National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
April 25, 2003
Governor Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC20460
Dear Governor Whitman:
On behalf of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT), I am pleased to forward comments and recommendations regarding the Agency's
draft 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. The recommendations were developed and fully endorsed by the
NACEPT Council.
NACEPT appreciates both the importance of, and the complexity in, developing a
Strategic Plan for EPA Key highlights of the recommendations are presented below, with more
detailed comments discussed in the enclosure. Our comments offer advice on ways the Agency
can enhance the current draft of the Strategic Plan. Key recommendations for your consideration
are outlined below:
a We strongly encourage that EPA link the Strategic Plan with the Report on the
Environment in both formatting and timing to facilitate the establishment of goals and
objectives, and to provide a progress report on accomplishments.
a EPA should consider presenting each of the goals with the percentage of EPA's budget
and personnel devoted to the goal. This would provide some level of certainty to EPA's
commitment to achieving the objectives and targets identified for the goal.
a While NACEPT agrees with the value and importance of optimizing the resources
available to EPA, states, local government and tribes, the numerous references to
achieving various objectives/targets through involvement of these partners provide few
details on how and what will be actually achieved. Clarification of the roles of federal,
state, local and tribal agencies should be an integral part of the Strategic Plan.
a As EPA's Strategic Plan fully matures, the Agency will continue to face new challenges
in protecting our nation's environment. EPA must remain both vigilant and flexible; ever
scanning the horizon to identify emerging environmental challenges, and swiftly
committing itself to address the challenges it identifies.
-------
NACEPT appreciates this opportunity to offer these recommendations on the EPA draft
Strategic Plan, and looks forward to assisting the Agency to meet its mission and goals
Sincerely,
Dorothy Bowers, Chair
National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
Enclosure
cc: Linda Combs, Chief Financial Officer
David Ziegele, Director, OPAA/OCFO
Daiva Balkus, Director, OCEM
Gwen Whitt, NACEPT Designated Federal Officer
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY (NACEPT)
RESPONSE TO EPA'S DRAFT 2003-2008 STRATEGIC PLAN
April 25,2003
GENERAL
• The 2003-2008 Draft Strategic Plan provides a comprehensive set of objectives to
enhance the protection of human health and the environment. EPA's leadership and
personnel are commended for this extensive effort.
• NACEPT recognizes that a strategic plan emphasizes goals and is not a tactical plan
concerned with the costs and benefits of alternative means of reaching goals.
NACEPT's comments reflect that the draft plan tends to combine strategic and
tactical planning approaches in some sections and not in others. NACEPT
recommends greater consistency in the approach and suggests that the EPA 2003-
2008 Strategic Plan be as explicit as possible about the quantitative identification of
goals hi terms of historical series and points for environmental indicators.
• In order to increase the credibility and usefulness of the Strategic Plan and the Report
on the Environment, EPA is urged to link the preparation of these documents in both
formatting and timing to facilitate the establishment of goals/objectives and then
provide a progress report on accomplishments. EPA's announcement of the intention
to develop environmental indicators with a coordinated timeline to demonstrate
progress in protecting human health and the environment should be integrated into
both the Strategic Plan and the Report on the Environment.
• While NACEPT agrees with the value and importance of optimizing the resources
available to EPA, states, locals, and the tribes, the numerous references to achieving
various objectives/targets through involvement of these partners provide few details
on how and what will be actually achieved. Clarification of the roles of federal, state,
local, and tribal agencies should be an integral part of the Strategic Plan. Further, the
identification of EPA strategic goals should include some tactical discussion and
quantified estimates of the anticipated costs to the burdened agencies and benefits to
the public.
• EPA should incorporate a section in the Strategic Plan section on the roles of other
federal agencies mat are crucial to a successful implementation of the identified
goals. These federal partners are key participants in die evaluation and management
of the nation's natural and environmental resources, including adherence with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
-------
• The Means and Strategies to achieve Goals 1 through 4 do not address the actions that
will be required of the regulated community to achieve the Goals, nor do they address
the barriers that the regulated community will face in achieving compliance. Rather,
they focus almost exclusively on the activities that EPA and its regulatory partners
will undertake to enhance implementation of the Agency's traditional programs. In
setting its Objectives under these Goals, EPA needs to assess the efforts required of,
and the costs imposed on, the regulated as well as the regulator community, and
provide for comprehensive Compliance Assistance (CA) to empower the regulated
community to attain, and go beyond, compliance with regulations. Moreover, EPA
needs to explore what types of programs may be appropriate in lieu of command-and-
control regulation and what changes in agency activities (including legislative
authorization) may be necessary to implement those alternate approaches.
• It is difficult to judge the appropriateness of specific numerical goals — such as
percent compliance — outside tile proper contextual setting. Where possible,
numerical goals throughout the Strategic Plan should be framed within discussion of
legislative intent, overarching strategies, Agency expectations, and earlier
implementation plans or performance goals. Only by comparing numerical goals
with baseline data, can it be determined whether such goals are too aggressive, too
passive, well suited to their purpose, or deserving of reconsideration hi light of
practical implementation experience.
• Consideration should be given to some presentation under each of the GOALS that
provides insight to the percentage of EPA's budget and personnel devoted to the
GOAL - at least a range, such as 12-15%. This would provide some level of
certainty to EPA's commitment to achievement of the objectives/targets identified for
the GOAL.
• The draft plan reads as if prepared by numerous authors. Excessive wording can be
found throughout the draft. NACEPT recommends that the final version be more
concise with a consistent format from GOAL to GOAL.
• In places, wording excludes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam, by not
mentioning them. That apparently is not deliberate and should be corrected. Some
Native Americans consider the term "Indian Country" derogatory. That probably
should be addressed.
-------
SUMMARY OF MAJOR POINTS RECOMMENDED:
GOAL1; CLEAN AIR
• For clarity, it would be useful to list in the beginning of the discussion for GOAL 1
the entire list of objectives and sub-objectives.
• There is a need for a sharper focus and sense of urgency related to achieving the
identified objectives for GOAL 1, especially a process to identify areas of greater
importance and schedule for achieving targets.
• The draft strategic plan needs to be consistent in presenting strategic targets by
providing quantitative proposed achievements (compared to a baseline). In some
objectives, specific reductions in emissions are identified, in others, the targets are
vague.
• More emphasis is needed on the magnitude of improvement related to the numbers or
percentages presented in the draft. The priority use of available resources should be
focused on obtaining the greatest result to achieve GOAL 1. It is not clear in the
lengthy discussion that this is the case.
