major Federal, state, and
provincial governments; private industry; and utility sponsors of atmospheric sciences research
in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. NARSTO recently released an assessment of PM atmospheric
science, "Particulate Matter Science for Policy Makers: A NARSTO Assessment,"3 to assist
policy makers as they implement their national air quality standards for PM. It presents the latest
understanding of the PM atmospheric phenomena over North America, and recommends
additional work to fill identified gaps.
EPA's Air Toxics Research Program is coordinated as needed with other Federal agencies, such
as the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National
Toxicology Program (as a source of toxicity testing data). The Health Effects Institute conducts
complementary research related to air toxics that is coordinated with EPA activities. In
addition, EPA conducts research on advanced source measurement approaches jointly with the
Department of Defense through the Strategic Environmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP).
Goal 2- Clean and Safe Water
Objective: Protect Human Health
The 1996 SDWA amendments include a provision that mandates joint EPA/Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) study of waterborne diseases and occurrence studies in public water supplies.
1 Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Air Quality Research Subcommittee (2002). Strategic Research Plan for
Particulate Matter. . Accessed 2004 Feb 3.
2 Formerly an acronym for "North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone," the term NARSTO is now simply a
wordmark signifying a public-private partnership across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico for dealing with multiple features of
tropospheric pollution, including ozone and suspended particulate matter.
3 NARSTO (2003). Particulate Matter Science for Policy Makers: A NARSTO Assessment, www.cgenv.
com/narsto. Accessed 2004 Feb 3.
Appendix-6
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
CDC is involved in assisting EPA in training health care providers (doctors, nurses, public health
officials, etc.) on public health issues related to drinking water contamination and there is close
CDC/EPA coordination on research on microbial contaminants in drinking water. EPA has in
place a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the
CDC in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to implement this provision.
In implementing its source water assessment and protection efforts, the Agency coordinates
many of its activities with other Federal agencies. There are three major areas of relationships
with other agencies concerning source water assessments and protection.
Public Water Systems (PWS)
Some Federal agencies, (i.e., USDA (Forest Service), DOD, Department of Energy, DOT
(National Park Service), and USPS), own and operate public water systems. EPA's coordination
with these agencies focuses primarily on ensuring that they cooperate with the states in which
their systems are located, and that they are accounted for in the states' source water assessment
programs as mandated in the 1996 amendments to the SDWA.
Data Availability, Outreach and Technical Assistance
EPA coordinates with USGS (US Geological Survey), USDA (Forest Service, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),
Rural Utilities Service); DOT, DOD, DOE, DOT (National Park Service and Bureaus of Indian
Affairs, Land Management, and Reclamation); DHHS (Indian Health Service) and the Tennessee
Valley Authority.
Tribal Access Coordination
EPA will continue to work with other federal agencies to develop a coordinated approach to
improving tribal access to safe drinking water. In response to commitments made during the
2002 World Summit in Johannesburg, the EPA committed to the goal of coordinating with other
federal agencies to reduce by half the number of households on tribal lands lacking access to safe
drinking water by 2015. United Nations. 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development: Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August - 4 September, 2002. New York, NY:
United Nations.
Collaboration with USGS
EPA and USGS have identified the need to engage in joint, collaborative field activities, research
and testing, data exchange, and analyses, in areas such as the occurrence of unregulated
contaminants, the environmental relationships affecting contaminant occurrence, evaluation of
currently regulated contaminants, improved protection area delineation methods, laboratory
methods, and test methods evaluation. EPA has an IAG with USGS to accomplish such
activities. This collaborative effort has improved the quality of information to support risk
Appendix-7
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
management decision-making at all levels of government, generated valuable new data, and
eliminated potential redundancies.
Collaboration with Public and Private Partners on Critical Water Infrastructure Protection
EPA coordinates with other federal agencies, especially the newly established Department of
Homeland Security as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and
Drug Administration, and the Department of Defense on biological, chemical, and radiological
contaminants, and how to respond to their presence in drinking water and wastewater systems. A
close linkage with the FBI, particularly with respect to ensuring the effectiveness of the ISAC,
will be continued. The Agency is strengthening its working relationships with the American
Water Works Association Research Foundation, the Water Environment Research Federation
and other research institutions to increase our knowledge on technologies to detect contaminants,
monitoring protocols and techniques, and treatment effectiveness.
Collaboration with FDA
EPA and FDA have issued joint national fish consumption advisories to protect the public from
exposure to mercury in commercially and recreationally caught fish, as well as fish caught for
subsistence. EPA's advisory covers the recreational and subsistence fisheries in fresh waters
where states and tribes have not assessed the waters for the need for an advisory., ibid.
http://map 1 .epa.gov/html/federaladv FDA's advisory covers commercially caught fish, and fish
caught in marine waters.. Ibid, http://map 1.epa.gov/html/federaladv EPA works closely with
FDA to distribute the advisory to the public. In addition, EPA works with FDA to investigate
the need for advisories for other contaminants and to ensure that these federal advisories support
and augment advisories issued by states and tribes.
Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
The BEACH Act requires that all federal agencies with jurisdiction over coastal and Great Lakes
recreation waters adjacent to beaches used by the public implement beach monitoring and public
notification programs. These programs must be consistent with guidance published by EPA .
ibid. "National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants." EPA will
continue to work with the U.S. Park Service and other federal agencies to ensure that their beach
water quality monitoring and notification programs are technically sound and consistent with
program performance criteria published by EPA.
Objective: Protect Water Quality
Watersheds
Protecting and restoring watersheds will depend largely on the direct involvement of many
Federal agencies and state, tribal and local governments who manage the multitude of programs
necessary to address water quality on a watershed basis. Federal agency involvement will
include USDA (Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, Agriculture Research
Appendix-8
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Service), Department of the Interior (Bureau of Land Management, Office of Surface Mining,
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Fish and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs),
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of
Transportation, and the Department of Defense (Navy, Army Corps of Engineers). At the state
level, agencies involved in watershed management typically include departments of natural
resources or the environment, public health agencies, and forestry and recreation agencies.
Locally, numerous agencies are involved, including Regional planning entities such as councils
of governments, as well as local departments of environment, health and recreation who
frequently have strong interests in watershed projects.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES)
Since inception of the NPDES program under Section 402 of the CWA, EPA and the authorized
states have developed expanded relationships with various Federal agencies to implement
pollution controls for point sources. EPA works closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service on consultation for protection of endangered species
through a Memorandum of Agreement. EPA works with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation on National Historic Preservation Act implementation. EPA and the states rely on
monitoring data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to help confirm pollution control
decisions. The Agency also works closely with the Small Business Administration and the
Office of Management and Budget to ensure that regulatory programs are fair and reasonable.
The Agency coordinates with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on
efforts to ensure that NPDES programs support coastal and national estuary efforts; and with the
Department of Interior on mining issues.
Joint Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations
The Agency is working closely with the USDA to implement the Unified National Strategy for
Animal Feeding Operations finalized on March 9, 1999. The Strategy sets forth a framework of
actions that USDA and EPA will take to minimize water quality and public health impacts from
improperly managed animal wastes in a manner designed to preserve and enhance the long-term
sustainability of livestock production. EPA's recent revisions to the CAFO Regulations (effluent
guidelines and NPDES permit regulations) will be a key element of EPA and USDA's plan to
address water pollution from CAFOs. EPA and USDA senior management meet routinely to
ensure effective coordination across the two agencies.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Representatives from EPA's SRF program, Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's)
Community Development Block Grant program, and USDA's Rural Utility Service have signed
a Memorandum of Understanding committing to assisting state or Federal implementers in: (1)
coordination of the funding cycles of the three Federal agencies; (2) consolidation of plans of
action (operating plans, intended use plans, strategic plans, etc.); and (3) preparation of one
environmental review document, when possible, to satisfy the requirements of all participating
Federal agencies. A coordination group at the Federal level has been formed to further these
Appendix-9
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
efforts and maintain lines of communication. In many states, coordination committees have been
established with representatives from the three programs.
In implementation of the Indian set-aside grant program under Title VI of the CWA, EPA works
closely with the Indian Health Service to administer grant funds to the various Indian tribes,
including determination of the priority ranking system for the various wastewater needs in Indian
Country.
In 1998, EPA and the Rural Utilities Service of the USD A formalized a partnership between the
two agencies to provide coordinated financial and technical assistance to tribes.
Construction Grants Program - US Army Corps of Engineers
Throughout the history of the construction grants program under Title II of the CWA, EPA and
the delegated states have made broad use of the construction expertise of the Corps of Engineers
to provide varied assistance in construction oversight and administrative matters. EPA works
with the Corps to provide oversight for construction of the special projects that Congress has
designated. The mechanism for this expertise has been and continues to be an Interagency
Agreement between the two agencies.
Nonpoint Sources
EPA will continue to work closely with its Federal partners to achieve the ambitious strategic
objective of reducing pollutant discharges, including at least 20 percent from 1992 erosion
levels. Most significantly, EPA will continue to work with the USDA, which has a key role in
reducing sediment loadings through its continued implementation of the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and other conservation programs. USDA
also plays a major role in reducing nutrient discharges through these same programs and through
activities related to the AFO Strategy. EPA will also continue to work closely with the Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management, whose programs can contribute significantly to
reduced pollutant loadings of sediment, especially on the vast public lands that comprise 29
percent of all land in the United States. EPA will work with these agencies, USGS, and the
states to document improvements in land management and water quality.
EPA will also work with other Federal agencies to advance a watershed approach to Federal land
and resource management to help ensure that Federal land management agencies serve as a
model for water quality stewardship in the prevention of water pollution and the restoration of
degraded water resources. Implementation of a watershed approach will require coordination
among Federal agencies at a watershed scale and collaboration with states, tribes and other
interested stakeholders.
Vessel Discharges
Regarding vessel discharges, EPA will continue working closely with the Coast Guard on
addressing ballast water discharges domestically, and with the interagency work group and U.S.
delegation to Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) on international controls.
EPA will continue to work closely with the Coast Guard, Alaska and other states, and the
Appendix-10
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
International Council of Cruise Lines regarding regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to
managing wastewater discharges from cruise ships. EPA will also continue to work with the
Coast Guard regarding the vessel sewage discharge standards, and with the Navy on developing
Uniform National Discharge Standards for Armed Forces vessels. Regarding dredged material
management, EPA will continue to work closely with the Corps of Engineers on standards for
permit review, as well as site selection/designation and monitoring.
EPA's environmental mandate and expertise make it uniquely qualified to represent the Nation's
environmental interests aboard. While the Department of State (DOS) is responsible for the
conduct of overall U.S. foreign policy, implementation of particular programs, projects, and
agreements is often the responsibility of other agencies with specific technical expertise and
resources. Relations between EPA and DOS cut across several offices and/or bureaus in both
organizations.
OIA also serves as the primary point-of-contact and liaison with the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID). Specially drawing on expertise from throughout EPA,
OIA administers a number of interagency agreements for environmental assistance.
Finally, EPA works closely with a number of other Federal agencies with environmental, health,
or safety mandates. These include (among others) the Department of Labor, Department of
Transportation, Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of Health and
Human Services, and the Food and Drug Administration.
EPA works with the Department of State, NOAA, Coast Guard, Navy, and other Federal
agencies in developing the technical basis and policy decisions necessary for negotiating global
treaties concerning marine antifouling systems, invasive species, and air pollution from ships.
EPA also works with the same Agencies in addressing land-based sources of marine pollution in
the Gulf of Mexico and Wider Caribbean Basin.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
While EPA is the Federal agency mandated to ensure safe drinking water, other Federal and non-
Federal entities are conducting research that complements EPA's research program on priority
contaminants in drinking water. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) conduct health
effects and exposure research. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also performs research
on children's risks.
Many of these research activities are being conducted in collaboration with EPA scientists. The
private sector, particularly the water treatment industry, is conducting research in such areas as
analytical methods, treatment technologies, and the development and maintenance of water
resources. Cooperative research efforts have been ongoing with the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation and other stakeholders to coordinate drinking water research.
Appendix-11
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA is also working with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to evaluate performance of newly
developed methods for measuring microbes in potential drinking water sources.
While EPA is the Federal agency mandated to ensure safe drinking water, other Federal and non-
Federal entities are conducting research that complements EPA's research program on priority
contaminants in drinking water. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) conduct health
effects and exposure research. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also performs research
on children's risks. Many of these research activities are being conducted in collaboration with
EPA scientists.
The private sector, particularly the water treatment industry, is conducting research in such areas
as analytical methods, treatment technologies, and the development and maintenance of water
resources. Cooperative research efforts have been ongoing with the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation and other stakeholders to coordinate drinking water research.
EPA is also working with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to evaluate performance of newly
developed methods for measuring microbes in potential drinking water sources.
EPA has developed joint research initiatives with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for linking
monitoring data and field study information with available toxicity data and assessment models
for developing sediment criteria.
The issue of eutrophication, hypoxia, and harmful algal blooms (HABs) is a priority with the
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). An interagency research strategy
for pfiesteria and other harmful algal species was developed in 1998, and EPA is continuing to
implement that strategy. EPA is working closely with NOAA on the issue of nutrients and risks
posed by HABs. This CENR is also coordinating the research efforts among Federal agencies to
assess the impacts of nutrients and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
Urban wet weather flow research is being coordinated with other organizations such as the Water
Environment Research Foundation's Wet Weather Advisory Panel, the ASCE Urban Water
Resources Research Council, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). Research on the characterization and management of pollutants
from agricultural operations (e.g., CAFOs) is being coordinated with the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) through workshops and other discussions.
EPA is pursuing collaborative research projects with the USGS to utilize water quality data from
urban areas obtained through the USGS National Ambient Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program, showing levels of pesticides that are even higher than in many agricultural
area streams. These data have potential uses for identifying sources of urban pesticides, and
EPA will evaluate how the USGS data could be integrated into the Geographic Information
System (GIS) database system.
Appendix-12
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 3-Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective: Preserve Land
Pollution prevention activities entail coordination with other Federal departments/agencies, such
as the General Services Administration (use of safer products for indoor painting and cleaning),
the Department of Defense (DOD) (use of safer paving materials for parking lots), and Defense
Logistics Agency (safer solvents). The program also works with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the International Standards Organization, and other groups to
develop standards for Environmental Management Systems.
