U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
FY 2009 National Program Manager's
Guidance
Draft - February 2009
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1 - 8
Key National Program Strategies and Priorities
Superfund Remediation and Federal Facilities 9-13
Emergency Response and Prevention 14-20
Brownfields and Land Revitalization 21-25
RCRA Waste Management 26-36
Underground Storage Tanks 37-46
Synopsis of OS WER' s Feedback Process 47
State Grant Work Plan Instructions 48 - 52
Environmental Justice 53 - 54
Attachments
FY 2009 Measures Appendix I
FY 2009 State Grant Measures Appendix II
Explanation of Key Changes Between F Y 2008 and F Y 2009 m
State Reporting Burden Reduction Summary IV
-------
Executive Summary: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
I. Program Office
This guidance contains implementation priorities for all major OSWER offices: the
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), the Federal
Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), the Office of Emergency Management
(OEM), the Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization (OBLR), the Office of Solid
Waste (OSW) and the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST). OSWER's
enforcement counterparts, principally the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance's (OECA's) Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) and Federal
Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO), also are represented in this guidance. Basic
approaches remain the same from last year.
II. Introduction/Context
The OSWER guidance defines national policy, strategic goals and priority activities
consistent with OSWER's Action Plan1, as well as Superfund enforcement goals managed
by OECA. This guidance, prepared to implement priorities described in EPA 's 2006-
2011 Strategic Plan2 and in EPA 's FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and
CongressionalJustification3, should be used to assist in National Environmental
Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) discussions.
III. Program Priorities
The following objectives characterize EPA's land program activities: Revitalization;
Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery; Emergency Preparedness,
Response and Homeland Security; Implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and
Clean Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction.
Revitalization: All of EPA's cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial, Superfund
Removal, Superfund Federal Facilities Response, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action, Brownfields, and Underground Storage
Tanks) and their partners are taking proactive steps to accommodate and facilitate
the cleanup and revitalization of contaminated properties. Revitalizing these once
productive properties can provide numerous positive impacts for communities
such as removing blight, satisfying the growing demand for land, limiting urban
sprawl, fostering ecologic habitat enhancements, enabling economic development,
and maintaining or improving quality of life. With the emergence of
revitalization as a priority, the need for cleanup programs to measure their
1 OSWER's Action Plan can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/actionplan/index.htm
2The 2006-20011 EPA Strategic Plan can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/plan/plan.htm Waste
programs and their enforcement components are contained in goals 3, 4 and 5.
3 The EPA FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/budget/2009/2009ci.htm
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 1
-------
performance and report accomplishments in terms related to the availability of
land for use or reuse of land is increasingly important.
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. Furthermore, EPA's Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC)
programs contribute to the reduction of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
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 hazardous substances and oil. EPA will improve its
capability to effectively prepare for and respond to these incidents, working under
its statutory authorities and, for major incidents, working closely with other
Federal agencies within the National Response Framework (NRF).
Implementing New Energy Legislation: EPA has a critical role in implementing
the provisions of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005. The EPAct
substantially enhances the underground storage tank (UST) release prevention
program to minimize future releases from USTs and provide additional emphasis
on remediation of leaking USTs. Implementing the EPAct provisions includes
conducting more frequent inspections, prohibiting delivery to noncompliant tanks,
and requiring either secondary containment for new tank systems or financial
responsibility for manufacturers and installers. For further information and final
EPA grant guidance, see http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/fedlaws/EPActUST.htm.
Clean Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction: To support the Administrator's
Clean Energy and Climate Change Priority, EPA continues to build on the
substantial greenhouse gas reductions and energy savings already being realized
through the RCC in all of OSWER's materials management and land cleanup
programs.
IV. Regional Priorities
In late 2005, the Deputy Administrator asked the regions to identify a limited number of
Regional and state priorities. These priorities were based upon dividing the nation into
geographic groups and establishing performance measures to support the priorities. The
geographic areas include the Northeast, Midwest, Great South, Great American West,
Tribes, U.S.-Mexico Border and Islands.
Many of the performance measures developed by these regional groups support OSWER
national program priorities. The selected regional priorities that align with or support
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 2
-------
OSWER's national goals include Superfund and Brownfields site assessments; Superfund
construction completions; Brownfields acres made ready for reuse; emergency
preparedness exercises; and tribal efforts to increase the number of tribes covered by
integrated waste management plans, to close, cleanup, or upgrade open dumps, and to
assess, cleanup, and redevelop Brownfields properties.