• The Research and Development (R & D) section should make a more convincing case
that the R & D program will enhance the ability to achieve the specific numerical
targets that are presented.
• A reader is likely to conclude that too much detail is presented in the draft related to
GOAL1.
GOAL 2: CLEAN & SAFE WATER
• It's important to present the discussion in a format that emphasizes the
accomplishments to date and present the objectives to address the remaining
challenges in a priority process. As currently drafted, much of the wording leads a
reader to question the credibility of EPA and its partners9 achievements thus far and
their willingness to assign the necessary resource to ensure achievement of the
objectives for GOAL 2.
• While some performance measures are identified in the objectives, the basis or
justification of these measures should be expressed in clearer terms.
• The EPA needs to work with local agencies to identify the adequacy of existing water
supply and sewage systems and water treatment facilities. Additionally, with
population growth in urban areas, and as urbanization of rural areas continues, more
emphasis should be placed on addressing the infrastructure capacity and
improvements needed in the future to ensure clean and safe water for the increasing
-------
population and the appropriate coordination of infrastructure development with land
use decisions.
• Protecting sources for drinking water should place more emphasis on safety,
including Homeland Security measures.
• Achievement of the objectives will require effective implementation of state, local,
and tribal programs. With the budget challenges confronting these EPA partners,
there is a great need for timely evaluation of their efforts with appropriate EPA action
to ensure resources are in place to support achievement of the objectives for GOAL 2.
GOAL 3; PRESERVE & RESTORE THE LAND
• EPA needs to identify its role in land use since there is no statutory direction. The
title of Goal 3 doesn't match well with the text. EPA should link the title of Goal 3 to
the objectives and sub-objectives of this section.
• EPA should acknowledge that the stated objectives do not provide the tools to
effectively achieve GOAL 3. More emphasis should be placed on working with EPA
partners to identify and protect green spaces, wetlands, and sensitive lands (tribal,
historic and prime agricultural lands).
• EPA should establish a baseline and procedures to monitor progress related to
Preparedness for Emergencies, Response to Hazardous Releases & Oil Spills, and
Prevention of Oil Spills. The discussion in the draft does not provide these factors.
• The discussion related to Waste Generation needs to focus on reduction of waste
generation and not imply that the status quo will be acceptable. As a minimum, EPA
should emphasize the progress in waste reduction and recycling over the past 15-20
years and acknowledge resources will focus on other pressing environmental
problems.
• The Strategic Targets under "Prevent Dangerous Releases from RCRA Facilities"
should be re-stated to emphasize the positive accomplishments. As stated, there is
ambiguity and lack of clarity relative to permits and approved controls.
• Clearer baselines should be established for "Cleanup and Reuse of Contaminated
Land." The percentages and numbers presented leave the reader with insufficient
factual information to understand the objective.
• As with GOAL 1, there is excessive wording in the discussions related to GOAL 3.
Fewer words and greater clarity are encouraged.
-------
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES & ECOSYSTEMS
• Fewer and more concise targets should be presented under Objective 4.1. Baseline
factors should be clearly identified related to chemicals, quantities, acreage, etc.
• Information should be clearly presented to demonstrate that the appropriate resources
will be dedicated to achieve the objectives. In addition, a concise discussion on the
measurements to be used for documentation of progress should be added.
• The draft needs to establish baseline information related to impacts and risks
pertaining to Environmental Justice communities. Clarify the predicted percentage
for communities to be added to those currently working with EPA to address EJ
issues (50% target).
• Targets identified for Objectives 4.3 (Ecosystems) should be clear on the resources to
be available to ensure achievement. As presented, the targets are vague.
• EPA should support an expedited Homeland Security schedule (sooner than 2008) to
provide enhanced security in the chemical and oil industry. In addition, the expedited
approach should be applied to public water systems.
GOALS; COMPLIANCE & ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
• NACEPT gave EPA extensive comments on the Strategic Plan architecture draft with
considerable emphasis on compliance and EPA's previous commitment to
Compliance Assistance (CA). Yet, the current draft Strategic Plan does not
incorporate a fully integrated program of CA, voluntary programs, and partnerships
which could enhance achievement of the targets.
• The Means and Strategies to achieve Goals 1 through 4 do not address the actions that
will be required of the regulated community to achieve the Goals, nor do they address
the barriers that the regulated community will face in achieving compliance. Failure
to integrate CA and other non-regulatory approaches into all of the Program Offices'
Objectives will likely result in continued over-reliance on enforcement of command-
and-control rules instead of the win-win scenarios engendered by a fully integrated
program of CA, voluntary programs, and innovative partnerships.
• As "developer/wholesaler" of CA products, EPA needs to clarify how the agency will
include management of the CA delivery network. EPA will need to develop,
implement and facilitate a validated measurement system for use by the full spectrum
of C A providers.
• Sub-objective 5.1.3 (Monitoring & Enforcement) identifies three specific targets that
create unique verification and measurement challenges. EPA needs to explain how
-------
they will develop, implement and facilitate a validated system for measuring behavior
changes by the regulated community.
• NACEPT concurs with EPA's strategic targets for Federal Facilities and federal
agencies as being achievable by 2008 and as clear signals to other stakeholders that
the federal government must lead by example.
• EPA will need to enhance its information collection to include production indices or
other suitable economic data to ensure assessment of production-normalized TRI
chemical releases and waste production.
• EPA should further assess whether the environmental improvement targets for
'Terformance Track" members constitute a sufficiently ambitious goal. At the same
time, EPA should strive to eliminate the distinctions between its environmental
performance programs and seek a focused approach within a suite of performance
tools.
• In the scientific and innovative arena, EPA must assume the leadership role in
identifying, evaluating and adopting successful approaches to environmental
protection.
• EPA is urged to continue efforts to integrate joint planning and priority-setting across
media programs with their partners to optimize the use of available resources in
achieving environmental compliance. Beyond the Strategic Plan, EPA needs to
implement additional objectives to achieve the efficiencies of integrated programs.
-------
Appendix
Detailed Comments and Suggestions on Goals from the Council
-------
DETAILED COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ON GOALS
GOAL1; CLEAN AIR
Goal 1 is more fully defined as: "Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe
and free of levels of pollutants that harm human health or the environment."
The approach in the Strategic Plan is to bring forward a series of Objectives and Sub-
objectives that are designed to advance progress toward achieving the Goal. Each of
these particular lists is followed by a discussion of Means and Strategies expected to
contribute to achieving the objective.