In addition to business, industry and other non-governmental organizations, EPA will work with
Federal, state, Tribal, and local governments to encourage reduced generation as well as the safe
recycling of wastes. Frequently, successful programs require multiple partners to address the
multi-media nature of effective source reduction and recycling. The Agency has brought together
a range of stakeholders to examine alternatives in specific industrial sectors, and several
regulatory changes have followed which encourage hazardous waste recycling. Partners in this
effort include the Environmental Council of States, the Tribal Association on Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials.
As Federal partners, EPA and the United States Postal Service (USPS) work together on several
municipal solid waste projects. For instance, rather than dispose of returned or unwanted mail,
EPA and the USPS developed and implemented successful recycling procedures and markets.
For example, unwanted mail (advertisements, catalogues, etc.) is being returned to the Post
Office for recycling rather than disposal by the recipient. In addition, Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plans are being implemented at parks in western states because of Regional offices'
assistance to the National Park Service. EPA also works with the Small Business Administration
to provide support to recycling businesses.
The Federal government is the single largest potential source for "green" procurement in the
country for office products as well as products for industrial use. EPA works with other Federal
agencies and departments in advancing the purchase and use of recycled-content and other
"green" products. In particular, the Agency is currently engaged with other organizations within
the Executive Branch to foster compliance with Executive Order 13101 and in tracking and
reporting purchases of products made with recycled contents.
In addition, the Agency is currently engaged with the DOD, Education and DOE, USPS, and
other agencies to foster proper management of surplus electronics equipment, with a preference
for reuse and recycling. With these agencies, and in cooperation with the electronics industry,
EPA participated in developing a draft interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU)
which will lead to increased reuse and recycling of an array of computers and other electronics
hardware used by civilian and military agencies. Implementation of this MOU will divert
substantial quantities of plastic, glass, lead, mercury, silver, and other materials from disposal.
Appendix-13
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Currently, EPA works with USDA and FDA on a variety of issues related to the disposal of
agricultural products (food and/or animals), contaminated with chemical or biological pathogens.
Objective: Restore Land
Superfund Program
The Superfund Remedial program coordinates with many other Federal and state agencies in
accomplishing its mission. Executive Order 12580 delegates certain authorities for
implementing Superfund to other Federal agencies. Many of these agencies perform, in close
consultation and coordination with EPA, the actual cleanup and essential services in areas where
the Agency does not possess the specialized expertise. Currently, EPA has active interagency
agreements with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the
Department of Interior (DOT), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).
These agencies provide numerous Superfund related services such as providing technical support
during hazardous waste site investigations and identifying and evaluating the severity of risks
posed to natural resources from hazardous waste sites; providing scientific support for response
operations in EPA's regional offices; supporting the national response system by providing
emergency preparedness expertise and administrative support to the national response team and
the regional response teams; assisting in the coordination among Federal and state natural
resource trustee agencies; conducting outreach to states, Indian Tribes and Federal natural
resource trustee officials regarding natural resource damage assessments; conducting compliance
assistance visits to review site safety and health plans and developing guidelines for assessing
safety and health at hazardous waste sites; supporting the Superfund program in the management
and coordination of training programs for local officials through the Emergency Management
Institute and the National Fire Academy; and responding to actual or potential releases of
hazardous substances involving the coastal zones, including the Great Lakes and designated
inland river ports; and, litigating and settling cleanup agreements and cost recovery cases.
In addition, the Agency coordinates with the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE), states,
and Tribes in the identification and cleanup of approximately 9,300 FUDS nationwide.
Expectations are that the Agency will play an even greater role at these sites in the future.
USAGE and the Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC) contribute to the cleanup of Superfund sites
by providing technical support for the design and construction of many remediation projects
through site-specific interagency agreements. These Federal partners have the technical design
and construction expertise and contracting capability needed to assist EPA regions in
implementing most of Superfund's high-cost fund-financed remedial action projects. These two
agencies also provide technical on-site support to regions in the enforcement oversight of
numerous construction projects performed by Potentially Responsible Parties.
The Superfund response and Federal Facilities enforcement programs work closely with other
Federal agencies (e.g., DOD, DOE, DOI, etc.) to clean up their facilities under the Superfund
Appendix-14
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
program. EPA also works with states and Indian tribes as key partners in the cleanup decision-
making process at Superfund Federal sites.
The Agency also works in partnership with state and Tribal governments to strengthen their
hazardous waste programs and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation's overall
hazardous waste response capability. EPA assists the states in developing their CERCLA
implementation programs through infrastructure support, financial and technical assistance, and
training. Partnerships with states increase the number of site cleanups, improve the timeliness of
responses, and make land available for economic redevelopment sooner, while allowing for more
direct local involvement in the cleanup process.
EPA partners with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and private industry to
fulfill Superfund program priorities when a site is radioactively contaminated. Under CERCLA,
radioactively contaminated sites are addressed in a manner consistent with how chemically
contaminated sites are addressed, accounting for the technical differences. The radiation
program provides radiological scientific and technical expertise and leadership in evaluating
projects and providing field and laboratory support.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Agency maintains a close relationship with the state agencies that are authorized to
implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action program.
EPA expects states to achieve the same level of Federal standards as the Agency, including
annual performance goals of human exposures and groundwater releases controlled. As part of
the state grant process, Regional offices negotiate with the states their progress in meeting the
corrective action environmental indicator goals.
Encouraging states to become authorized for the RCRA Corrective Action program remains a
priority. Currently, thirty-nine states and territories have the authority to implement the program.
EPA expects two additional states to gain authorization in the next year. EPA also encourages
states to use alternate (non-RCRA) authorities to accomplish the goals of the Corrective Action
program. These include state Superfund and voluntary programs.
The RCRA Corrective Action program also coordinates closely with other Federal agencies,
primarily the DOD and DOE, which have many sites in the corrective action universe.
Encouraging Federal facilities to meet environmental indicators remains a top priority.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
EPA, with very few exceptions, does not perform the cleanup of leaking underground storage
tanks (LUST). States and territories use the LUST Trust Fund to administer their corrective
action programs, oversee cleanups by responsible parties, undertake necessary enforcement
actions, and pay for cleanups in cases where a responsible party cannot be found or is unwilling
or unable to pay for a cleanup. More than 40 states have their own cleanup funds to pay for the
majority of owners' and operators' cleanup costs. The vast majority of LUST cleanups are paid
Appendix-15
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
for by state LUST cleanup funds and not by private parties; state funds are separate from the
Federal LUST Trust Fund.
EPA, with very few exceptions, does not perform the cleanup of leaking underground storage
tanks (LUST). States and territories use the LUST Trust Fund to administer their corrective
action programs, oversee cleanups by responsible parties, undertake necessary enforcement
actions, and pay for cleanups in cases where a responsible party cannot be found or is unwilling
or unable to pay for a cleanup. Most states have cleanup funds that cover the majority of owners
and operators' cleanup costs. These state funds are separate from the LUST Trust Fund.
State LUST programs are key to achieving the objectives and long-term strategic goals. Except
in Indian Country, EPA relies on state agencies to implement the LUST program, including
overseeing cleanups by responsible parties and responding to emergency LUST releases. LUST
cooperative agreements awarded by EPA are directly given to the states to assist them in
implementing their oversight and programmatic role.
Emergency Preparedness and Response
EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks that accidental and intentional releases of harmful
substances and oil pose to human health and the environment. This requires continuous
coordination with many Federal, state and local agencies. As the Federal on-scene coordinator
(OSC) in the inland zone, EPA evaluates and responds to thousands of releases annually as part
of the National Response Plan (NRP). The NRP is a multi-agency preparedness and response
mechanism that includes the following key components: the National Response Center (NRC);
the National Response Team (NRT), composed of 16 Federal agencies; 13 Regional Response
Teams (RRTs); and Federal OSCs. These organizations work with state and local officials to
develop and maintain contingency plans that will enable the Nation to respond effectively to
hazardous substance and oil emergencies.
EPA chairs the multi-agency National Response Team (NRT), and co-chairs Regional Response
Teams (RRTs). In addition, the Agency plays a leadership role in crisis management, which
requires participation on a number of interagency committees and workgroups. Building on
current efforts to enhance national emergency response management, EPA and its role on the
NRT will continue implementation of the new National Incident Management System (NIMS)
and National Response Plan (NRP).
The NRP, under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), provides for the
delivery of Federal assistance to states to help them deal with the consequences of terrorist
events as well as natural and other significant disasters. EPA has the lead responsibility for the
plan's Emergency Support Function covering hazardous materials and inland petroleum releases.
Accordingly, EPA participates in the Federal Emergency Support Function Leaders Group which
addresses NRP planning and implementation at the operational level. Through this interagency
organization, Federal agencies handle issue formulation and resolution, review after-action
reports, and evaluate the need for changes to NRP planning and implementation strategies. They
Appendix-16
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
also participate in NRP exercises, training and post event evaluation actions, coordinating these
activities closely with the NRT.
EPA coordinates its preparedness activities with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), other Federal agencies, and state and local governments. EPA will also continue to clarify
its roles and responsibilities to ensure that Agency security programs are consistent with the
national homeland security strategy.
EPA provides staff support to the Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) during national
disasters and emergencies, response to terrorist incidents and other responses under the NRP.
EPA will also continue to develop and participate in training courses on emergency support
function responsibilities, deliver presentations on the NRP to national forums and participate in
nationwide exercises to test and improve the Federal government's preparedness and response
system and its capabilities.
Under the Oil Spill program, EPA works with other Federal agencies such as the United States
Fish & Wildlife Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, United
States Coast Guard (USCG), FEMA, Department of the Interior, Department of Transportation,
Department of Energy, and other Federal agencies and states, as well as with local government
authorities to develop Area Contingency Plans. The Department of Justice also provides
assistance to agencies with judicial referrals when enforcement of violations becomes necessary.
EPA and the USCG work in coordination with other Federal authorities to implement the
National Preparedness for Response program.
USAGE and the Bureau of Reclamation contribute to the cleanup of Superfund sites by
providing technical support for the design and construction of many remediation projects through
site-specific interagency agreements. These Federal partners have the technical design and
construction expertise and contracting capability needed to assist EPA regions in implementing
most of Superfund's high-cost Fund-financed remedial action projects. These two agencies also
provide technical on-site support to regions in the enforcement oversight of numerous
construction projects performed by PRPs.
The Superfund response and Federal Facilities enforcement programs work closely with other
Federal agencies (e.g., DOD, DOE, DOI, etc.) to clean up their facilities under the Superfund
program. EPA also works with states and Indian tribes as key partners in the cleanup decision-
making process at Superfund Federal sites.
EPA expends substantial effort coordinating with other agencies, including work with the
Department of Defense (DOD) in its Strategic Environmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP) and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, the
Department of Energy (DOE), and the Office of Health and Environmental Research. EPA also
conducts collaborative field demonstrations (e.g., through the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) program) and laboratory research with DOD, DOE, the Department of Interior
(particularly the U.S. Geological Survey - USGS), and the National Aeronautics and Space
Appendix-17
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Administration (NASA) to improve characterization and risk management options for dealing
with subsurface contamination.
Other research efforts involving coordination include the unique controlled-spill field research
facility that was designed in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Geophysical
reserch experiments and development of software for subsurface characterization and detection
of contaminants are being conducted with the USGS and DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. The USGS also has a number of programs, such as the Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program, that support studies related to contamination of surface water and groundwater by
hazardous materials.
The Agency is also working with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS), which manages a large basic research program focusing on Superfund issues, to
advance fundamental Superfund research. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) also provides critical health-based information to assist EPA in making
effective cleanup decisions. EPA works with these agencies on collaborative projects,
information exchange, and identification of research issues. Additionally, the Interstate
Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) has proven an effective forum for coordinating Federal
and state activities and for defining continuing research needs through its teams on topics
including contaminated sediments, permeable reactive barriers, radionuclides, and Brownfields.
EPA developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)4 with several other agencies (DOE,
DOD, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of the Interior - USGS, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of Agriculture) for multimedia
modeling research and development.
Goal 4-Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective: Chemical, Organism and Pesticide Risks
Coordination with State lead agencies and with the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
provides added impetus to the implementation of the Certification and Training program. States
also provide essential activities in developing and implementing the Endangered Species and
Worker Protection programs. States are involved in numerous special projects and
investigations, including emergency response efforts. The Regions provide technical guidance
and assistance to the States and Tribes in the implementation of all pesticide program activities.
EPA uses a range of outreach and coordination approaches for pesticide users, agencies
implementing various pesticide programs and projects, and the general public. Outreach and
coordination activities are essential to effective implementation of regulatory decisions,
protection of workers and endangered species, training of pesticide applicators, promotion of
integrated pest management and environmental stewardship, and support for compliance through
EPA's regional programs and those of the States and Tribes.
4 Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Models MOU, http://www.iscmem.org/Memorandum.htm
Appendix-18
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Administration (NASA) to improve characterization and risk management options for dealing
with subsurface contamination.
Other research efforts involving coordination include the unique controlled-spill field research
facility that was designed in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Geophysical
reserch experiments and development of software for subsurface characterization and detection
of contaminants are being conducted with the USGS and DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. The USGS also has a number of programs, such as the Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program, that support studies related to contamination of surface water and groundwater by
hazardous materials.
The Agency is also working with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS), which manages a large basic research program focusing on Superfund issues, to
advance fundamental Superfund research. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) also provides critical health-based information to assist EPA in making
effective cleanup decisions. EPA works with these agencies on collaborative projects,
information exchange, and identification of research issues. Additionally, the Interstate
Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) has proven an effective forum for coordinating Federal
and state activities and for defining continuing research needs through its teams on topics
including contaminated sediments, permeable reactive barriers, radionuclides, and Brownfields.
EPA developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)4 with several other agencies (DOE,
DOD, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of the Interior - USGS, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of Agriculture) for multimedia
modeling research and development.
Goal 4-Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective: Chemical, Organism and Pesticide Risks
Coordination with State lead agencies and with the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
provides added impetus to the implementation of the Certification and Training program. States
also provide essential activities in developing and implementing the Endangered Species and
Worker Protection programs. States are involved in numerous special projects and
investigations, including emergency response efforts. The Regions provide technical guidance
and assistance to the States and Tribes in the implementation of all pesticide program activities.