The U.S.-Mexico border priority concerning removal and disposal of scrap tires supports
OSWER's waste management priorities. Under the Midwest's Lead Poisoning priority,
residential properties are being restored using Superfund authorities. These actions
support Superfund priorities. Finally, the OSWER program-related measures for the
Great South are very specific to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and are not included in the
FY 2009 NPM guidance.
V. Tribal Program Development
OSWER supports tribal governments through capacity building, technical assistance and
outreach. The tribal program will be finalizing the draft OSWER Tribal Strategy, an EPA
and Tribal Partnership to Preserve and Restore Land in Indian Country, which describes
in detail each of OSWER's program strategies, priority activities, and associated
measures for tribes; and provides cross-program strategies, direction, and national
initiatives for OSWER's tribal program. OSWER's tribal program priorities and
strategies directly support EPA's Strategic Plan and components of the Administrator's
and OSWER's Action Plans. In particular, OSWER seeks to strengthen EPA through
stronger partnerships with tribes, and improving tribal-related data and information
quality and accessibility in Indian country.
In tandem with existing tribal program support, OSWER will focus on the following key
areas to help improve tribal program development and performance:
Improve dialogue, outreach and information sharing between EPA and tribes
concerning OSWER's efforts under Goals 3 and 4 of EPA's Strategic Plan.
Improve tribal baseline data and establish a process to report on tribal-specific cross
-program measures,
Maintain a stable set of internal measures for routine analysis of OSWER tribal
program performance.
Increase the level of understanding of the concept of risk and EPA's role/approach to
risk in Indian country.
Improve results from OSWER tribal training.
Improve tribal outreach and tools in OSWER.
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page :
-------
Environmental Justice and CARE
Environmental justice (EJ) is a priority throughout all of OSWER's waste programs,
promoting healthy and environmentally sound conditions for all people. OSWER's EJ
program is currently updating the biennial OSWER EnvironmentalJustice Action Plan.,
which describes each of OSWER's program strategies, priority activities and associated
measures for EJ and provides cross-program strategies and direction for OSWER's EJ
program. The OSWER EJ Action Plan will align EJ program commitments with EPA's
2006-2011 Strategic Plan, the Administrator's Priorities, regional priorities, and the NPM
priorities.
EPA's Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) program supports the
Agency's priorities for protecting children and upholding citizens' rights to be
knowledgeable about the health of their environment. The CARE program is a
community-based, multi-media collaborative Agency program designed to help local
communities address the cumulative risk of toxics exposure. Through the CARE
program, EPA programs work together to provide technical support and funding to
communities to help them build partnerships and use collaborative problem solving
processes to select and implement actions to improve community health and the
environment. Information about CARE can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/care/.
VI. Implementation Strategies
The Superfund Remedial program will focus on cleaning up sites and making them
available for beneficial reuse. These goals will be achieved by assessing the worst sites
first, ensuring that human exposure to toxic chemicals and migration of contaminated
groundwater are under control, completing construction of remedies, fully implementing
institutional controls where necessary, ensuring sites are ready for anticipated use, and
working with public and private stakeholders to redevelop sites. States and tribes are key
partners in the cleanup of Superfund hazardous waste sites, and Superfund's Regional
offices will continue to work closely with these partners in accomplishing key goals and
objectives under the EPA FY 2006 - 20011 Strategic Plan.
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program will focus on achieving site
construction completions and promoting reuse at Federal facilities listed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) and specific Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) bases. Work at
these sites will be done collaboratively with our Federal, state, tribal and local partners as
well as affected communities. The Federal Facilities Enforcement program will use the
most appropriate enforcement and compliance tools to address the significant problems at
these sites. In addition, the program will try to resolve outstanding site-specific disputes
as well as obtain statutorily mandated Interagency Agreements (IAGs)/Federal Facility
Agreements (FFAs) at those NPL sites without one. The Superfund Federal Facilities
Response and Enforcement programs will work together to ensure that the Federal
government addresses its responsibilities at NPL and BRAC sites.
The Superfund Removal and Oil programs will ensure that releases of hazardous
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 4
-------
substances and oil in the inland zone are appropriately addressed to reduce the threat to
human health and the environment. The Oil program will promote spill prevention by
communicating the revised Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
regulation and working with industry to implement the requirements. EPA will continue
to support local, state and other Federal responders at incidents when Federal support is
needed and appropriate, and direct and/or monitor responses by responsible parties. EPA
will ensure a coordinated effort concerning homeland security issues, among its own
offices and with other Federal agencies, to prepare for coordinated and effective
responses to nationally significant incidences. EPA also will actively audit facilities that
are required to have Risk Management Plans (RMPs) and analyze RMP data to
understand trends in and causes of chemical accidents. RMP data also will be utilized to
conduct outreach to improve chemical safety.