For clarity sake, it is useful to list in a single place the series of objectives and sub-
objectives that are present to advance the purpose of the Goal.
Objective 1.1; Maintain and Improve Outdoor Air Quality
Sub-objective 1.1.1: Reduce Emissions from Electric Generating Units and other
Stationary Sources through Federal Regulations.
Sub-objective 1.1.2: Reduce Emissions from Mobile Sources through Federal
Regulations.
Sub-objective 1.1.3: Implement, Attain, and Maintain Air Quality Standards in
Areas throughout the Country.
Sub-objective 1.1.4: Reduce Air Toxics Risk at the Local Level
Objective 1.2: Indoor Air
Objective 1.3: Atmospheric Change
Sub-objective 1.3.1: Climate Change
Sub-objective 1.3.2: Stratospheric Ozone
Objective 1.4: Radiation
Sub-objective 1.4.1: Radiation Protection
Sub-Objective 1.4.2: Emergency Response
Objective 1.5: Science/Research
Sub-objective 1.5.1: Science to Support Air Programs
Sub-objective 1.5.2: Air Pollution Research
This breakdown provides a summary of those areas that the plan brings forward as targets
of action for the next five years. A major test of importance relies on consideration of the
numerical targets that are called for or expected within each of these areas. The
8
-------
numerical targets in critical ways define the level of importance and level of attention the
objectives and sub-objectives will receive.
Looking specifically at Objective 1, addition of the numerical targets provides
information about the relative emphasis that is expected to be provided.
Objective LI: Maintain and Improve Outdoor Air Quality
Air Quality for ozone (8-hr) will improve to healthy levels for 52 percent
of the people living in areas determined to have poor air quality in 2001.
Air Quality for fine particles mil improve to healthy levels for 12 percent
of the people who are living in areas determined to have poor air quality
for fine particles in 2001.
Healthy air for the other pollutants -will be maintained for the 123.7
milKon people that had healthy air in 2001.
Sub-objective 1.1.1: Reduce Emissions from Electric Generating Units and
other Stationary Sources through Federal Regulations.
Strategic Targets:
• By 2010, electric generating unit emissions of sulfur dioxide will
be reduced by 4.6 milKon tons from their 2000 level of 11.2
million tons.
• By 2008, electric generating unit emissions of nitrogen oxides
mil be reduced by three million tons from their 2000 level of S.I
million tons.
• By 2010, electric generating unit emissions of mercury will be
reduced by 22 tons from their 2000 levels of 48 tons.
• By 2007, federal air toxics regulations mil reduce air toxics
emissions by 2.2 million tons from their 1993 level of 3.7 milKon
tons.
• By 2009, EPA mil promulgate the last group of area source*
standards, thus ensuring that 90 percent of the areas source
emissions of the 30 area sources listed in the Urban Air Toxics
Strategy is regulated,
-------
Sub-objective 1.1.2: Reduce Emissions from Mobile Sources through Federal
Regulations.
• Similar quantitative targets are presented in terms of millions of tons
of reduction for various types of air emissions.
•
Sub-objective 1.1.3: Implement, Attain, and Maintain Air Quality Standards in
Areas throughout the Country.
• In 2004, complete area designations, promulgate implementation
rules, begin implementing the 9-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
• By 2008, EPA will complete a policy on when Federal
Implementation Plans re-appropriate to bring Clean Air Act
programs to Indian country.
• By 2008, the amount of air monitoring in Indian country will
increase by 10 percent over FY2003 levels of 158 monitors.
Sub-objective 1.1.4: Reduce Air Toxics Risk at the Local Level
• By 2004, publicly release the revised National Air Toxics Assessment
that is based on the 1999 inventory, and continue to update this
national assessment of emissions, exposure, and risks from air toxics
every three years.
• Air Toxics Monitoring: To be developed.
• By 2010, the tribes and EPA will have the information and tools to-
characterize and assess trends for 20 percent of Indian tribes from
2003 level of 1.2%.
There are distinct differences in the content and approach of the various strategic targets.
Some of them are very quantitative, while others mention work that will be done. There
are many approaches to develop a strategic plan, and different views about what it should
contain. However, the easiest to understand seems to be one that presents a problem or
expected achievement, and then lays out the avenue to address it along with the resources
required. In this case, because this is a strategic plan for the EPA, it is logical to assume
that the problem or expected achievement will be related to the environment. In fact, we
would expect the targets to be some quantifiable environmental improvement.
10
-------
The targets presented in Objective 1.1, and Sub-objectives 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 provide just
this type of targeted environmental improvement. A reader may quibble with the
magnitude of the targets, discuss the priorities, and ask if these are stretch targets or
straight-line extension of what is already happening. They do however provide hard
numbers that provide expectations for measurable improvement to defined environmental
challenges. These expectations are followed by a section termed "Means and Strategies"
that describes the beliefs about how the targets can be met.
The targets presented for Sub-objectives 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 are of a different type. They
present goals that largely discuss completion of a work product or being prepared to
provide environmental tools to larger numbers of people. From the way those targets are
presented it is not clear what environmental challenges they will overcome or improve,
and very little information is presented that describes the magnitude of any improvement
that is expected or desired to be achieved. The targets that are presented actually seem to
be more in line with means or milestones along the way that will help achieve a certain
environmental target. These two targets could be strengthened considerably by recasting
them in that context. For example, for Sub-objective 1.1.3, the target seems to refer back
to the overall targets described earlier for Objective 1.1. If this is so, it is not clear why
there should be a set of sub-objectives trying to achieve the same result.
A similar comment can be made for Sub-objective 1.1.4. The strategic targets described
there, in principle, also refer back to the overall targets in Objective 1.1. However, in
neither place are there really any numerical goals for improvement presented.
Maintenance of the status quo seems neither to indicate a need for a strategic program
nor calling out of an objective.
These last two sub-objectives would seem to be better placed in the "Means and
Strategy" section, because with their present placement, they make the objectives and
sub-objectives appear unfocused to the reader. This lessens the impact of the section.
Detail presented in the "Means and Strategy" section provides some other opportunities
for a reader to be confused. For example, in the section titled "Means and Strategies to
Achieve Objective 1", there are very long descriptions of specific EPA air quality
programs. Although the EPA programs and activities appear to be of high quality and
productive of useful results, it is difficult to see how they relate to the objectives,
sub-objectives, and strategic targets. There is no indication of priorities within the means
and strategy discussion, providing no guidance to the reader about relative importance in
order to achieve the objectives. One can argue that the Goal is much larger than the
Objectives or the Sub-objectives. That is true, but the existence of a Strategic Plan
indicates that for five years, in this case, certain needs have priority. That is not clear in
this section. For example, the last paragraph of the Means and Strategy section has a
lengthy discussion about international programs regarding air. This seems not to add a
great deal to the objectives and could be shortened significantly.