EPA uses a range of outreach and coordination approaches for pesticide users, agencies
implementing various pesticide programs and projects, and the general public. Outreach and
coordination activities are essential to effective implementation of regulatory decisions,
protection of workers and endangered species, training of pesticide applicators, promotion of
integrated pest management and environmental stewardship, and support for compliance through
EPA's regional programs and those of the States and Tribes.
4 Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Models MOU, http://www.iscmem.org/Memorandum.htm
Appendix-18
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In addition to the training that EPA provides to farm workers and restricted use pesticide
applicators, EPA works with the State Cooperative Extension Services designing and providing
specialized training for various groups. Such training includes instructing private applicators on
the proper use of personal protective equipment and application equipment calibration, handling
spill and injury situations, farm family safety, preventing pesticide spray drift, and pesticide and
container disposal. Other specialized training is provided to public works employees on grounds
maintenance, to pesticide control operators on proper insect identification, and on weed control
for agribusiness.
EPA coordinates with and uses information from a variety of Federal, State and international
organizations and agencies in our efforts to protect the safety of America's health and
environment from hazardous or higher risk pesticides. In May 1991, the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) implemented the Pesticide Data Program (PDF) to collect
objective and statistically reliable data on pesticide residues on food commodities. This action
was in response to public concern about the effects of pesticides on human health and
environmental quality. EPA uses PDF data to improve dietary risk assessment to support the
registration of pesticides for minor crop uses.
PDF is critical to implementing the Food Quality Protection Act. The system provides improved
data collection of pesticide residues, standardized analytical and reporting methods, and
sampling of foods most likely consumed by infants and children. PDF sampling, residue, testing
and data reporting are coordinated by the Agricultural Marketing Service using cooperative
agreements with ten participating States representing all regions of the country. PDF serves as a
showcase for Federal-State cooperation on pesticide and food safety issues.
FQPA requires EPA to consult with other government agencies on major decisions. EPA,
USDA and FDA work closely together using both a Memoranda of Understanding and working
committees to deal with a variety of issues that affect the involved agencies' missions. For
example, these agencies work together on residue testing programs and on enforcement actions
that involve pesticide residues on food, and we coordinate our review of antimicrobial pesticides.
The Agency coordinates with USDA/ARS in promotion and communication of resistance
management strategies. Additionally, we participate actively in the Federal Interagency
Committee on Invasive Animals and Pathogens (ITAP) which includes members from USDA,
USDOL, DOD, DHS and CDC to coordinate planning and technical advice among Federal
entities involved in invasive species research, control and management.
While EPA is responsible for making registration and tolerance decisions, the Agency relies on
others to carry out some of the enforcement activities. Registration-related requirements under
FIFRA are enforced by the States. The Department of Health and Human Services/Food and
Drug Administration enforces tolerances for most foods and the United States Department of
Agriculture/Food Safety and Inspection Service enforces tolerances for meat, poultry and some
egg products.
Internationally, the Agency collaborates with the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety
(IFCS), the CODEX Alimentarius Commission, the North American Commission on
Appendix-19
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Environmental Cooperation (NACEC), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Commission.
These activities serve to coordinate policies, harmonize guidelines, share information, correct
deficiencies, build other nations' capacity to reduce risk, develop strategies to deal with
potentially harmful pesticides and develop greater confidence in the safety of the food supply.
One of the Agency's most valuable partners on pesticide issues is the Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee (PPDC), which brings together a broad cross-section of knowledgeable
individuals from organizations representing divergent views to discuss pesticide regulatory,
policy and implementation issues. The PPDC consists of members from industry/trade
associations, pesticide user and commodity groups, consumer and environmental/public interest
groups and others.
The PPDC provides a structured environment for meaningful information exchanges and
consensus building discussions, keeping the public involved in decisions that affect them.
Dialogue with outside groups is essential if the Agency is to remain responsive to the needs of
the affected public, growers and industry organizations.
EPA relies on data from HHS to help assess the risk of pesticides to children. Other
collaborative efforts that go beyond our reliance on the data they collect include developing and
validating methods to analyze domestic and imported food samples for organophosphates,
carcinogens, neurotoxins and other chemicals of concern. These joint efforts protect Americans
from unhealthful pesticide residue levels.
EPA's chemical testing data provides information for the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA) worker protection programs, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) for research, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
for informing consumers about products through labeling. EPA frequently consults with these
Agencies on project design, progress and the results of chemical testing projects.
The Agency works with a full range of stakeholders on homeland security issues: USD A, CDC,
other federal agencies, industry and the scientific community. Review of the agents that may be
effective against anthrax has involved GSA, State Department, UAMRIID, FDA, EOS A, USPS,
and others, and this effort will build on this network.
The Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGL) program is a collaborative effort that includes ten
Federal agencies (EPA, DHS, DOE, DOD, DOT, NIOSH, OSHA, CDC, ATSDR, and FDA),
numerous State agencies, private industry, academia, emergency medical associations, unions,
and other organizations in the private sector. The program also has been supported
internationally by the OECD and includes active participation by the Netherlands, Germany and
France.
The success of EPA's lead program is due in part to effective coordination with other Federal
agencies, States and Indian Tribes through the President's Task Force on Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks to Children. EPA will continue to coordinate with HUD to clarify how
Appendix-20
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
new rules may affect existing EPA and HUD regulatory programs, and with the Federal
Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) of the Department of Labor on worker protection issues. EPA
will continue to work closely with State and Federally recognized Tribes to ensure that
authorized State and Tribal programs continue to comply with requirements established under
TSCA, that the ongoing Federal accreditation certification and training program for lead
professionals is administered effectively, and that the States and Tribes adopt the Renovation and
Remodeling and the Buildings and Structures Rules when these rules become effective.
EPA has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with HUD on coordination of efforts on lead-
based paint issues. As a result of the MOU, EPA and HUD have co-chaired the President's Task
Force since 1997. There are 14 other Federal agencies including CDC and the Department of
Defense (DOD) on the Task Force. HUD and EPA also maintain the National Lead Information
Center and share enforcement of the Disclosure Rule.
Mitigation of existing risk is a common interest for other Federal agencies addressing issues of
asbestos and PCBs. EPA will continue to coordinate interagency strategies for assessing and
managing potential risks from asbestos and other fibers. Coordination on safe PCB disposal is
an area of ongoing emphasis with the Department of Defense (DOD), and particularly with the
U.S. Navy, which has special concerns regarding PCBs encountered during ship scrapping.
PCBs and mercury storage and safe disposal are also important issues requiring coordination
with the Department of Energy and DOD as they develop alternatives and explore better
technologies for storing and disposing high risk chemicals.
To effectively participate in the international agreements on POPs, heavy metals and PIC
substances, EPA must continue to coordinate with other Federal agencies and external
stakeholders, such as Congressional staff, industry, and environmental groups. For example,
EPA has an interest in ensuring that the listing of chemicals, including the application of criteria
and processes for evaluating future chemicals for possible international controls, is based on
sound science. Similarly, the Agency typically coordinates with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), FDA's National Toxicology Program, the Centers for Disease
Control/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR), the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and/or the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) on matters relating to OECD test guideline harmonization.
EPA's objective is to promote improved health and environmental protection, both domestically
and worldwide. The success of this objective is dependent on successful coordination not only
with other countries, but also with various international organizations such as the
Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), the North American Commission on
Environmental Cooperation (NACEC), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the CODEX
Alimentarius Commission. The North American Free Trade Agreement and cooperation with
Canada and Mexico play an integral part in the harmonization of data requirements.
Appendix-21
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA's objective is to promote improved health and environmental protection, both domestically
and worldwide. The success of this objective is dependent on successful coordination not only
with other countries, but with various international organizations such as the Intergovernmental
Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), the North American Commission on Environmental
Cooperation (NACEC), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD).
EPA is a leader in global discussions on mercury through the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP). EPA was instrumental in the launch of UNEP's Global Mercury Program,
and we will continue to work with developing countries and with other developed countries in
the context of that program. In addition, we have developed a strong network of domestic
partners interested in working on this issue, including the Department of Energy and the United
States Geological Survey.
EPA has developed cooperative efforts on POPs with key international organizations and bodies,
such as the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, the United Nations Environment
Program, the Arctic Council, and the World Bank. EPA is partnering with domestic and
international industry groups and foreign governments to develop successful programs.
Objective: Communities
The Governments of Mexico and the United States agreed, in November 1993, to assist
communities on both sides of the border in coordinating and carrying out environmental
infrastructure projects. The agreement between Mexico and the United States furthers the goals
of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation. To this purpose, the governments established two international
institutions, the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North
American Development Bank (NADBank), which manages the Border Environmental
Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), to support the financing and construction of much need
environmental infrastructure.
The BECC, with headquarters in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, assists local communities
and other sponsors in developing and implementing environmental infrastructure projects. The
BECC also certifies projects as eligible for NADBank financing. The NADBank, with
headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, is capitalized in equal shares by the United States and
Mexico. NADBank provides new financing to supplement existing sources of funds and foster
the expanded participation of private capital.
A significant number of residents along the U.S.-Mexico border area are without basic services
such as potable water and wastewater treatment and the problem has become progressively
worse in the last few decades. Over the last several years, EPA has continued to work with the
U.S. and Mexican Sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission to further
efforts to improve water and wastewater services to communities within 100 km of the U.S.-
Mexico border. Recently, EPA has been involved in efforts to plan, design and construct more
than 10 water and wastewater facilities in the border region.
Appendix-22
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA's environmental mandate and expertise make it uniquely qualified to represent the nation's
environmental interests abroad. While the Department of State (DOS) is responsible for the
conduct of overall U.S. foreign policy, implementation of particular programs, projects, and
agreements is often the responsibility of other agencies with specific technical expertise and
resources. Relations between EPA and DOS cut across several offices and/or bureaus in both
organizations.
EPA works extensively with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), as well as the
USTR-chaired interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) system, to ensure that U.S.
trade and environmental polices are mutually supportive. (The TPSC system consists of various
interagency workgroups that develop trade policy for political level review and decision.) For
example, through the Agency's participation in the negotiation of both regional and bilateral
trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements, EPA works with USTR to
ensure that U.S. obligations under international trade agreements do not hamper the ability of
Federal and state governments to maintain high levels of domestic environmental protection.
The two agencies also work together to ensure that new obligations are consistent with U.S. law
and EPA's rules, regulations, and programs. In addition to the work with USTR, EPA also
cooperates with many other Federal agencies in the development and execution of U.S. trade
policy, and in performing environmental reviews of trade agreements, developing and
implementing environmental cooperation agreements associated with each new FTA, and
developing and implementing the associated environmental capacity building projects. EPA
works most closely with the Department of State, USAID and USTR in the capacity building
area. Finally, the Agency also serves as the co-lead (with USTR) of the Trade and Environment
Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC), a formally-constituted advisory body made up of
respected experts from industry, NGOs and academia.
The Governments of Mexico and the United States agreed, in November 1993, to assist
communities on both sides of the border in coordinating and carrying out environmental
infrastructure projects. The agreement between Mexico and the United States furthers the goals
of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation. To this purpose, the governments established two international
institutions, the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North
American Development Bank (NADBank), which manages the Border Environmental
Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), to support the financing and construction of much need
environmental infrastructure.
The BECC, with headquarters in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, assists local communities
and other sponsors in developing and implementing environmental infrastructure projects. The
BECC also certifies projects as eligible for NADBank financing. The NADBank, with
headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, is capitalized in equal shares by the United States and
Mexico. NADBank provides new financing to supplement existing sources of funds and foster
the expanded participation of private capital.
Appendix-23
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
A significant number of residents along the U.S.-Mexico border area are without basic services
such as potable water and wastewater treatment and the problem has become progressively
worse in the last few decades. Over the last several years, EPA has continued to work with the
U.S. and Mexican Sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission to further
efforts to improve water and wastewater services to communities within 100 km of the U.S.-
Mexico border.
Objective: Ecosystems
National Estuary Program
Effectively implementing successful comprehensive management plans for the estuaries in the
NEP depends on the cooperation, involvement, and commitment of Federal and state agency
partners that have some role in protecting and/or managing those estuaries. Common Federal
partners include NOAA, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Army Corps
of Engineers, and USDA. Other partners include State and local government agencies,
universities, industry, non-governmental organizations (NGO)s, and members of the public.
Wetlands
Federal agencies share the goal of increasing wetlands functions and values, and implementing a
fair and flexible approach to wetlands regulations. In addition, EPA has committed to working
with ACOE to ensure that the Clean Water Act Section 404 program is more open, consistent,
predictable, and based on sound science.
Coastal America
In efforts to better leverage our collaborative authorities to address coastal communities'
environmental issues (e.g., coastal habitat losses, nonpoint source pollution, endangered species,
invasive species, etc.), EPA, by memorandum of agreement in 2002 Multi-agency signatories.
November 2002. Coastal America 2002 Memorandum of Understanding. Available online at
http://www.coastalamerica.gov/text/mou02.htm
Great Lakes
Pursuant to the mandate in Section 118 of the Clean Water Act to "coordinate action of the
Agency with the actions of other Federal agencies and state and local authorities..." Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) is engaged in extensive coordination efforts with state,
Tribal, and other Federal agencies, as well as with our counterparts in Canada. EPA and its
local, state, tribal and federal partners are coordinating restoration of the Great Lakes pursuant to
a Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. EPA previously joined with states, Tribes, and Federal
agencies that have stewardship responsibilities for the Lakes in developing the new Great Lakes
Strategy. In addition to the eight Great Lakes States and interested Tribes, partners include the
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Coast Guard, the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
U.S. Office of Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Appendix-24
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
(NOAA), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The Strategy joins
environmental protection agencies with natural resource agencies in pursuit of common goals.
These organizations meet semi-annually as the Great Lakes U.S. Policy Committee to
strategically plan and prioritize environmental actions. GLNPO monitoring involves extensive
coordination among these partners, both in terms of implementing the monitoring program, and
in utilizing results from the monitoring to manage environmental programs. GLNPO's
sediments program works closely with the states and the Corps regarding dredging issues.
Implementation of the Binational Toxics Strategy involves extensive coordination with Great
Lakes States. GLNPO works closely with states, tribes, FWS, and NRCS in addressing habitat
issues in the Great Lakes. EPA also coordinates with these partners regarding development and
implementation of Lakewide Management Plans for each of the Great Lakes and for Remedial
Action Plans for the 31 U.S./binational Areas of Concern.
Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake Bay Program has a Federal Agencies Committee, chaired by EPA, which was
formed in 1984 and has met regularly ever since. There are currently over 20 different Federal
agencies actively involved with the Bay Program through the Federal Agencies Committee. The
Federal agencies have worked together over the past decade to implement the commitments laid
out in the 1994 Agreement of Federal Agencies on Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake
Bay and the 1998 Federal Agencies Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan (FACEUP). The
Federal Agencies Committee has been focusing on how its members can help to achieve the 104
commitments contained in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement adopted by the Chesapeake Bay
Program in June 2000. Through this interagency partnership Federal agencies have contributed
to some major successes, such as the U.S. Forest Service helping to meet the year 2010 goal to
restore 2,010 miles of riparian forest buffers eight years early; the National Park Service leading
the effort to establish over 500 miles of water trails three years early; and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in reaching the Program's fish passage goal of reopening 1,357 miles of
formerly blocked river habitat in 2004. Also in 2004, through the Federal Agencies Committee,
the members sought better coordination of agency budgets and other programs to try to leverage
maximum benefit to the state, private, and federal efforts protect and restore the Bay.
Gulf of Mexico
Key to the continued progress of the Gulf of Mexico Program is a broad multi-organizational
Gulf states-led partnership comprised of regional; business and industry; agriculture; State and
local government; citizens; environmental and fishery interests; and, numerous Federal
departments and agencies. This Gulf partnership is comprised of members of the Gulf
Program's Policy Review Board, subcommittees, and workgroups. Established in 1988, the Gulf
of Mexico Program is designed to assist the Gulf states and stakeholders in developing a
regional, ecosystem-based framework for restoring and protecting the Gulf of Mexico through
coordinated Gulf-wide as well as priority area-specific efforts. The Gulf states strategically
identify the key environmental issues and work at the regional, state, and local level to define,
recommend, and voluntarily implement the supporting solutions. To achieve the Program's
environmental objectives, the partnership must target specific Federal, state, local, and private
Appendix-25
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
programs, processes, and financial authorities in order to leverage the resources needed to
support state and community actions.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
Several Federal agencies sponsor research on variability and susceptibility in risks from exposure
to environmental contaminants. EPA collaborates with a number of the Institutes within the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
For example, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) conducts multi-
disciplinary biomedical research programs, prevention and intervention efforts, and
communication strategies. The NIEHS program includes an effort to study the effects of
chemicals, including pesticides and other toxics, on children. EPA collaborates with NIEHS in
supporting the Centers for Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention, which
study whether and how environmental factors play a role in children's health.
Other coordination and collaborations include the development of a joint research initiative with
the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research and risk assessment for the National
Children's Study.
Research in ecosystems protection is coordinated government-wide through the Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). EPA is an active participant in the CENR, and all
work in this objective is fully consistent and complementary with other Committee member
activities. EPA researchers work within the CENR on the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) and other ecosystems protection research including the restoration
of habitats and species, impacts of landscape change, invasive species and inventory and
monitoring programs.
The Mid-Atlantic Landscape Atlas represents one of the EMAP's first regional-scale ecological
assessments, and was developed in cooperation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the University of Tennessee,
and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Development of
the Networking and Information Technology Research & Development (NITR) Modeling
System is coordinated with the Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Department of Agriculture,
and DOE. Through interagency agreements with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), EPA has
worked to investigate and develop tools for assessing the impact of hydrogeology on riparian
restoration efforts. The collaborative work with the USGS continues to play a vital role in
investigating the impact and fate of atmospheric loadings of nitrogen and nitrogen applications
as part of restoration technologies on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. All of these efforts have
significant implications for risk management in watersheds, total maximum daily load (TMDL)
implementation, and management of non-point source pollutants.
The Agency, through partnerships with private sector companies, non-profits, other Federal
agencies, universities, and states, including California EPA, has worked to identify and control
human exposure to methyl- mercury. EPA has also been working with the Department of
Appendix-26
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey to address risk management issues associated with
mercury emissions from utilities.
EPA's Global Change Research Program is coordinated with the Committee on Climate Change
Science and Technology Integration (CCCSTI). Through its participation in the Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP), the Agency collaborates closely with other CCSP member agencies
(e.g., NOAA, DOE, NASA, and NSF), to ensure appropriate prioritization and efficiency, to
avoid duplication, and to ensure consistently high standards of scientific review for all aspects of
supported studies and analyses.
Because the challenges of the computational toxicology (CT) program are so large, EPA is
working with a number of external partners in CT research. Discussions and collaborative
activities are underway with the following organizations: 1) The Joint Genome Institute
(expertise in genome sequencing and functional genomics); 2) the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory - a leader in the development of metabonomics (DOE); 3) the Sandia National
Laboratories - leader in the field of bioinformatics (DOE); and 4) the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences. Taken together, these collaborations constitute a significant,
critical new partnership between EPA and external entities. These partnerships are designed to
allow EPA to leverage its core intramural research program with the scientific expertise of other
agencies.
The broad nature of the EDCs issue necessitates a coordinated effort on both the national and
international levels. EPA has shown extensive leadership at both levels - chairing the Committee
on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) interagency working group and chairing a
Steering Group on Endocrine Disrupters under the auspices of the International Programme on
Chemical Safety/World Health Organization/Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (IPCS/WHO/OECD). Due to the complex nature of the uncertainties posed by
endocrine disrupting chemicals, the overlapping concerns of Federal agencies, and the resource
constraints on the Federal budget, close coordination and cooperation among Federal agencies
are essential to the resolution of critical research questions. While the CENR provides the
umbrella for this coordination, individual agencies are responsible for the development of their
own independent research plans.
Homeland Security research is conducted in collaboration with numerous agencies, enabling
funding to be leveraged across multiple programs and producing synergistic results. EPA's
National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) works closely with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) to assure that EPA's efforts are directly supportive of DHS priorities.
Utilizing experience gained from the management of ORD's STAR program, EPA is also
working with DHS to provide support and guidance to DHS in the startup of their University
Centers of Excellence program. Recognizing that the Department of Defense has significant
expertise and facilities related to biological and chemical warfare agents, the NHSRC works
closely with the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC), the Technical Support
Working Group, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other Department of Defense organizations.
In conducting biological agent research, the NHSRC is also collaborating with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The NHSRC works with the Department of Energy
Appendix-27
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
(DOE) to access research conducted by DOE's National Laboratories, as well as to obtain data
related to radioactive materials.
In addition to these major collaborations, the NHSRC has relationships with numerous other
Federal agencies, including the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, the Food and Drug Administration,
the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Also, the
NHSRC is working with state and local emergency response personnel to understand better their
needs and build relationships, which will enable the quick deployment of NHSRC products. In
the water infrastructure arena, the NHSRC is providing information to the Water Information
Sharing and Analysis Center (WaterlSAC) operated by the Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies (AMWA).
Goal 5-Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective: Improve Compliance
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program coordinates closely with the Department
of Justice (DOJ) on all enforcement matters. In addition, the program coordinates with other
agencies on specific environmental issues as described herein.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance coordinates with the Chemical Safety and
Accident Investigation Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in preventing and responding to accidental releases
and endangerment situations, with the Bureau of Indian Affairs on tribal issues relative to
compliance with environmental laws on Tribal Lands, and with the Small Business
Administration on the implementation of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA). OECA also shares information with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on
cases which require defendants to pay civil penalties, thereby assisting the IRS in assuring
compliance with tax laws. In addition, it coordinates with the Small Business Administration
and a number of other federal agencies in implementing the Business Compliance One-Stop
Project, an "E-Government" project that is part of the President's Regulatory Management
Agenda. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance also works with a variety of
federal agencies including the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service to organize
a Federal Compliance Assistance Roundtable to address cross cutting compliance assistance
issues. Coordination also occurs with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on wetlands.
Due to changes in the Food Security Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS) has a major role in determining whether areas on
agricultural lands meet the definition of wetlands and are therefore regulated under the Clean
Water Act. Civil Enforcement coordinates with USDA/NRCS on these issues also. The
program coordinates closely with the Department of Agriculture on the implementation of the
Unified National Strategy for Animal Feedlot Operations. EPA's Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program also coordinates with USDA on food safety issues arising from the misuse of
pesticides, and shares joint jurisdiction with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on pesticide
labeling and advertising. Coordination also occurs with Customs on pesticide imports. EPA and
Appendix-28
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
(DOE) to access research conducted by DOE's National Laboratories, as well as to obtain data
related to radioactive materials.
In addition to these major collaborations, the NHSRC has relationships with numerous other
Federal agencies, including the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, the Food and Drug Administration,
the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Also, the
NHSRC is working with state and local emergency response personnel to understand better their
needs and build relationships, which will enable the quick deployment of NHSRC products. In
the water infrastructure arena, the NHSRC is providing information to the Water Information
Sharing and Analysis Center (WaterlSAC) operated by the Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies (AMWA).
Goal 5-Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective: Improve Compliance
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program coordinates closely with the Department
of Justice (DOJ) on all enforcement matters. In addition, the program coordinates with other
agencies on specific environmental issues as described herein.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance coordinates with the Chemical Safety and
Accident Investigation Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in preventing and responding to accidental releases
and endangerment situations, with the Bureau of Indian Affairs on tribal issues relative to
compliance with environmental laws on Tribal Lands, and with the Small Business
Administration on the implementation of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA). OECA also shares information with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on
cases which require defendants to pay civil penalties, thereby assisting the IRS in assuring
compliance with tax laws. In addition, it coordinates with the Small Business Administration
and a number of other federal agencies in implementing the Business Compliance One-Stop
Project, an "E-Government" project that is part of the President's Regulatory Management
Agenda. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance also works with a variety of
federal agencies including the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service to organize
a Federal Compliance Assistance Roundtable to address cross cutting compliance assistance
issues. Coordination also occurs with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on wetlands.
Due to changes in the Food Security Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS) has a major role in determining whether areas on
agricultural lands meet the definition of wetlands and are therefore regulated under the Clean
Water Act. Civil Enforcement coordinates with USDA/NRCS on these issues also. The
program coordinates closely with the Department of Agriculture on the implementation of the
Unified National Strategy for Animal Feedlot Operations. EPA's Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program also coordinates with USDA on food safety issues arising from the misuse of
pesticides, and shares joint jurisdiction with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on pesticide
labeling and advertising. Coordination also occurs with Customs on pesticide imports. EPA and
Appendix-28
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) share jurisdiction over general-purpose disinfectants
used on non-critical surfaces and some dental and medical equipment surfaces (e.g.,
wheelchairs). The Agency has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development concerning lead poisoning.
The Criminal Enforcement program coordinates with other federal law enforcement agencies
(i.e. FBI, Customs, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Treasury, U.S. Coast Guard, DOJ) and with
state and local law enforcement organizations in the investigation and prosecution of
environmental crimes. EPA also actively works with DOJ to establish task forces that bring
together federal, state and local law enforcement organizations to address environmental crimes.
In addition, the National Enforcement Training Institute has an Interagency Agreement with the
Department of Treasury to provide specialized criminal environmental training to federal, state,
local, and tribal law enforcement personnel at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC) in Glynco, GA.
Under Executive Order 12088, EPA is directed to provide technical assistance to other Federal
agencies to help ensure their compliance with all environmental laws. The Federal Facility
Enforcement Program coordinates with other Federal agencies, states, local, and tribal
governments to ensure compliance by federal agencies with all environmental laws.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance collaborates with the states and tribes.
States perform the vast majority of inspections, direct compliance assistance, and enforcement
actions. Most EPA statutes envision a partnership between EPA and the states under which EPA
develops national standards and policies and the states implement the program under authority
delegated by EPA. If a state does not seek approval of a program, EPA must implement that
program in the state. Historically, the level of state approvals has increased as programs mature
and state capacity expands, with many of the key environmental programs approaching approval
in nearly all states. EPA will increase its effort to coordinate with states on training, compliance
assistance, capacity building and enforcement. EPA will continue to enhance the network of
state and tribal compliance assistance providers.
EPA works directly with Canada and Mexico bilaterally and in the trilateral Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC). EPA's border activities require close coordination with the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of
Justice, and the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.
Objective: Build Tribal Capacity
EPA is involved in a broad range of pollution prevention (P2) activities which can yield
reductions in waste generation and energy consumption in both the public and private sectors.
For example, the EPP initiative, which implements Executive Orders 12873 and 13101,
promotes the use of cleaner products by Federal agencies. This is aimed at stimulating demand
for the development of such products by industry.
Appendix-29
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
This effort includes a number of demonstration projects with other Federal Departments and
Agencies, such as the National Park Service (to use Green Purchasing as a tool to achieve the
sustainability goals of the parks), Department of Defense (use of environmentally preferable
construction materials), and Defense Logistics Agency (identification of environmental attributes
for products in its purchasing system). The program is also working within EPA to "green" its
own operations. The program also works with the National Institute for Standards and
Technology to develop a life-cycle based decision support tool for purchasers.
Under the Suppliers' Partnership for the Environment program and its umbrella program, the
GSN, EPA's P2 Program is working closely with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology and its Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program to provide technical
assistance to the process of "greening" industry supply chains. The EPA is also working with
the Department of Energy's Industrial Technologies Program to provide energy audits and
technical assistance to these supply chains.
The Agency is required to review environmental impact statements and other major actions
impacting the environment and public health proposed by all federal agencies, and make
recommendations to the proposing federal agency on how to remedy/mitigate those impacts.
Although EPA is required under ง 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to review and comment on
proposed federal actions, neither the National Environmental Policy Act nor ง 309 CAA require
a federal agency to modify its proposal to accommodate EPA's concerns. EPA does have
authority under these statutes to refer major disagreements with other federal agencies to the
Council on Environmental Quality. Accordingly, many of the beneficial environmental changes
or mitigation that EPA recommends must be negotiated with the other federal agency. The
majority of the actions EPA reviews are proposed by the Forest Service, Department of
Transportation (including Federal Highway Administration and Federal Aviation
Administration), Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Interior (including Bureau of
Land Management, Minerals Management Service and National Park Service), Department of
Energy (including Federal Regulatory Commission), and Department of Defense
EPA and the Department of Interior are coordinating an Interagency Tribal Information Steering
Committee that includes the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Energy, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Geographic Data Committee,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, Department of the Treasury, and Department of
Justice. This Interagency effort is aimed to coordinate the exchange of selected sets of
environmental, resource, and programmatic information pertaining to Indian Country among
Federal agencies in a "dynamic" information management system that is continuously and
automatically updated and refreshed, to be shared equally among partners and other constituents.