11
-------
An overall impression is that the Air Section appears to be more of a thorough
presentation of EPA activities looking for a strategic mission, rather than a selected
presentation of EPA programs that support the strategic objectives of the goal. This is
not simply a subtle nuance, instead, the impression will have great impact on how the
Strategic Plan will be received and considered by the EPA partners, stakeholders, and the
public.
Similar comments can be made about the other Objectives and Sub-objectives. Although
many of them do provide numerical strategic targets, the discussions of Means and
Strategies do not help establish priorities or indicate which of the programs should
receive particular emphasis to facilitate reaching the targets.
The section on Research and Development, although providing important information
about the R&D program related to air, also fails to make a convincing case about how the
program relates to the specific numerical targets that have been presented.
In general, a reader is likely to conclude that too much detail is presented in the Air
Section of the EPA strategic plan without providing a sense of relative importance and
connection to the national air targets that are presented. Achieving the full impact
deserved by a Strategic Plan of this magnitude will require a sharper focus and providing
a sense of urgency within the Agency in selecting areas of greater importance (for.this
5-year period) in achieving the targets.
12
-------
CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Introduction: Goal 2- Page 1
a) The wording is awkward in the first couple of sentences beginning "Thirty years
ago..."
b) While there is considerable data on this page, it is not clear where it came from.
Actual numbers would be more powerful than narrative phrases such as
"significantly slowed" and "measurable improvement."
Introduction: Goal 2- Page 2
a) Population growth is one source of added infrastructure strain, however, so is
population shift as growth in urban areas outstrips infrastructure capacity; these
needs must also be addressed.
Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health
Sub-objective 2.1.1: Water Safe to Drink.
Objectives: It is unclear how these performance measures - such as a 95% service rate
by 2008 - are chosen. The reader is unable to determine whether they are aggressive or
weak. How do they match up whh past goal-setting efforts? Obviously we are not
meeting previous goals if our aspiration is that by 2008, 95% of the water systems will be
where they were supposed to be in 2001. There should be some context in which to
judge this level of effort.
Sub-objective 2.1.3: Water Safe for Swimming.
The plan only calls for 10% of waters swimmable by 2008. If it took us 30 years to get to
10%, will it take us 300 years to meet the goals of the CWA?
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 1: Protecting and Improving Drinking
Water, Developing Drinking Water Standards
"If there is adequate information, EPA will determine whether a new risk-based
drinking water standard is necessary." This section seems a little light on specifics.
Are there any areas of focus for the Agency, such as on endocrine disrupters?
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 1: Protecting and Improving Drinking
Water, Support Sustainable Drinking Water Infrastructure
Revolving Loan Fund: While it is good to have a revolving loan fund, has the fund
approach been a successful replacement for the old grant program? Are local
governments truly picking up the slack, or is the loan fund resulting in a large
infrastructure debt being accumulated. The same question exists for wastewater
treatment capacity (probably a bigger problem).
13
-------
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 1: Protecting and Improving Drinking
Water, Prevent Source Water Contamination
Those entities which are "voluntarily" working to prevent source water contamination
should be supported. Is a volunteer approach quite common or rare? What about those
that are not progressing voluntarily?
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 1: Safe Fish and Shellfish, Fish Safe to
Eat
"Improving water and sediment quality" - no goals are specified. Why are some goals
quantified, while others are given a narrative sweep?
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 1: Safe Swimming Waters, Control
Combined Sewer Overflows
87% of 34% = about 30% of the 770 communities with CSO have "substantially
implemented their plans." Is that an acceptable level of performance? If not, what's the
plan?
Objective 2: Protect Water Quality
Sub-objective 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Sub-objective 2.2.2: Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
Again, there is no context in which to judge the goals. Are they aggressive or weak?
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 2: Improving Water Quality on a
Watershed Basis, Develop Effective Watershed Plans and TMDLs
TMDLs are perceived as being a powerful, overarching strategy for dealing with non-
point source pollution. Yet they are not given a proportionally large role in the Strategic
Plan. How much will TMDLs improve surface water quality? If we did nothing other
than TMDLs, how would the other goals be impacted?
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 2: Improving Water Quality on a
Watershed Basis, Control Nonpoint Pollution
a) "Forge partnerships with a broad range of agricultural interests..." How will
this be accomplished? If those partnerships aren't in effect now, what will make
them happen?
b) Strengthen the NPDES program. While there may be merit in strengthening what
has been a very successful program, in many states, the majority the non-use
designations result from NFS pollution. One wonders if it is fair, or the most
productive use of Agency resources to tighten the screws on NPDES discharges.
Would more impact be made by investing resources in more aggressive control of
NPS?
14
-------
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 2: Improving Water Quality on a
Watershed Basis, Support Sustainable Wastewater Infrastructure
The same concern exists as was mentioned with the Drinking Water Revolving Loan
Fund. We should be glad it's there, but is a wastewater infrastructure debt accumulating
nationally? Do we have the fiscal capacity to expand plant capacity in proportion to
expanding, sprawling communities?
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 2: Improving Coastal and Ocean Waters,
Seducing Vessel Discharges
This sounds like a good approach, but there are no numbers given at all. Is this a
significant problem? Does it merit a specific element in the Strategic Plan?
Objective 2.3: Science/Research
"By 2008, provide and apply a sound scientific foundation to EPA's goal of clean and
safe water..." It's hard to imagine a more impolitic statement. Better language would be
to "expand," "improve upon," or "strengthen" the sound foundation that is already in
place.
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 3: Clean and Safe Water Science,
Methods for Valuing Ecological and Recreation Benefits
Cost/benefit analysis is tricky, but it could be a profoundly powerful tool in advancing
environmental well being.
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 3: Clean and Safe Water Research,
Research to Protect Human Health
"Develop scientifically sound data and approaches to assess and manage risk..." Have
we not been using sound data and approaches up to this point? This statement is an ideal
opening for opponents of more progress to demand "good science" before supporting
compliance with environmental regulations. Better language would be to "improve,"
"enhance" or "strengthen" data and approaches.