Under a two-party interagency agreement, EPA works extensively with the Indian Health
Service to cooperatively address the drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs of
Indian tribes. EPA is developing protocols with the Indian Health Service Sanitation Facilities
Construction Program for integration of databases of the two agencies, within the framework of
the Tribal Enterprise Architecture.
Appendix-30
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA has organized a Tribal Data Working Group under the Federal Geographic Data
Committee, and, along with BIA, is the co-chair of this group. EPA will play a lead role in
establishing common geographic data and metadata standards for Tribal data, and in establishing
protocols for exchange of information among Federal, non-Federal and Tribal cooperating
partners.
EPA is developing protocols with the Bureau of Reclamation, Native American Program, for
integration of databases of the two agencies, within the framework of the Tribal Enterprise
Architecture. EPA is also developing agreements to share information with the Alaska District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
The forensic program works with the state, local and tribal agencies, providing technical
assistance, and on-site investigation and inspection activities in support of the Agency's civil
program. The program also coordinates with the Department of Justice and other federal, state
and local law enforcement organizations in support of criminal investigations.
As part of its pollution prevention research, EPA joined with USD A, DOC, DOD, DOE, NASA,
NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), and NSF on a metabolic
engineering research solicitation. EPA is also coordinating with DOD's Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program (SERDP) in an ongoing partnership, especially in the areas
of pollution prevention research and incorporation of materials lifecycle analysis into the
manufacturing process for weapons and military equipment. The agency has also made contact
with USDA regarding lifecycle analysis of biologically- and genetically-altered products. EPA
and the Army Corps of Engineers will address the costs and benefits associated with new
engineering projects and technologies in order to respond to the economic impacts of
environmental innovation.
EPA co-funds performance evaluation of ballast water treatment technologies and mercury
continuous emission monitors through memoranda of agreement with the Coast Guard and the
State of Massachusetts. The agency also coordinates technology verifications with NOAA
(multiparameter water quality probes); DOE (mercury continuous emission monitors);
DOD (explosives monitors, PCB detectors, dust suppressants); USDA (ambient ammonia
monitors); Alaska and Pennsylvania (arsenic removal); Georgia, Kentucky, and Michigan (storm
water treatment); and Colorado and New York (waste-to-energy technologies).
Appendix-31
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
EPA will develop and issue guidance for executive agencies to use when purchasing goods and
services in response to Executive Order 13101 to show a preference for "environmentally
preferable" products and services.
To achieve its mission, OCFO has undertaken specific coordination efforts with Federal and state
agencies and departments through two separate vehicles: 1) the National Academy of Public
Administration's Consortium on Improving Government Performance; 2) active contributions to
standing interagency management committees, including the Chief Financial Officers Council
and the Federal Financial Managers' Council. These groups are focused on improving resources
management and accountability throughout the Federal government. OCFO also coordinates
appropriately with Congress and other Federal agencies, such as Department of Treasury, Office
of Management of Budget, and the General Accounting Office.
Office of Environmental Information (OEI)
EPA works with its state partners under the State/EPA Information Management Workgroup and
the Network Steering Board. This workgroup has created action teams to jointly develop key
information projects. Action teams consist of EPA, state, and Tribal members. They are
structured to result in consensus solutions to information management issues which affect states,
tribes, and EPA, such as the development and use of environmental data standards, and
implementation of new technologies for collecting and reporting information.
EPA also participates in multiple workgroups with other Federal agencies including the United
States Geological Survey (USGS), Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), and CIO
Council (http://www.cio.gov/). The Agency is actively involved with several agencies in
developing government-wide e-government reforms, and continues to participate with the Office
of Homeland Security and national security agencies on homeland security. These multi-agency
workgroups are designed to ensure consistent implementation of standards and technologies
across Federal agencies in order to support efficient data sharing.
EPA will continue to coordinate with key Federal data sharing partners including the USGS,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as state and local data sharing
partners in public access information initiatives. With respect to community-based
environmental programs, EPA coordinates with state, Tribal, and local agencies, and with
non-governmental organizations, to design and implement specific projects.
The nature and degree of EPA's interaction with other entities varies widely, depending on the
nature of the project and the location(s) in which it is implemented. EPA is working closely with
the FGDC and the USGS to develop and implement the infrastructure for national spatial data.
EPA is coordinating its program with other state and Federal organizations, including the
Appendix-32
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Council for Environmental Quality and the Environmental Council of States, to insure that the
appropriate context is represented for observed environmental and human health conditions.
EPA will continue to coordinate with other Federal agencies on IT infrastructure and security
issues by participating on the Federal CIO Council. For example, EPA (along with the
Department of Labor) recently co-chaired a Federal government committee on security. EPA
will continue to participate on the CIO Council committees on security, capital planning,
workforce development, interoperability, and e-Gov, and will engage with other Federal agencies
in ensuring the infrastructure for homeland security.
EPA is a leader in many areas, such as E-dockets. EPA has a modern well-supported system that
can host other Agencies' docket systems, thereby reducing their costs to develop or deploy such
a system. EPA will also continue to coordinate with state agencies on IT infrastructure and
security issues through state organizations such as the National Association of State Information
Resources Executives. In addition, EPA, along with other Federal agencies, is involved in the
OMB led e-Gov initiatives. As part of this effort, EPA, OMB, the Department of Transportation,
and ten other Federal agencies are examining the expansion of EPA's Regulatory Public Access
System, a consolidated on-line rule-making docket system providing a single point of access for
all Federal rules. EPA is also coordinating efforts with the National Archives and Records
Administration on an e-records initiative. This effort is aimed at establishing uniform procedures,
requirements, and standards for electronic record keeping of Federal e-Gov records.
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
The EPA Inspector General is a member of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency
(PCIE), an organization comprised of Federal Inspectors General (IG). The PCIE coordinates
and improves the way IGs conduct audits and investigations, and completes projects of
government-wide interest. The EPA IG chairs the PCIE's Environmental Consortium, GPRA
Roundtable, and Human Resources Committee. The Consortium, which seeks effective
solutions to cross-cutting environmental issues, currently includes representatives from 19
executive agencies and GAO. The OIG Computer Crimes Unit coordinates activities with other
law enforcement organizations that have computer crimes units such as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Secret Service, and the Department of Justice. In addition, the OIG
participates with various inter-governmental audit forums, professional associations, and other
cross-governmental forums to exchange information, share best practices, and directly
collaborative efforts.
Appendix-33
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
EPA continues to strengthen its management practices to achieve results and maintain public
confidence. In FY 2004, for the third consecutive year, EPA reported no material weaknesses
under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). During the year, the Agency
resolved three of its less severe, internal Agency weaknesses, which are reportable conditions
that merit the attention of the Administrator.
OMB continues to recognize EPA's efforts to maintain effective and efficient management
controls. Since June 2003, the Agency has maintained its "green" status score for Improved
Financial Performance under the President's Management Agenda (PMA). Following are
discussions of the Agency's management challenges and the progress made in addressing them.
Challenges in Addressing the Air Toxics Regulatory Program Goals
Challenge: While EPA has achieved its Phase I goal of issuing technology-based standards, there are
concerns about EPA 's efforts to assess and implement Phase 2, residual risk standards, as well as the
accuracy of air toxics data used in measuring progress.
Agency Response: Since the passage of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, the
Agency has worked to target its Air Toxics Program resources to sources with the greatest
emissions and risks. The Agency completed a key provision of the CAA that addresses major
stationary sources of air toxics by issuing 96 Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards that apply to 174 industrial categories. This effort resulted in annual
reductions of 1.5 million tons of toxic air emissions and will achieve even greater reductions by
2007, when all sources must fully comply. Although the Agency has made great progress, it
must prioritize resources in order to fully implement the remaining CAA requirements and
maximize risk reduction. To date, the Agency has completed 15 area source standards and is
developing standards for an additional 25 area source categories, projected for completion in
2008. Once completed, these 40 standards will address well over 90 percent of the toxicity-
weighted emissions from area sources. EPA recently proposed its first residual risk standard for
coke ovens and is developing rules for seven other industrial categories. EPA will continue to
develop tools for risk screening and assessment and to train states, local agencies, and tribes in
implementing the Residual Risk Program effectively. To track progress and ensure measurable
reductions in air toxics, EPA is improving its air toxics monitoring network and is continuing to
update the toxics inventory and exposure and risk estimates through the National Air Toxics
Assessment every 3 years.
Rather than expending resources now on the last 30 area source categories, which represent only
10 percent of the area source toxi city-weighted emissions, EPA's strategy is first to address o
pportunities for more significant toxic emission reductions. Communities with numerous
sources of air toxics may experience disproportionate risks. Because communities may be able
to reduce some toxic sources more quickly and effectively through local initiatives than through
national regulations, the CAA requires that the Area Source Program include a community
support component. EPA has been providing funding, tools, and training to communities and
Appendix-34
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
tribes to address their unique air toxic issues. EPA has aggressively addressed mobile sources
through reformulated gasoline, engine standards, and other regulatory efforts, as well as through
a voluntary diesel retrofit program. Based on 1990 levels, we expect a 90 percent reduction in
diesel emissions and a 60 percent reduction in other mobile source air toxics by 2020.
EPA has developed and is implementing a comprehensive strategy for achieving toxic risk
reductions and intends to work with its authorization and appropriations committees on these
issues. EPA will also adjust its strategy as necessary to reflect legal constraints and maximize air
toxic risk reductions.
Recent Accomplishments:
Developed the Human Exposure Model as a tool to improve the quality of risk
predictions for major point sources of air toxics.
Developed the Total Risk Integrated Methodology to aid in multi-pathway risk
characterizations.
Revised air toxics performance measures to report reductions in toxicity-weighted
emissions of hazardous air pollutants, more clearly linking program performance to
environmental outcomes.
Plans for Further Improvements:
Develop an innovative approach to assess low-risk facilities quickly and exempt them
from future regulations.
Develop an innovative approach to assess impacts from entire facilities, thus addressing
together several source categories.
Continue to improve the quality and timeliness of air toxic emissions inventories using
the National Emission Inventory to estimate the tons of emissions reduced.
Develop an air toxics monitoring network to supplement the "toxicity-weighted
emissions" measure of risk reduction progress.
Reduce the Backlog of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits1
Challenge: OIG is assessing the environmental impact of the NPDES backlog, how well the backlog
measures reflect environmental impacts of delayed permit reissuance or issuance, and how successful
EPA and states have been in managing the backlog.
Agency Response: The NPDES permit backlog was identified as a material weakness, via the
FMFIA process, in FY 1998 and reduced to an Agency weakness in FY 2002. Based on
November 1998 Permit Compliance System (PCS) data, only 74 percent of expired permits for
major facilities and 52 percent of expired permits for minor facilities had been reissued in a
timely manner. Expired NPDES permits may not reflect the most recent applicable effluent
limitations guidelines, water quality standards, or Total Maximum Daily Loads. Without timely
1 U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Backlog Reduction. Available at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/permitissuance/backlog.cfm.
Appendix-35
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
issuance of high quality permits reflecting changed requirements, necessary improvements in
water quality will be delayed.
EPA has made good progress in reducing the permitting backlog and has accelerated efforts to
complete remaining actions and validate success. At the end of FY 2004, 85 percent of major
facilities had current permits and 87 percent of minor facilities were covered by current permits
(in FY 1998 the percentages were 74 and 52, respectively). Issuing major permits continues to
present challenges due to competing priorities and the increasing complexity of permitting in a
watershed context. The Permitting for Environmental Results initiative, designed to focus on
permits expected to produce the most significant environmental results, is helping to address
these challenges. An increasing number of states are issuing permits on a watershed basis and
incorporating other innovative techniques, such as water quality trading, to address the NPDES
backlog and reduce or eliminate discharges into the Nation's waters. As EPA continues to
implement the revised combined animal feeding operations regulation, and focus on the most
environmentally significant permits, reductions in pollutant loadings are expected to increase.
In FY 2005, the Agency will validate the effectiveness of the backlog reduction strategy through
data analysis, using data systems and new oversight tools to provide quarterly monitoring of
permit status and trends in related aspects of water programs.
Recent Accomplishments:
Developed and began implementing (in 2003) the Permitting for Environmental Results
(PERS) initiative to focus scarce permit writing resources on environmentally significant
permits, improve the quality of national data on permit issuance, and reduce the backlog
of NPDES permits. Over the past 5 years, state and regional efforts to implement EPA's
permit issuance strategy have significantly reduced the permit backlog.
Worked with states to develop permit issuance plans that focus on environmentally
significant permits and ensure that the core NPDES permit program is implemented.
Improved efficiency by developing tools to streamline the NPDES permitting process
(i.e., encouraging states to use general permits and automating the permit writing
process).
Developed and demonstrated an E-NPDES tool to generate higher quality permits and
reduce errors in developing water quality-based effluent limits in permits.
Plans for Further Improvements:
Work with 40 states to modernize the Agency's Permit Compliance System (PCS) to be
more user-friendly and provide states and EPA with better program data.
Continue to conduct NPDES Permit Writers' courses for regions and states to promote
awareness of regulatory requirements.
Develop state profiles that identify the strengths and innovations of each State program
that can be shared with other States, as well as needed program enhancements that will
improve the quality and/or integrity of the State's NPDES program.
Conduct additional data quality assurance reviews to eliminate incorrect and outdated
records from PCS and increase the percentage of permit records with locational data, thus
allowing EPA to better characterize the environmental impact of backlog.
Appendix-36
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Management of Biosolids
Challenge: Although EPA is directing renewed attention to biosolids, the Agency needs to strengthen
the science, and establish strong enforcement to meet the CWA requirements to reduce risks and ensure
biosolids are managed in compliance with all applicable laws and requirements.
Agency Response: OIG is concerned that "biosolids" will pose a potential risk until the Agency
can adequately implement a national biosolids program and obtain the scientific information it
needs to make informed decisions about biosolids. EPA continues to meet its statutory
obligations under the CWA pertaining to biosolids (40 CFR Part 503) as well as maintain an
active presence in biosolids compliance and enforcement activities. To prevent risk to human
health and the environment, the Agency is addressing concerns about the adequacy of the sewage
sludge rule, expanding biosolids-related research, and actively addressing biosolids violations
and proper land-application.