Means and Strategies to Achieve Objective 3: Clean and Safe Water Research, Re-
search to Protect Water Quality
Decisions on local land use are critical to water quality. One vastly underutilized human
capital is local policymakers. The Agency should strive to better educate planning and
city/county commissions about environmental consequences of siting decisions. This is
especially true regarding siting facilities near or over drinking water sources and
transportation planning. It would be very useful to the Agency to have local
policymakers informed on and actively implementing TMDLs.
15
-------
Program Evaluation
This is a good mention of program evaluation studies, although it is not clear that
findings from these studies have been integrated into the Strategic Plan. In some states,
well meaning regulators are not supported by Governors and/or legislators. Surely, one
very important element of a Strategic Plan would be review of implementation
performance at the state and local levels and - where necessary - intervention or even
withdrawal of program primacy. What are the rules of engagement? What performance
measures are in place regarding performance of state and local agencies?
Other:
September 11 provided a painful insight into our vulnerability to terrorism. Are our water
supplies adequately protected from malicious intent? If not, that ought to be addressed in
the Strategic Plan. Security planning ought to consider domestic as well as international
terrorist possibilities, and should also speak to invading species and other natural
occurrences.
Overarching Concerns:
a) Give data rather than subjective narratives, let reader interpret significance.
b) Justify performance measures.
c) Evaluate infrastructure capacity and adaptability.
d) Don't say anything that undermines the credibility of the Agency and its
programs.
e) Integrate land use planning.
f) Review of implementation effectiveness and performance measures of state and
local government ought to be a part of the Strategic Plan.
g) Safety of water supplies.
16
-------
GOAL. 3: PRESERVE AND RESTORE THE LAND
EPA needs to identify its role in land use; it is not clear how the Agency can influence
land use decisions since there is no statutory direction. Nonetheless, land use decisions
significantly influence our ability to reach national environmental quality goals.
The title of this goal does not seem to be consistent with the substance of the remainder
of the section. EPA should specifically articulate the linkages of the objectives and sub-
objectives of this section with the title.
Sub-objective 3.1.1: Preparedness for Emergencies
The sub-objective is stated in terms of increasing response readiness. However, it is
difficult to imagine how response readiness can be measured in percentage terms. While
there is reference to a percentage increase from a baseline established in fiscal year 2003,
how would that baseline be measured - that is, what is the unit of measurement and what
data would be collected to establish the baseline?
Is there some standard that already exists for measuring emergency preparedness - that
is, are there ways in which state and local agencies or organizations are already
measuring emergency preparedness that could or would be used by EPA to evaluate its
preparedness? Or, would EPA be establishing new measures for this purpose. In either
case, the way in which EPA would establish a baseline and monitor progress needs to be
clarified.
Sub-objective 3.1.3: Prevent Oil Spills
The sub-objective calls for reducing releases by increasing the number of oil facilities
that are in compliance from 3,525 to 6,000, where the universe of oil facilities is about
415,000. Does this mean that at present only 3,525 out of 415,000 (0.85%) are in
compliance? If so, then even if EPA achieves its objective, then having 6,000 facilities in
compliance still only represents a compliance rate of 1.4%.
If there is such a widespread compliance problem with oil facilities, then it seems that a
much more aggressive objective is necessary. If the compliance rate is actually much
higher than is suggested in the way the sub-objective is stated, then the wording of the
sub-objective should be changed to make it clearer.
Sub-objective 3.2.1: Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling
One of the strategic targets calls for maintaining the national average municipal solid
waste generation at 4.5 pounds per person per day. Since it Is national policy to focus
efforts on reducing waste generation through source reduction and better environmental
stewardship efforts, this is not an ambitious goal. Per capita waste generation rates have
remained at about this level since 1990. If the US population continues to grow, yet per
capita waste generation is simply maintained, then waste generation will continue to
17
-------
increase in absolute terms. The target suggests that EPA is resigned to maintaining the
status quo. The implication is that the nation is incapable of furthering the policy of waste
reduction.
Many experts in the solid waste management field will argue that there are sound reasons
why the per capita generation rates cannot be easily lowered. And, using environmental
risk assessment in establishing environmental priorities may suggest that less emphasis
on solid waste management is needed to protect public health and the environment in
comparison to other priorities in water, air, and healthy communities and ecosystems.
However, it is disingenuous to espouse a waste management policy that places waste
reduction at the top of the hierarchy while setting targets that run counter to that policy.
The EPA Strategic Plan should either set a more ambitious target to make its objectives
consistent with existing policy, or provide some explanation as to why such a target is not
feasible over the planning horizon of this strategic plan. This explanation need not be
cast hi negative terms. Instead, there could be a recognition of progress that has been
made in waste reduction and recycling over the past 15-20 years and acceptance of a
"maintenance" policy to ensure that the results of this progress will not erode as emphasis
is shifted to more pressing environmental problems.
Sub-objective 3.2.2: Prevent Dangerous Releases from RCRA Facilities
One of the strategic targets states that "approximately 36% of the facilities that are due
for permit renewals by the end of 2006 will have updated controls approved by the end
0/2008."
Is it reasonable to conclude from reading this target that limited resources, (in terms of
both EPA permit staff and perhaps industry cost requirements), are the most likely barrier
to setting a higher target for facilities having updated controls?
However, even if true, there appears to be a disconnect between the title of the sub-
objective - that is, to prevent dangerous releases - and the target that only calls for 36%
of the facilities needing permit renewals having updated controls by 2008. Is it fair to
assume that while 64% of the facilities due for renewals hi 2006 will not have updated
controls by 2008, these facilities can continue to operate with existing controls without
creating a high risk of releasing dangerous substances into the environment? In other
words, controls under current permits will continue to function adequately while the
target for updating controls is increased over time. If this is the situation, then perhaps
there needs to be more acknowledgment or discussion of the administrative and cost
requirements associated with permit renewals and new control technologies and how the
level of risk from releases will not increase. If this is not the situation, and in fact without
updated controls, the 64% of RCRA Facilities needing permit renewals do pose a greater
risk, then the target should be more ambitious.
18
-------
Sub-objective 3.3.1: Control Risks at Contaminated Sites
One of the strategic targets indicates that "By 2008, EPA and its partners will determine
that cleanups are completed at 105,000 LUST sites." There is no reference point to
determine whether this target is modest or ambitious. Reference was made to 698,000
active Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) in the discussion on preventing leaks from
USTs. And, Sub-objective 3.2.3 calls for ".... increasing the percentage of VST
facilities that are in significant operational compliance from 65% to 80%." However,
this only provides information on active sites. An estimate of how many inactive sites
exist and may be leaking was not provided.
Sub-objective 3.3.2: Make Land Available for Reuse (also Sub-Objective 4.2.3:
Brownfields)
The Sub-objective 3.3.2 calls for making more lands available for reuse. Besides the
objective lacking any numerical target, there is no benchmark to assess whether a
numerically based objective is meaningful. In other words, there is no inventory of lands
measured in acres, assessed value, or market value against which one could assess
progress.
Sub-objective 3.3.3: Maximize Potentially Responsible Party Participation at
Superfund Sites
Officials at EPA have been publicly stating for a number of months that protecting the
balance of the Superfund Trust Fund and tax payer resources in the cleanup of NPL sites
is a priority. However, there is no emphasis on this within the Strategic Plan. What is
also missing is the complete lack of connection between bankruptcies of RCRA facilities
(both TSD and non-TSD) that wind up becoming Fund lead NPL sites. The Agency
should state as an objective under this section that it will work to strengthen Financial
Assurance requirements at RCRA TSD facilities and explore mechanisms to develop
Financial Assurance for RCRA non-TSD facilities.
19
-------
GOAL 4; HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
4.1 Chemical, Organisms and Pesticide Risks
The first objective of Goal 4 Healthy Communities and Ecosystems deals with the
prevention and reduction of risk to humans, communities and ecosystems by pesticides,
chemicals and genetically engineered biological organisms. The strategic targets for the
reduction of toxic pesticide exposure includes re-registration of chemicals, reduction of
mortality incidents, reduction of chemicals in foods, increase in use of reduced risk
pesticides and reduction of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The objectives and
targets failed to list the baseline numbers, chemicals, organisms, quantities,
concentrations, and acreage. Without the baseline, it will be difficult if not impossible to
track the progress and to determine if the objectives are being met.
The second objective targets the availability of pesticides and antimicrobial products that
meet the latest safety standards. The strategic targets focus on the reduction in
registration time by 10% and propose new registration actions meet new health standards
and are environmentally safe. The strategic targets lack background time frames and
health safety standards. The reduction in time for registration should not be encouraged at
the expense of less effective and protective re-registrations.
The third objective focuses on the prevention and reduction of risk to human health,
communities and ecosystems from chemicals and biological organisms. Baseline data
was not included for industrial chemicals and mercury. Without background data, it is not
possible to determine if the objectives are being met.
The fourth objective focuses on facility risk reduction and building community
infrastructures. The first strategic target fails to specify how much risk reduction will be
required. The second strategic target establishes a 50% local community or LEPC goal
for incorporating facility risk information by 2010. However the facility risk management
information is not made publicly available due to terrorism threats.
The objectives and strategic targets for objective 1 are very positive and extremely
ambitious. The resources required to fund the objective may limit the ability to fully
implement the strategies. The program for objective 1 lacks a mechanism to track the
implementation of the program. A mechanism to measure the impact the program is
having on human health and the environment has not been included in the program. This
is a critical element to be measured in order to track the success of the program.
4.2 Community Health
The first objective deals with sustaining community health. The number of communities
to be involved by 2008 is set forth. However, the means and strategies for sustaining
health communities is more a description of the components of the program and does not
identify specific strategies for involving and improving the 220 communities.
The second objective deals with addressing disproportionate impacts and risks
experienced by Environmental Justice communities. The strategies identified are current
EPA programs, EJ small grants program, NEJAC Council and Subcommittees,
Interagency Working Group on EJ issues training. The strategies merely work within the
20
-------
current program framework and do not identify specific strategies for attaining a 50%
increase in the number of communities working with EPA to address EJ issues. The
objective also fails to identify the baseline on which the 50% increase will be based and
measured.
The third objective addresses Brownfields redevelopment. The strategy is the
continuation of the existing Brownfields program. This objective and strategy is merely a
continuation of an ongoing program. EPA indicates that "Through 2008, redevelopment
of brownfield properties will generate $10.2 billion and create 33,700 jobs." The EPA
should avoid claims that expenditures on environmental improvement by other agencies
"create" jobs. The use of labor and capital to improve the environment divert productive
resources from other uses - "there is no such thing as a free lunch" - private or public
funds used to protect the environment must be weighed against alternative uses of fund.
The fourth objective focuses on US-Mexico border issues. The objective will assess and
improve the quality of border surface water bodies and connect 1.5 million people to
potable water and waste water systems. This objective is extremely large and will require
extensive financial resources to implement.
The objectives and strategies do not include mechanisms to track the programs as they
are implemented and measure program performance and degree to which the objectives
are being met.
The third objective focuses on the restoration and protection of 28 estuaries. The
objectives and strategies are part of existing programs. Each program is estuary specific
and targeted at addressing specific issues in the individual estuaries. The programs are
extremely ambitious and will require the dedication of high quantities of financial
resources. The unavailability of financial resources could have a dramatic impact on the
goals set forth in the plan.
The fourth objective deals with Homeland Security. This is the new emerging issue being
addressed by the Agency. The objectives are appropriate to the development of
Homeland Security programs. The subobjective 4.4.2 should be required to be
implemented by 100% of the facilities by 2008. The industrial facilities have the
resources and 'are in need of their own security measures to reduce vulnerability and
protect communities and the environment from chemical releases.
The third objective deals with enhanced ambient air monitoring and emergency air
monitoring. These monitoring efforts are not only necessary for Homeland Security, they
are also necessary to protect communities living around industrial facilities, waste sites
and businesses handling and processing toxic chemicals. The expansion of these efforts
should be focused on protection of the population during normal operating conditions as
well as during special security events.
Goal 4 page 30 presents a strategy for addressing the need for additional air monitoring
capabilities including mobile monitoring. These capabilities are also needed by
communities located in close proximity to industrial facilities in order to identify and
quantify toxic chemicals in the communities.
The Science and Research objective is a broad ranging program designed to bring
together programs, initiatives and agencies to protect and restore human health and the
21
-------
environment. The objective will require substantial financial resources in order to be
successful. The lack of available resources could have a detrimental impact on the
objective. There is a need to have a mechanism to monitor and track the progress as the
objective is implemented.
22
-------
GOAL 5; COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
NACEPT's previous comments on EPA's Strategic Plan architecture suggested that EPA had
not incorporated previous recommendations that the Goals and Objectives of each Program
Office reflect the Agency's commitment to Compliance Assistance (CA). The current
Strategic Plan suggests that these recommendations still have not been adopted by the Agency.