EPA's enforcement and compliance activities are tracked in the Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS) database and include enforcement actions also entered into the CWA
Permit Compliance System (PCS). The ICIS database reports for FY 1995-2003, include over
500 federal enforcement actions taken to address violations of Part 503, sewage sludge
standards. In December 2003, EPA published a Federal Register notice presenting 14 activities
the Agency expects to begin or complete within the next 2-3 years to strengthen the sewage
sludge use and disposal program (see highlights below for examples)
To assist states and regions in their oversight of the biosolids program, the Agency has, either in
place or in development, tools to assist and promote compliance with biosolids regulatory
requirements (e.g., on-line training which includes a segment on conducting sewage sludge
inspection). In the compliance monitoring and compliance assistance areas, a number of
activities are completed or are ongoing to respond to concerns raised by the OIG. The ICIS/PCS
database includes 494 regional and state biosolids inspections for FY 2000 to FY 2003, which
demonstrates a significant inspection presence. A number of states are not covered by the
ICIS/PCS information for biosolids inspections, so the actual number of biosolids inspections is
likely even greater. Part of the PCS Modernization effort is to include data entry from more
states in the system.
Recent Accomplishments:
Produced Clean Water Act / NPDES Computer-Based Inspector Training which includes
a segment on conducting Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) inspections.
As part of the PCS modernization, a separate workgroup (including both states and EPA)
was devoted to defining the data needs of the biosolids program. The roll out of the
modernized PCS, which includes standardized data elements for use by the states, will be
staged over several years, with the initial availability for direct user states and follow-on
availability for indirect user states who will batch load information to the system.
Publication in the Federal Register, at 68 FR 75531, of the 14 - point action plan which
includes: biennial review of the Part 503 Standards for the potential addition of new
Appendix-37
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
pollutants; field studies on the land application of sewage sludge; and development of
improved analytical methods for the quantification of microbial pollutants in sewage
sludge. The other parts of the action plan can be found in the Federal Register.
Plans for Further Improvements:
EPA plans to monitor scientific findings in this area and will re-evaluate its compliance
and enforcement approach as needed.
Superfund Evaluation and Policy Identification
Challenge: OIG believes EPA faces significant challenges in its ability to meet effectively current and
future Superfund needs and must establish a strong working relationship between states and tribes in
order to achieve its environmental goals.
Agency Response: In an April 21, 2004 memorandum on EPA 's Key Management Challenges,
OIG stated that EPA faces significant challenges in managing the Superfund program now and in
the future. EPA acknowledges its fiscal and program management challenges, some of which
are beyond the Agency's control, and is working to address them. The Superfund program is
inherently complicated and complex, dealing with cleanup requirements that have been changing
almost since inception 24 years ago. However, despite the program's complexity and its unique
administrative structure, it has made and continues to make significant progress in cleaning up
Superfund sites and reducing risks to human health and the environment.
Subject to the same budget constraints as are other federal programs, Superfund program for the
past 2 years has been unable to fully fund all of the sites in the queue for construction. Although
the President requested a $150 million budget increase in FY 2004 and 2005 to begin new
construction projects at sites throughout the country the increase was not funded by Congress in
either year. Also, over the past 10 years EPA Superfund appropriation has remained level,
(roughly between $1.1 and $1.4 billion per year) while costs have increased. To promote
program cost-effectiveness, the Agency has initiated several efforts, including prioritizing sites
for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL), reviewing remedy options for sites over $30
million, and establishing a nationwide priority setting process for remedial action. The
Superfund Pipeline Management Review ensures that Superfund resources are distributed
throughout the Superfund "pipeline" to optimize results: a panel reviews risks and other factors
and alternatives and sets site priorities for NPL listing and construction funding.
While the OIG suggested that EPA needs to determine potential future financial and
environmental liability from possible new sites, the Agency does not maintain an inventory of
sites that have not yet entered the Superfund program. Likewise, it keeps no inventory of
companies with financial problems that might also have environmental liabilities. Extensive
research is required to identify potentially responsible parties or other sources to finance site
cleanups. Through EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory Board, the Agency has undertaken
a major effort to better understand financial assurance mechanisms and how they might be
applied in waste management programs.
Appendix-38
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
OIG recognizes that the fundamental pieces of the tribal program already exist, and that EPA has
made significant efforts to enhance the role of tribes in the Superfund program. OIG states that
the Agency's three major initiatives since 1998 have produced some positive results and lessons
that have been incorporated into the Agency's current strategy for managing the role of tribes.
The Agency will continue to coordinate with tribes and EPA regions to complete the remaining
key actions of the strategy.
Recent Accomplishments:
Initiated and completed an internal review of the Superfund Program (120 Day Study) to
identify opportunities for program efficiencies that would enable the Agency to begin and
ultimately complete remedial actions with current resources.
Completed data collection and analysis on hazardous sites impacting Indian country.
Established the EPA tribal forum to work collaboratively on issues involving tribes.
Worked through the FY 2005 planning process to identify regional resource needs related
to cleanup of contaminated sites.
Worked to increase oversight of the Tribal Association on Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (TASWER) cooperative agreement, in accordance with commitments to OIG.
Plans for Further Improvements:
Continue work with the regions to allocate resources and maximize results.
Finalize an OSWER Tribal Strategy that will require completing the Superfund Tribal
Strategy and implementation plan.
Review, implement, and track progress of recommendations from the 120-Day Study on
Superfund to identify opportunities for program efficiency.
Information System Security
Challenge: Due to the dynamic nature of information security, EPA needs to continue its emphasis and
vigilance on strong information security.
Agency Response: OIG believes EPA needs to take additional actions (e.g., systematic
monitoring and evaluation programs, implementation of training programs) to protect its
information and systems. While the Agency agrees that it needs to continue its emphasis and
vigilance on strong information security, EPA believes it has addressed the specific management
control issues related to information systems security. In FY 2001, EPA acknowledged this topic
as an Agency weakness under FMFIA. The Agency completed the corrective actions and
validated the effectiveness of its comprehensive strategy to systematically address security
related deficiencies in FY 2002.
EPA continues to improve the management and oversight of the Agency information security
program and has successfully demonstrated a high level of security for its information resources
and environmental data. In FY 2004, EPA established management controls to ensure that it
collects data of sufficient quality to verify Agency-wide implementation of the program;
information security staff is adequately trained; and security practices are in place throughout the
entire life cycle of information systems. Additionally, for the first time, EPA earned a "green"
Appendix-39
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
status score under PMA for E-Government for its information security management controls and
processes that are in place at the Agency.
Recent Accomplishments:
Established and implemented a testing and evaluation process to develop information
sufficient to verify the effectiveness of Agency-wide Information Security Program
implementation.
Developed and ensured implementation of a training program to provide information
security training to EPA employees with significant information security responsibilities.
Established policy and management framework to support development and testing of
up-to-date contingency plans for Agency information systems.
Plans for Further Improvements:
Continue to verify Agency-wide implementation.
Ensure incorporation of information security into Agency information system life cycle.
Review Agency systems for conformance to security requirements of revised System Life
Cycle Policy through the Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) process.
Continue to require systems without up-to-date tested contingency plans to submit
milestones to be tracked in the Agency's central POA&M project management system.
Information Resources Management (IRM) and Data Quality
Challenge: EPA faces a number of challenges (e.g., implementing data standards to facilitate data
sharing; establishing quality assurance practices to improve the reliability, accuracy, and scientific basis
of environmental data) with the data it uses to make decisions and monitor progress against
environmental goals.
Agency Response: EPA has made significant progress in addressing its data management
challenges. The Agency acknowledged Laboratory Quality Systems Practices and Data
Management Practice?, as Agency weaknesses under FMFIA in FY 2001 and has made great
progress in addressing these issues over the past several years. EPA has addressed all corrective
actions related to Laboratory Quality Systems Practices and is currently validating the approach
and newly established controls put in place to address the Data Management Practices issue.
EPA continues to improve data management and use by planning and providing tools for sharing
data effectively, integrating data, and identifying key data gaps. EPA has also implemented
improvements to assure that environmental data used to support EPA's decisions are of
documented quality. In FY 2004, EPA developed guidance on the use of administrative control
designations to help staff recognize the type of information that must be protected from
unauthorized disclosures. To further improve environmental information management, the
Agency will focus on developing and implementing appropriate data management policies and
procedures and creating a plan for addressing data gaps.
Appendix-40
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Recent Accomplishments:
Completed version 1.0 of the Agency Enterprise Architecture (EA), of which the data
architecture is a component.
Developed a policy and is implementing procedures to support the development of a
metadata management program within the Agency that requires the Agency's data to be
sufficiently documented.
Established the technical and business guidelines for the use of standard data elements.2
Launched the Environmental Indicators Initiative, which carries out the first objective
under Goal 1 of the EPA Strategic Information Plan (i.e., the need to identify key data
gaps and for the Agency to fill the gaps).
Completed the EPA Strategic Information Plan: A Framework for the Future.
Plans for Further Improvements:
Develop a process for identifying key data gaps.
Facilitate further discussion within the Agency and with Federal partners on the data gaps
identified in the Draft Report on the Environment 2003.3
Work with states and tribes to further expand the National Environmental Information
Exchange Network to streamline reporting and improve data sharing.
Develop an executive-summary-level report to validate the completion of each corrective
action.
Human Capital Strategy Implementation/Employee Competencies
Challenge: While EPA is making progress on human capital efforts, it must continue developing and
implementing its Human Capital Strategy and focus on accountability and better communication of
planned strategies.
Agency Response: OMB and OIG acknowledge the Agency has made progress in the area of
human capital. In FY 2004, EPA achieved "green" progress and "yellow" status scores for
successfully implementing the human capital component of the PMA. However, EPA continues
to face significant challenges in maintaining a workforce with the highly specialized skills and
knowledge required to accomplish its work. For example, retirement projections for FY 2004
through FY 2007 indicate that 27 percent of the EPA workforce will be eligible to retire within
the next 5 years, including 26 percent of the scientific-technical workforce and 54 percent of the
Senior Executive Service. EPA is working to develop a systematic approach to workforce
planning, based on reliable and valid workforce data that ensures the Agency can continue to
fulfill its legal, regulatory, and fiduciary responsibilities.
To ensure that the Agency's Human Capital activities support the agency mission and are in
compliance with the merit system principles, the Agency completed a Human Capital Strategy
(HCS) and created a National Human Capital Strategy Office. The HCS is designed around four
2 U.S. EPA, Business rules for the use of standard data elements in the EDR. Available at
http://oaspub.epa. gov/edr/epastd$.startup .
3 U.S. EPA, EPA Draft Report on the Environment 2003 (EPA-260-R-02-006). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm
Appendix-41
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
key areas: Strategic Alignment, Program Effectiveness, Operational Efficiency, and Measures of
Legal Compliance. Additionally, in FY 2004 the Agency began documenting the relationship
between every employee's work and the Agency's strategic goals to fulfill Agency commitment
to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and OMB.
EPA has taken the crucial steps in the areas of workforce planning and staff development, with
particular emphasis on management development. EPA continues to invest in the development
of its workforce with the implementation of the Workforce Development Strategy (WDS), a
comprehensive set of developmental programs. The WDS is designed to link needed
competencies to mission needs, along core business lines, and aligns with the core competencies
identified by OPM for senior executives. EPA offers a developmental program that addresses
the needs of all employees from administrative personnel to executive staff.
Recent Accomplishments:
Upgraded PeopleSoft to the web-enabled version and implemented the automated time-
keeping and payroll processes.
Completed the advertisement and screening of EPA's seventh Intern Program class. Via
this highly successful program, EPA is poised to hire up to 25 new candidates this year to
infuse new talent into the Agency. Over the past 6 years, EPA has hired 191 highly
qualified and diverse interns.
Conducted a human resources (HR) assessment for Headquarters HR professionals to
identify current skill/competency requirements and determine existing proficiency levels.
This was a first step towards implementing the HR Certification Program and training
that will focus on current skill gaps and development needed to support the changing role
of HR professionals.
Reorganized the human resources program and created the "National Human Capital
Strategy Office." The new office is responsible for implementation of the Agency's
Human Capital Strategy.
Provided on-going learning opportunities and just-in-time training to all EPA employees.
Go-Learn on-line courses allow employees to focus on the specific developmental skills
in an environment and at a pace best suited for their learning needs.
Facilitated a two-day leadership workshop for EPA employees interested in pursuing a
formal leadership role in the Agency. The course includes an advanced 360 assessment
tool, information on various leadership roles available in the Agency, and tools and tips
on enhancing critical leadership skills.
Implemented five Mid-level Development workshops that focus on the core competency
groups necessary for success in a work environment. The workshops are designed to
help employees be more creative in their approach to working with others, projects,
process, and change, while enhancing their professional results.
Continued to offer a four (4) day supervisory training program to new and existing
supervisors and managers. This course focuses on the critical non-technical skill
development necessary for successfully partnering with their employees. Employees take
part in hands on exercises relating to diversity, self-awareness, conflict management,
coaching, human resources, and other areas.
Appendix-42
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Completed a strategic workforce analysis of workforce requirements at the macro,
Agency, level.
Launched an Agency-wide succession management strategy.
Plans for Further Improvements:
Focus efforts on generating an Agency-level view of our workforce needs complemented
with "local" strategic workforce planning data.
Continue to invest in the development of an internal coaching cadre which offers one-on-
one coaching for our SES Candidates and for managers after completion of a 360
Assessment.
Implement an Agency-wide mentoring program to provide the support and nurturing
required ensuring that our workforce can fully develop to their maximum potential.
Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security (formerly. Protecting Critical Infrastructure
from Non-traditional Attacks)
Challenge: EPA needs to develop better processes for ensuring security at Nationally Significant Events,
assess vulnerability of water utilities and determine how to measure water security improvements, and
better define the Agency's role in protecting air from terrorist threats.
Agency Response: OIG commends EPA for its efforts to enhance homeland security and its
quick response to incidents, but believes the Agency needs to effectively coordinate at all levels
of government and industry. EPA is working to increase its policy leadership and development
of key Homeland Security Programs in response to Homeland Security Presidential Directives
taskings, by building upon existing water security plans, effective decontamination efforts, and
timely and accurate lab capacity support. These important efforts promote the Agency's role in
protecting the nation from terrorist threats.