This is most apparent in the Means and Strategies for the various Objectives in Goals 1 through
4. These Means and Strategies focus on the activities that EPA's Program Offices will
undertake to enhance implementation of program components and regulatory standards, both
by EPA and its regulatory partners (states, tribes and other delegated authorities). However,
these Means and Strategies do not address the actions that will be required of the regulated
community to achieve these national Goals, nor the barriers (informational, technological and
economic) that they will face in achieving compliance. Failure to integrate CA into all of the
Program Offices' Goals and Objectives will likely result in continued over-reliance on
enforcement instead of the win-win scenarios engendered by a fully integrated program of CA,
voluntary program, and partnerships.
An example of the disconnection between Program Office Objectives and the need to integrate
CA into those objectives can be seen in the water arena, under Objective 2.2—Protect Water
Quality. The Means and Strategies to achieve this objective on a watershed basis identify six
key areas in which EPA will focus its work with states, tribes and others: (1) strengthen the
water quality standards program; (2) improve water quality monitoring; (3) develop effective
watershed plans and total maximum daily loads, (4) implement effective non-point pollution
control programs; (5) strengthen the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program; and (6) effectively manage infrastructure assistance programs.
Firstly, it is agreed that the watershed approach is the appropriate scale for effectively
addressing water quality issues. Secondly, it is recognized that continued funding of the Clean
Water State Revolving Funds and linking project grants to integrated watershed approaches
and environmental results will facilitate improved environmental performance in the municipal
wastewater sector. In addition, optimizing the other five key areas is essential to effective
watershed management. However, addressing these key areas alone does not empower the
regulated community (with the exception of the municipal wastewater sector) to achieve
compliance and more importantly, to improve environmental performance, the outcome
necessary to attain water quality objectives. Instead, focusing on these six key areas will
produce a more efficient and effective oversight system for identifying noncompliant regulated
entities for traditional enforcement action, once noncompliance has been identified.
Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance
With EPA continuing in its role as "developer/wholesaler" of CA products, the burden of retail
delivery of CA to the regulated community will increasingly fall upon the network of states,
tribes, local governments, trade associations, economic development agencies and community
based organizations. Each of these retailers will continue to face budgetary pressures similar to
those faced by the Agency. In this economic environment, EPA will need to move beyond its
perceived role as developer/wholesaler of CA products to include management of the CA
23
-------
delivery network. This role will require EPA to assess the performance of the entire CA
delivery network and to actively facilitate network optimization. Additionally, EPA will need
to optimize CA tool development by actively encouraging and funding tool development and
distribution across the entire C A network, rather than in its current EPA-centric approach.
EPA estimates that approximately 41 million federal, public and private facilities are subject to
regulation by the Agency under various environmental statutes. Yet it is only under this
Objective, managed by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OEC A), that
the Strategic Plan discusses the need to impact the behavior of this diverse regulated
community.
With regard to the specific targets under this Sub-objective, it is unclear how EPA intends to
collect information and measure progress toward the targets. The Agency currently has a
number of information collection systems in place track environmental emissions [e.g., Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI), NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports, Pretreatment Program
Reports]. Each of the Agency's reporting systems is designed to assess a particular regulatory
program, and may do so with particular clarity. But these systems do not measure the same
parameters nor are they integrated across Programs, sometimes yielding conflicting results.
For example, under the TRI, the highest quantities of toxic pollutants transferred to publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) are nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) and acids/alkalis, yet
these materials do not cause widespread interference with POTW operations nationally, since
they are compatible with POTW processes (nutrients) or they are neutralized by the generating
facility prior to discharge (acids/alkalis). EPA needs to integrate its various measurement
systems into a single, consolidated system in order to measure reductions in pollutant
generation and emission in a meaningful way. Additionally, current reporting systems do not
extend to all generators nor are all reported data collected in EPA-maintained systems. EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) has been identified as the Agency's approach toward addressing
these issues. To ensure success, the CDX will need to be designed and built with sufficient
capacity to collect all of the currently reported and anticipated environmental data currently
being generated across the Agency's Program Offices as well as by the states, tribes, local
government, community-based organizations and the private sector. Finally, the CDX must be
made sufficiently user-friendly and efficient that reporting entities across the country will
readily accept the system in favor of current reporting systems.
Beyond measuring pollutant reductions, measuring improved understanding of environmental
regulations and improved environmental practices will present unique challenges to EPA.
Traditionally, changes in understanding and behavior are measured through pre/post-delivery
surveys of assistance recipients. These surveys can be resource intensive and are generally not
value-added. To effectively measure changes in understanding and behavior, EPA will need to
develop, implement and facilitate use of a validated measurement system by the full spectrum
of CA providers as well as the Agency.
Sub-objective 5.1.2: Compliance Incentives
NACEPT previously commented that this Sub-objective, as proposed in the draft Strategic Plan
architecture, did not measure the number of facilities conducting environmental audits or the
number of facilities that are encouraged to perform audits as a result of EPA's audit policy.
Instead, the then-proposed Sub-objective measured the number of facilities reporting violations
24
-------
under the audit policy. Thus, progress towards that Sub-objective appeared to require an
increased amount of noncompliance by facilities performing audits.
The current Sub-objective appears to correct this issue by measuring progress as an increased
percentage of facilities conducting audits, rather than focusing on the number of violations
disclosed during audits.
Sub-Objective 5.1.3: Monitoring and Enforcement
It is unclear whether EPA intends to limit this Sub-objective to monitoring and enforcement
activities conducted solely by EPA, or if the Agency intends to include monitoring and
enforcement activities undertaken by delegated authorities. This distinction is critical since the
majority of monitoring and enforcement is not conducted directly by EPA, but by a network of
delegated authorities (e.g., states, tribes, regional air management districts, Publicly Owned
Treatment Works). Additionally, many of these delegated authorities enforce state and/or local
regulations that go beyond federally mandated minimums. Will EPA evaluate monitoring and
enforcement for local regulations as equivalent to federal regulations?
Each of the three specific targets under this Sub-objective presents unique verification and
measurement challenges to EPA and delegated enforcement agencies.
The first target (3% increase in the number of complying actions taken during inspections)
appears to presume a constant level of inspection activity. However, this scenario is clearly not
realistic. Fluctuations in inspection activity will cause this measure to fluctuate independent of
the Agency's desire to increase the frequency of complying actions taken during such
inspections. EPA should revise this target to focus on increasing the percentage of inspections
resulting in complying actions taken during the inspection. EPA also faces significant barriers
in identifying complying actions and quantifying their impact on a regulated entities
environmental performance. Will complying with procedural or reporting requirements be
weighted equally with complying actions that result in reduced pollutant generation or
emission?
As stated, the second target (3% increase in the percentage of enforcement actions requiring
that pollutants be reduced, treated, or eliminated) seeks to increase the percentage of
enforcement actions requiring pollutant reduction. This appears to be a measure of the
administrative savvy of the Agency's enforcement staff. A more meaningful measure would
be an increase in the percentage of enforcement actions that result in a measurable decrease in
the generation and/or emission of pollutants.
The third target (3% increase in the percentage of enforcement actions requiring
improvement of environmental management practices), while clearly a desirable outcome of
enforcement actions, will be difficult to quantify, as it seeks to measure changes in behavior.
As discussed earlier under Sub-objective 5.1.1, EPA will need to develop, implement and
facilitate use of a validated system for measuring behavior changes by the regulated .
community.
25
-------
Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention,
Innovation, and Analysis
Sub-objective 5.2.1: Pollution Prevention by Government and the Public
EPA's strategic targets for Federal Facilities and federal agencies are appropriate both in that
they appear to be achievable by 2008 and that they will serve as a clear signal states, tribes; and
the regulated community that the federal government must clearly lead by example.
Sub-objective 5.2.2: Pollution Prevention by Industry
The first two strategic targets under this Sub-objective are achievable and measurable, within
the limits of the TRI system. But EPA must remember that not all waste generating activities
are reported under the TRI, and as discussed earlier, some waste transfer activities reported
under TRI are entirely acceptable under environmental regulations and accepted business
practices, and do not result in chemical releases to the environment.
It is not clear how EPA intends to measure progress toward the third strategic target under this
Sub-objective (conserve 400 billion BTUs of energy and 10 billion gallons of water, reduce 93
thousand metric tons of CO2 emissions, and save $1 billion of unnecessary costs as a result of
pollution prevention activities).
EPA will need to enhance its information collection to include production indices or other
suitable economic data to enable assessment of production normalized TRI chemical releases
and waste production. EPA's limited experience in this area in the Metal Finishing Sector
Strategic Goals Program indicates that this effort will impose a substantial reporting burden on
the regulated community and a data management burden on the Agency.
Sub-objective 5.2.3: Business and Community Innovation
The aggregate annual environmental improvements for Performance Track members
(reductions of: 3% in water use; 3% in energy use; 3 % in total solid waste; 1% in air releases;
and 5% in water discharges) are substantially less ambitious than some of the improvements
demonstrated by Performance Track members in 2002. While continuing Performance Track
members would not be expected to sustain their 2002 performance gains annually, the
population of Performance Track members is expected to expand through 2008. Therefore, the
'aggregate annual environmental improvements identified under this strategic target may prove
not to be particularly ambitious. EPA should assess whether these environmental improvement
targets constitute a sufficiently ambitious goal for the Performance Track program.
The small business outreach and technical assistance target of 750,000 contacts annually is a
66 percent increase above the 2001 baseline of 450,000 contacts. Recognizing that the vast
majority of small business assistance activities are carried out by state,, tribal and local
assistance providers and not EPA itself, this target may not be achievable without substantial
EPA investment hi increasing the delivery capacity of the assistance network.
Except perhaps as a budget management exercise, it is unclear why EPA would need to
segregate the Performance Track program from other environmental performance efforts, such
as sector-based initiatives and its Environmental Management System (EMS) efforts. From the
regulated community's perspective, segregation may appear to put EPA's in conflict and cause
26
-------
potential participants to choose one program over another. EPA should strive to eliminate the
distinctions between its environmental performance programs and seek to manage each as a
focused approach within a suite of performance tools. As discussed previously relative to the
aggregate annual environmental improvement targets for Performance Track members, EPA's
environmental improvement targets for its sector-based initiatives and EMS efforts may prove
not to be particularly ambitious. Of particular concern is the apparently lowly target of
aggregate annual increase of 100 facilities using EMS.
Sub-objective 5.2.4: Environmental Policy Innovation
In an era when scientific and technological advances and capabilities appear at ever increasing
rates, EPA must assume a leadership role in identifying, evaluating and adopting successful
innovative approaches to environmental protection. In the long run, this activity may have the
most significant impact of all Agency activities identified in EPA's Strategic Plan. In its
Means and Strategies for achieving Objective 5.2, EPA commits itself to broadening
solicitation of state and tribal innovation projects and to funding the most promising projects
through the State Innovation Grant Program. And while the strategic targets under this Sub-
objective call for substantial increases in Agency activities above 2002 baselines, the actual
annual activity targets set by EPA suggest that the Agency may not BE building sufficient
capacity to rapidly identify, evaluate and adopt innovation in pace with scientific and
technological advancement.
EPA should implement a strategy of continuously assessing its innovation capacity and
develop a flexible evaluation system that can respond rapidly to emerging environmental
protection innovations.
Objective 5.4: Science/Research
While EPA recognizes that in large part, its success lies hi the hands of its delegated authorities
and the regulated community, the Agency must not minimize its capability, or its obligation, to
influence that greater community. While noncompliance with regulations can and should be
met with timely and effective enforcement action, EPA also recognizes that the future of
environmental protection is evolving; from police power over a regulated community to
strategic business partnerships across diverse communities and affiliations. While some of the
obstacles to realizing this new vision of environmental protection are indeed external to the
Agency, others, such as lack of coordination across Media and Program Offices, are internal to
EPA and endemic to the Agency's business structure. Appropriately, EPA itself recognized
this issue in its discussion of Cross-Goal Strategies in the Strategic Plan,
"Among the problems identified by the evaluation of the Performance Partnership System
described above was that EPA's priority-setting and planning processes (including PPAs,
issuance of national program guidance, budgeting, and accountability systems) are not
aligned in a way that fosters joint planning and priority-setting across media program lines;
EPA and state staff have limited experience with collaborative approaches to environmental
problem-solving; strong media program perspectives and loyalties still dominate many
aspects ofstate-EPA relationships; and there are few incentives for state and federal staff to
risk new ways of doing business."
27
-------
While these observations arose in the context of evaluating the EPA-State Performance
Partnership System, the problems identified have equally detrimental impact on the Agency's
own activities. NACEPT recommends that, in addition to the Objectives set for the Agency
throughout its Strategic Plan, EPA set for itself the additional objective eliminating these
problems within its own house.
28
------- |