Since its inception in February 2003, EPA's Office of Homeland Security has coordinated and
led homeland security activities and policy development across program areas and government-
wide (e.g., serves as the point of contact for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
the White House Homeland Security Council (HSC) and represents the Agency on Homeland
Security issues). EPA led a collaborative effort (with the White House HSC, DHS and OMB) to
revise the EPA Homeland Security Strategic Plan. The revised Plan identifies the range of
homeland security activities the Agency conducts, taking into account the evolving role of the
DHS. The Agency also spent considerable time and effort mapping out responsibilities and
strategies to address recently issued Presidential Directives.4
To help improve processes for cross-agency Homeland Security coordination, EPA established
and convened the Homeland Security Policy Coordination Committee (PCC). The PCC serves
as an executive committee that can be activated in the event of a homeland security-related
attack and acts to ensure that the Agency's senior political leadership is brought together to
provide policy direction to responders.
4 The White House Office of the Press Secretary, Homeland Security Presidential Directives, (December 17, 2003), available at
http: //www. whitehouse. go v/news/releases/2003/12/20031217-5 .html
Appendix-43
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Recent Accomplishments:
Established the Homeland Security Collaborative Network to coordinate and directly
address high priority, cross-Agency technical and policy issues related to homeland
security programs.
Implemented key homeland security efforts including budget planning and
implementation at EPA.
Supported federal law enforcement Agencies at Nationally Significant Events (e.g., U.S.
Secret Service and FBI during the G-8 Nations Summit).
Participated in over 150 training exercises to improve homeland security readiness,
including a field exercise at Ft. Leavenworth, KS that tested the Agency's ability to
respond to multi-state radiological contamination resulting from a downed satellite.
Provided tools, training, and technical assistance to drinking water and wastewater
utilities, specifically the 9,000 drinking water systems that have assessed the
vulnerabilities and are preparing or revising their emergency response plans in
accordance with the Bioterrorism Act.
Plans for Further Improvements:
Prepare the Agency to fulfill its responsibilities under new Homeland Security
Presidential Directives.
Establish function-specific liaison responsibilities to enhance the effectiveness of
communication across EPA.
Develop a homeland security information management system.
Linking Mission and Management
Challenge: OIG believes that while EPA has begun linking costs to goals, it must continue to work with
its partners to develop appropriate outcome measures and accounting systems that track environmental
and human health results across the Agency's new goal structure. This information must then become an
integral part of the Agency's decision-making process.
Agency Response: OIG noted that EPA's reliance on output measures makes it difficult to
provide regions and states the flexibility they need to direct resources to their highest priority
activities and to assess the impact of Agency's work on human health and the environment. EPA
believes that its program goals, performance objectives, and measures of effectiveness are
connected, and the Agency continues to make progress in linking assessments of program
performance with resource decisions; developing outcome-oriented goals and measures; and
providing managers with timely, reliable, and consistent cost information.
EPA has been recognized across government for its efforts to improve the way the Agency
manages for results and uses cost performance information in decision making. In 2003, the
Agency received the President's Quality Award for significant accomplishments in financial
performance. Since June 2003, the Agency has maintained a "green" status score for Improved
Financial Performance. In addition, since June 2002 EPA has earned a "green" progress score
Appendix-44
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
for Budget and Performance Integration under the President's Management Agenda for all but
one quarter.5
Recent Accomplishments:
Developed Regional Plans that link EPA's regional environmental priorities to the
Agency's five strategic goals.6
Increased the percentage of annual goals classified as outcomes from 44 percent of the
total in FY 2004 to 62 percent for FY 2005.
Increased the percentage of performance measures classified as outcomes from 51
percent in FY 2004 to 64 percent for FY 2005.
Completed PART assessments for 32 programs covering over 60 percent of the Agency's
budget. OMB approved efficiency measures for 22 of the 32 programs assessed with the
PART.
Launched a business reporting tool, ORBIT, which allows easy access to financial and
budget information. ORBIT currently has over 360 users Agency-wide.
Implemented a newly developed Annual Commitment System to foster discussion and
agreement between regional and national program offices on FY 2005 regional
performance commitments.
Plans for Further Improvements:
Enhance ORB IT's functionality by expanding the programmatic and performance
reporting capability and adding additional data sources.
Begin the process of revising the Agency' s Strategic Plan
Grants Management and Use of Assistance Agreements
Challenge: EPA needs to improve oversight for awarding and administering assistance agreements to
ensure effective and efficient use of resources. Recent OIG and GAO audits continue to identify problems
in the use of assistance agreements.
Agency Response: Assistance agreements are one of EPA's primary mechanisms for carrying
out its mission to protect human health and the environment. The Agency awards approximately
half of its budget to organization through assistance agreements. Thus it is imperative that the
Agency use good management practices in awarding and overseeing these agreements to ensure
they contribute cost effectively to attaining environmental goals.
EPA acknowledges OIG and GAO concerns regarding the management of assistance
agreements, and tracks this issue as an Agency weakness in the FMFIA process .The Agency has
made significant progress in developing and implementing a comprehensive system of
management controls to correct grants management problems. EPA issued its first long-term
Grants Management Plan,7 with associated performance measures, in April 2003. The plan,
5 EPA selected as finalist for the 2002 Presidential Quality Award in Area of Budget and Performance Integration, news release.
Available at http://www.whitehouse.gOV/news/releases/2002/l 1/20021125-2.html.
6 U.S. EPA, Regional Plans. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/regionplans/regionalplans2.htm
7 U.S. EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finalreport.pdf
Appendix-45
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
which GAO recognizes as a comprehensive and coordinated plan to strengthening grants
management, outlines an aggressive approach to ensure that the commitments are fully
implemented and that employees are held accountable for managing grants effectively. Also,
EPA established a Grants Management Council, composed of EPA's Senior Resource Officials
to provide the leadership, coordination, and accountability need to implement the plan.
Recent Accomplishments:
Revised the Grants Competition Policy to lower the competition threshold and increase
the number of grant competitions
Issued EPA Order 5700.6, a comprehensive post-award monitoring policy that requires
base line monitoring on all active awards and establishes an advance monitoring
performance requirement of 10 percent of all EPA's active grantees and mandatory
reporting of the reviews in a Grantee Compliance Database.
Instituted a new approach to internal reviews that provides EPA with an early warning
system to detect emerging grant weaknesses.
Conducted classroom training sessions for non-profit and Tribal recipients to educate
them about their grants management responsibilities.
Issued guidance requesting that EPA's Senior Resource Officials review and revise all
non-SES performance standards and position descriptions to ensure that they accurately
reflect grants management responsibilities.
Issued the Grants Management Training Plan which requires expanded training for
project officers, grant specialists, and potential grant recipients in areas identified in OIG
and GAO audits reports and EPA's own internal reviews.
Issued a Roles and Responsibilities policy for grants management which clarifies the
duties of program offices and grants management offices.
Developed an EPA Order on environmental results under assistance agreements designed
to make grants more outcome-oriented and linked to EPA's Strategic Plan. The Order is
effective January 2005.
Deployed the Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS) to the Regions and
automated the grants process.
Plans for Further Improvements:
Issue a new EPA Order on pre-award reviews to help ensure that non-profit applicants
have the administrative and programmatic capabilities to manage EPA grant funds.
(March 2005).
Deploy IGMS in EPA Headquarters to leverage technology and improve program
performance.
Expand the Grantee Compliance Database to include more information on OIG and GAO
reports, Agency advanced monitoring reviews, and significant compliance actions taken
by the Agency to improve the ability to identify systematic issues early and take
appropriate corrective action.
Conduct grants management training for managers and supervisors.
Appendix-46
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA USER FEE PROGRAM
In FY 2006, EPA will have several user fee programs in operation. These user fee programs and
proposals are as follows:
Current Fees
Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee
Since 1989, this fee has been collected for the review and processing of new chemical
Pre-Manufacturing Notifications (PMN) submitted to EPA by the chemical industry.
These fees are paid at the time of submission of the PMN for review by EPA's Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. PMN Fees are authorized by the Toxic
Substances Control Act and contain a cap on the amount the Agency may charge for a
PMN review. EPA expects to collect $1,800,000 in PMN Fees in FY 2006. The removal
of the statutory fee cap is discussed below under User Fee Proposals.
Lead Accreditation and Certification Fee
The Toxic Substances Control Act, Title IV, Section 402(a)(3), mandates the development of a
schedule of fees for persons operating lead training programs accredited under the 402/404 rule
and for lead-based paint contractors certified under this rule. The training programs ensure that
lead paint abatement is done safely. Fees collected for this activity are deposited in the U.S.
Treasury. EPA estimates that less than $500,000 will be deposited in FY 2006.
Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fee
This fee is authorized by the Clean Air Act of 1990 and is managed by the Office of Air
and Radiation. Fee collections began in August 1992. This fee is imposed on
manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, light and heavy trucks and motorcycles. The fees
cover EPA's cost of certifying new engines and vehicles and monitoring compliance of
in-use engines and vehicles. In 2004, EPA promulgated a rule that updated existing fees
and established fees for newly-regulated vehicles and engines. The fees established for
new compliance programs are also imposed on heavy-duty, in-use, and nonroad
industries, including large diesel and gas equipment (earthmovers, tractors, forklifts,
compressors, etc), handheld and non-handheld utility engines (chainsaws, weed-
whackers, leaf-blowers, lawnmowers, tillers, etc.), marine (boat motors, tugs, watercraft,
jet-skis), locomotive, aircraft and recreational vehicles (off-road motorcycles,
snowmobiles). In FY 2006, EPA expects to collect $18,000,000 from this fee.
Current Fees: Pesticides
The FY 2006 President's Budget reflects implementation of the new fee structure for the
Pesticides Programs, as enacted by the Pesticides Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003.
The new structure includes an extension to the Maintenance Fee for older pesticide review, and a
Appendix-47
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
new Enhanced Registration Services Fee, which supports accelerated review of new registration
actions for pesticides.
Pesticides Maintenance Fee Extension
The Maintenance Fee provides funding for both the Tolerance Reassessment and the
Reregi strati on programs. PRIA extended the authorization of the Maintenance Fee
through 2008. The existing tolerance reassessment program is slated for completion in
2006, under the FQPA statute, and the final reregi strati on decisions are scheduled for
2008. The tolerance reassessment and reregistration activities will continue under the to-
be-established Registration Review program. In FY 2006, the Agency expects to collect
$27,000,000 in Maintenance fees.
Enhanced Registration Services
PRIA enacted a new fee specifically for accelerated pesticide registration decision
service. This new process should encourage the introduction of new pesticides to the
market more quickly. These fees will be paid to the Agency at the time the registration
action request is submitted. In FY 2006, Agency expects to collect $15,000,000 in
Enhanced Registration Service fees.
User Fee Proposals
Removal of the Statutory Cap on the Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee
Language will be submitted to remove the statutory cap in the Toxic Substances Control
Act on Pre-Manufacturing Notification (PMN) Fees and to allow the increase in fees to
be used as a discretionary offset. Under the current fee structure, the Agency would
collect $1,800,000 in FY 2006. The increase in PMN fees will be deposited into a special
fund in the U.S. Treasury and available to the Agency, subject to appropriation. After the
anticipated rulemaking, the Agency estimates collections of an additional $4,000,000 in
FY2006.
Pesticides Registration Fee
Language will be submitted to eliminate the prohibition on collecting the existing
pesticides Registration fee originally codified in 1988 (40 CFR 152 subpart U) and to
allow the fees to be used as a discretionary offset. The authority to collect these fees has
been blocked through appropriations acts since 1989. Most recently, provisions in the
FY 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199) extended the prohibition
through 2010. FY 2006 collections are estimated to be $26,000,000.
Appendix-48
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Tolerance Fee Rule
Language will be submitted to eliminate the prohibition on collecting pesticide Tolerance
fees and to allow the fees to be used as a discretionary offset. The collection of this fee
has been blocked in appropriations acts since 2001. Most recently, provisions in the FY
2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199) extended the prohibition through
2008. EPA will update the tolerance fee rule to eliminate overlap with other authorized
fees and will promulgate the final Tolerance fee rule in 2005. The Tolerance fee
collections for FY 2006 are estimated to be $20,000,000.
Appendix-49
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
In FY 2006, the Agency begins its tenth year of operation of the Working Capital Fund (WCF).
It is a revolving fund authorized by law to finance a cycle of operations, where the costs of goods
and services provided are charged to users on a fee-for-service basis. The funds received are
available without fiscal year limitation, to continue operations and to replace capital equipment.
EPA's WCF was implemented under the authority of Section 403 of the Government
Management Reform Act of 1994 and EPA's FY 1997 Appropriations Act. Permanent WCF
authority was contained in the Agency's FY 1998 Appropriations Act.
The Chief Financial Officer initiated the WCF in FY 1997 as part of an effort to: (1) be
accountable to Agency offices, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress; (2)
increase the efficiency of the administrative services provided to program offices; and (3)
increase customer service and responsiveness. The Agency has a WCF Board which provides
policy and planning oversight and advises the CFO regarding the WCF financial position. The
Board, chaired by the Associate Chief Financial Officer, is composed of eighteen permanent
members from the program offices and the regional offices.
Two Agency Activities begun in FY 1997 will continue into FY 2006. These are the Agency's
information technology and telecommunications operations, managed by the Office of
Environmental Information, and Agency postage costs, managed by the Office of
Administration. The Agency's FY 2006 budget request includes resources for these two
Activities in each National Program Manager's submission, totaling approximately $184.0
million. These estimated resources may be increased to incorporate program office's additional
service needs during the operating year. To the extent that these increases are subject to
Congressional reprogramming notifications, the Agency will comply with all applicable
requirements. In FY 2006, the Agency will continue to market its information technology
services to other Federal agencies in an effort to deliver high quality services external to EPA,
which will result in lower costs to EPA customers.
Appendix-50
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
CARRYOVER AND OUTLAYS
By Appropriation Accounts
Dollars in Millions
2004
2005
2006
APPROPRIATION
STAG
B&F
EPM
SF
LUST
IG
OIL
S&T
WCF
TOTAL
END OF YEAR NET END OF YEAR NET END OF YEAR NET
CARRYOVER OUTLAYS CARRYOVER OUTLAYS CARRYOVER OUTLAYS
$1,453
$4
$255
$837
$6
$13
$57
$269
$11
$2,906
$3,904
$37
$2,167 1
$1,468
$72
$35
$11
$731
$4
$8,429
$1,443
$3
$298
$919
$2
$12
$53
$253
$10
$2,993
$3,592
$38
$2,171
$1,257
$72
$37
$12
$746
$15
$7,940
$1,217
$3
$247
$985
$2
$11
$58
$300
$36
$2,859
$3,722
$41
$2,319
$1,289
$78
$38
$15
$806
$2
$8,310
Includes $3 million in discretionary outlays for Pesticide Registration Fund (020-00-5374) and $15 million in receipts from Registration service fees (020-00-537410)
Appendix-51
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
ACRONYMS FOR STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
AEA: Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and Reorganization Plan #3
AHERA: Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
AHPA: Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
ASHAA: Asbestos in Schools Hazard Abatement Act
APA: Administrative Procedures Act
ASTCA: Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act
BEACH Act of 2000: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act
BRERA: Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act
CAA: Clean Air Act
CAAA: Clean Air Act Amendments
CCA: Clinger Cohen Act
CCAA: Canadian Clean Air Act
CEPA: Canadian Environmental Protection Act
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (1980)
CFOA: Chief Financial Officers Act
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CICA: Competition in Contracting Act
CSA: Computer Security Act
CWPPR: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990
CWA: Clean Water Act
CZARA: Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments
CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act
Appendix-52
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
DPA: Deepwater Ports Act
DREAA: Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
ECRA: Economic Cleanup Responsibility Act
EFOIA: Electronic Freedom of Information Act
EPAA: Environmental Programs Assistance Act
EPAAR: EPA Acquisition Regulations
EPCA: Energy Policy and Conservation Act
EPACT: Environmental Policy Act
EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
ERD&DAA: Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act
ESA: Endangered Species Act
ESECA: Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act
FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act
FAIR: Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act
FCMA: Fishery Conservation and Management Act
FEPCA: Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act; enacted as amendments to FIFRA.
FFDCA: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
FGCAA: Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
FIFRA: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act
FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
FOIA: Freedom of Information Act
FPA: Federal Pesticide Act
Appendix-53
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FPPA: Federal Pollution Prevention Act
FPR: Federal Procurement Regulation
FQPA: Food Quality Protection Act
FRA: Federal Register Act
FSA: Food Security Act
FUA: Fuel Use Act
FWCA: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
FWPCA: Federal Water Pollution and Control Act (aka CWA)
GISRA: Government Information Security Reform Act
GMRA: Government Management Reform Act
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act
HMTA: Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
IGA: Inspector General Act
IP A: Intergovernmental Personnel Act
IPIA: Improper Payments Information Act
ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
LPA-US/MX-BR: 1983 La Paz Agreement on US/Mexico Border Region
MPPRCA: Marine Plastic Pollution, Research and Control Act of 1987
MPRSA: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
NAAEC: North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAWCA: North American Wetlands Conservation Act
Appendix-54
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act
NIPDWR: National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NISA: National Invasive Species Act of 1996
ODA: Ocean Dumping Act
OPA: The Oil Pollution Act
PFCRA: Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
PHSA: Public Health Service Act
PLIRRA: Pollution Liability Insurance and Risk Retention Act
PR: Privacy Act
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act
QCA: Quiet Communities Act
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RLBPHRA: Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act
RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SBREFA: Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SBLRBRERA: Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SICEA: Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act
SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
SPA: Shore Protection Act of 1988
Appendix-55
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
SWDA: Solid Waste Disposal Act
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
UMTRLWA: Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Land Withdrawal Act
USC: United States Code
WQA: Water Quality Act of 1987
WRDA: Water Resources Development Act
WSRA: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
WWWQA: Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000
Appendix-56
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
Statutory
Authorities
Clean Air Act,
ง103
Clean Air Act,
ง103
Eligible
Recipients*
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
theCAA
Multi-
jurisdictional
organizations
(non-profit
organizations
whose boards of
directors or
membership is
made up of CAA
section 302(b)
agency officers
and tribal
representatives
and whose
mission is to
support the
continuing
environmental
programs of the
States)
Eligible
Uses
S/L monitoring
and data
collection
activities in
support of the
establishment of
a PM2.5
monitoring
network and
associated
program costs.
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
addressing
regional haze.
FY 2005
Request
$42,500.0
$10,000.0
FY 2006
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 1,
i"~Yl-vi 1
ODJ. 1
FY 2006
Request
$42,500.0
$5,000.0
Appendix-57
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
Statutory
Authorities
Clean Air Act,
Sections 103,
105, 106
Eligible
Recipients*
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
the CAA; Multi-
jurisdictional
organizations
(non-profit
organizations
whose boards of
directors or
membership is
made up of CAA
section 302(b)
agency officers
and whose
mission is to
support the
continuing
environmental
programs of the
States);
Interstate air
quality control
region
designated
pursuant to
section 107 of
the CAA or of
implementing
section 176A, or
section 184
NOTE: only the
Ozone Transport
Commission is
eligible as of
2/1/99
Eligible
Uses
Carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA and
associated
program support
costs;
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA;
Supporting
training for CAA
section 302(b)
air pollution
control agency
staff;
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
control interstate
air pollution
FY 2005
Request
$176,050.0
FY 2006
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
/~yui i
UDJ. 1
FY 2006
Request
$176,050.0
Appendix-58
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
Tribal Air
Quality
Management
Radon
Water Pollution
Control (Section
106)
Statutory
Authorities
Clean Air Act,
Sections 103 and
105;TCAin
annual
Appropriations
Acts
Toxic
Substances
Control Act,
Sections 10 and
306; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended, ง106;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
Tribes;
Intertribal
Consortia;
State/ Tribal
college or
university
State Agencies,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes
and Intertribal
Consortia, and
Interstate
Agencies
Eligible
Uses
Conducting air
quality
assessment
activities to
determine a
Tribe's need to
develop a CAA
program;
Carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA and
associated
program costs;
Supporting
training for CAA
for federally
recognized
Tribes
Assist in the
development and
implementation
of programs for
the assessment
and mitigation of
radon
Develop and
carry out surface
and ground
water pollution
control
programs,
including
NPDES permits,
TMDL's,WQ
standards,
monitoring, and
NPS control
activities.
FY 2005
Request
$11,050.0
$8,150.0
$222,400.0
FY 2006
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
Obj. 1
Goal 1,
/~O-i O
UuJ. 2
Goal 2,
/~yui ^
UDJ. 2
FY 2006
Request
$11,050.0
$8,150.0
$231,900.0
Appendix-59
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
Nonpoint Source
(NPS - Section
319)
Wetlands
Program
Development
Targeted
Watershed
Grants
Public Water
System
Supervision
(PWSS)
Statutory
Authorities
FWPCA, as
amended,
ง319(h);TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended,
ง104(b)(3);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended; TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Act
Safe Drinking
Water Act,
ง1443(a);TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Local
Governments,
Tribes,
Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, and
Non-Profit
Organizations
States, Local
Governments,
Tribes, Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, and
Non-Profit
Organizations
States, Tribes,
and Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible
Uses
Implement EPA-
approved state
and tribal
nonpoint source
management
programs and
fund priority
projects as
selected by the
State.
To develop new
wetland
programs or
enhance existing
programs for the
protection,
management and
restoration of
wetland
resources.
Assistance for
watersheds to
expand and
improve existing
watershed
protection
efforts.
Assistance to
implement and
enforce National
Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations to
ensure the safety
of the Nation's
drinking water
resources and to
protect public
health.
FY 2005
Request
$209,100.0
$20,000.0
$25,000.0
$105,100.0
FY 2006
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
/~O-i O
UuJ. 2
Goal 4,
Obj. 3
Goal 4,
Obj. 3
Goal 2,
i"~Yl-vi 1
ODJ. 1
FY 2006
Request
$209,100.0
$20,000.0
$15,000.0
$100,600.0
Appendix-60
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
Homeland
Security Grants
Underground
Injection Control
[UIC]
Beaches
Protection
Hazardous
Waste Financial
Assistance
Statutory
Authorities
Safe Drinking
Water Act,
1442; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Safe Drinking
Water Act, ง
1443(b); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Beaches
Environmental
Assessment and
Coastal Health
Act of 2000;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Resource
Conservation
Recovery Act,
ง3011;
FY1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes,
and Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia, Local
Governments
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible
Uses
To assist States
and Tribes in
coordinating
their water
security
activities with
other homeland
security efforts.
Implement and
enforce
regulations that
protect
underground
sources of
drinking water
by controlling
Class I-V
underground
injection wells.
Develop and
implement
programs for
monitoring and
notification of
conditions for
coastal
recreation waters
adjacent to
beaches or
similar points of
access that are
used by the
public.
Development &
Implementation
of Hazardous
Waste Programs
FY 2005
Request
$5,000.0
$11,000.0
$10,000.0
$106,400.0
FY 2006
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
Obj. 1
Goal 2,
Obj. 1
Goal 2,
Obj. 1
Goal 3,
Obj. 1
Obj. 2
FY 2006
Request
$5,000.0
$11,000.0
$10,000.0
$104,400.0
Appendix-61
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
Brownfields
Underground
Storage Tanks
[UST]
Statutory
Authorities
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and Liability Act
of 1980, as
amended,
Section 128
Resource
Conservation
Recovery Act
Sections 8001
and 2007(1) and
FY1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
State, Tribes and
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible
Uses
Build and
support
Brownfields
programs which
will assess
contaminated
properties,
oversee private
party cleanups,
provide cleanup
support through
low interest
loans, and
provide certainty
for liability
related issues.
Demonstration
Grants,
Surveys and
Training;
Develop &
implement UST
program
FY 2005
Request
$120,500.0
$37,950.0
FY 2006
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
Obj.2
Goal3
/~YUi 1
ODJ. 1
FY 2006
Request
$120,500.0
$11,950.0
Appendix-62
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
Pesticides
Program
Implementation
Statutory
Authorities
The Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
ง20&23; the
FY1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); FY 2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
fnrniifil
tliiilLltll
Appropriations
Acts
Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes
and Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible
Uses
Assist States and
Tribes to
develop and
implement
pesticide
programs,
including
programs that
protect workers,
ground-water,
and endangered
species from
pesticide risks ,
and other
pesticide
management
programs
designated by
the
Administrator;
develop and
implement
programs for
certification and
training of
pesticide
applicators;
develop
Integrated
Pesticides
Management
(IPM) programs;
support
pesticides
education,
outreach, and
sampling efforts
for Tribes.
FY 2005
Request
$13,100.0
FY 2006
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
Obj. 1
FY 2006
Request
$13,100.0
Appendix-63
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
Lead
Toxic
Substances
Compliance
Pesticide
Enforcement
Statutory
Authorities
Toxic
Substances
Control Act,
ง 404 (g);
TSCA 10;
FY2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Toxic
Substances
Control Act,
ง28(a) and 404
(g); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FIFRA
ง23(a)(l);FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible
Uses
To support and
assist States and
Tribes to
develop and
carry out
authorized state
lead abatement
certification,
training and
accreditation
programs; and to
assist tribes in
development of
lead programs.
Assist in
developing and
implementing
toxic substances
enforcement
programs for
PCBs, asbestos,
and lead-based
paint
Assist in
implementing
cooperative
pesticide
enforcement
programs
FY 2005
Request
$13,700.0
$5,150.0
$19,900.0
FY 2006
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
Obj. 1
Goal 5,
Obj. 1
Goal 5,
Obi 1
J
FY 2006
Request
$13,700.0
$5,150.0
$18,900.0
Appendix-64
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
National
Environmental
Information
Exchange
Network
(NEIEN, aka
"the Exchange
Network")
Statutory
Authorities
As appropriate,
Clean Air Act,
Sec. 103; Clean
Water Act, Sec.
104; Solid Waste
Disposal Act,
Sec. 8001;
FIFRA, Sec 20;
TSCA, Sec. 10
and 28; Marine
Protection,
Research and
Sanctuaries Act,
Sec. 203; Safe
Drinking Water
Act, Sec. 1442;
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); Pollution
Prevention Act,
Sec. 6605; FY
2002
Appropriations
Act and FY
2003
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
States, tribes,
interstate
agencies, tribal
consortium, and
other agencies
with related
environmental
information
activities.
Eligible
Uses
Assists states
and others to
better integrate
environmental
information
systems, better
enable data-
sharing across
programs, and
improve access
to information.
FY 2005
Request
$25,000.0
FY 2006
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4
Obj.2
FY 2006
Request
$20,000.0
Appendix-65
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
Pollution
Prevention
Sector Program
(previously
Enforcement &
Compliance
Assurance)
Statutory
Authorities
Pollution
Prevention Act
of 1990, ง6605;
TSCA 10;
FY2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
As appropriate,
Clean Air Act,
Sec. 103; Clean
Water Act, Sec.
104; Solid Waste
Disposal Act,
Sec. 8001;
FIFRA, Sec 20;
TSCA, Sec. 10
and 28; Marine
Protection,
Research and
Sanctuaries Act,
Sec. 203; Safe
Drinking Water
Act, Sec. 1442;
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
State,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Multi-
jurisdictional
Organizations
Eligible
Uses
To assist state
and tribal
programs to
promote the use
of source
reduction
techniques by
businesses and
to promote other
Pollution
Prevention
activities at the
state and tribal
levels.
Assist in
developing
innovative
sector-based,
multi-media, or
single-media
approaches to
enforcement and
compliance
assurance
FY 2005
Request
$6,000.0
$2,250.0
FY 2006
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
Obj. 1
Goal 5,
i"~Yl-vi 1
ODJ. 1
FY 2006
Request
$6,000.0
$2,250.0
Appendix-66
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2006 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
Indian General
Assistance
Program
State and Tribal
Performance
T^ J
Fund
Statutory
Authorities
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FY 2005
President's
Budget
Eligible
Recipients*
Tribal
Governments
and Intertribal
Consortia
State and Tribal
Governments
Eligible
Uses
Plan and develop
Tribal
environmental
protection
programs.
Fund projects
with
performance-
based
environmental
and public health
outcomes
FY 2005
Request
$62,500.0
$23,000.0
FY 2006
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,
Obj. 3
Goal 5,
Obj. 2
FY 2006
Request
$57,500.0
$23,000.0
* The Recipients listed in this column reflect assumptions in the FY 2005 Budget Request in
terms of expected and/or anticipated eligible recipients.
Appendix-67
------- |