The Brownfields program will promote assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of
brownfields; fund grant programs and other research efforts; clarify liability issues; enter
into partnerships with local, state, tribal and Federal entities; conduct outreach activities;
and support brownfields job training programs. In FY 2009, Regions will continue to
implement the Brownfields program; support the national grant competition; emphasize
performance and outcome measurement; work with state and tribal co-implementers of
the Brownfields law; provide technical outreach support; and address environmental
justice issues.
The RCRA program continues its focus on two primary areas for FY 2009. One is the
continued existing statutory obligations to ensure the safe management of hazardous and
non-hazardous waste and to clean up hazardous and non-hazardous releases. The other is
our emphasis on resource conservation and materials management through partnerships.
Much of the effort toward solid waste and chemicals reduction and recycling is under the
RCC program. In addition, the RCRA program will continue its efforts to meet the
commitments made as part of the Special Regional Priority for the Mexico Border area.
The Underground Storage Tank (UST) program will continue to assist states and tribes in
implementing the UST program. The program has a strong focus on preventing leaks
from USTs, and detecting, as early as possible, those leaks that do occur. The program
also has a strong cleanup focus to assess and clean up leaks from USTs, including those
at brownfield sites contaminated with petroleum. The UST program places a high
priority on close collaboration with tribes to conduct the UST program in Indian Country
and to build tribal capacity in the program. In addition, the program will continue to
work very closely with and provide assistance to states to help them meet their new
responsibilities authorized under the EPAct of 2005, Title XV, Subtitle B.
In addition to these program priorities, OSWER is continuing to emphasize the
importance of cross-program revitalization measures to promote and communicate
cleanup and revitalization-related accomplishments and associated benefits/values to
society (see October 20, 2006 Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program
Revitalization Measures available at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/ai_measuringprogress.htm). These acres-
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 5
-------
based measures will allow OSWER for the first time to describe the collective scope of
sites all of its cleanup programs are addressing as well as acres-based progress. During
FY 2007, OSWER programs developed approaches to efficiently implement the
following three cross-program revitalization measures, which will be predominantly
based on information the programs already collect:
Universe Indicator - the total number of sites and acres being addressed by all
OSWER's cleanup programs.
Protective for People Performance Measure - the number of acres at which there
is no complete pathway for human exposures to unacceptable levels of
contamination based on current site conditions.
Ready for Anticipated Uses (RA U) Performance Measure - the number of acres at
which cleanup goals have been achieved for media that may affect current as well
as reasonably expected future land uses, and institutional controls4 identified as
part of the remedy are in place.
Implementation of these measures began in 2007 and continues in 2008. In FY 2009,
OSWER programs will be expected to collect and report those data on an ongoing basis.
VII. Measures
On October 11, 2006, the Deputy Administrator signed a memorandum entitled, State
Reporting Burden and Measures Streamlining Initiatives,5 to provide an important
opportunity for our state partners and EPA to identify burdensome requirements and
measures for potential deletion or modification. Through these initiatives, EPA
developed a smaller set of reporting requirements to support measures that are useful for
monitoring Agency performance. OSWER also has implemented the recommendations
of eight states to reduce reporting burden and will implement three additional state
recommendations during 2008 (see attachment IV for details).
For this Guidance, the Agency has undertaken a review of its measures to improve them
through better alignment with like measures or through eliminating measures altogether.
As a result of this review, 17 of OSWER's measures formed the basis for a total of 41
changes to align measures across the Agency's planning and reporting documents. In
addition, the Annual Commitment System measure, "Percentage of Brownfields job
training trainees placed," has been eliminated and a new measure reporting BTUs of
energy conserved and MICE of greenhouse gas emissions reduced by the Resource
Conservation Challenge program is being introduced in FY 2009.
4 For more information concerning institutional controls please see
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policv/ic/index.htm
5 The October 11, 2006 memorandum entitled, "State Reporting Burden and Measures Streamlining
Initiatives" can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 6
-------
VIII. Significant Changes to Priorities or Strategies from FY 2008
In FY2009, the Brownfields Program will streamline the Assessment, Revolving Loan
Fund and Cleanup (ARC) Grant Guidelines to ensure the highest quality, most viable
projects are funded to further meet our assessment, cleanup and land revitalization goals.
Over the course of the year a workgroup comprised often regional representatives and
headquarters staff has met to revise the guidelines, highlighting national and regional
priorities in the statutory-based proposal evaluation criteria. The goal of these revisions is
to make the guidelines as clear as possible, attract a dynamic pool of applicants and select
the projects with the most potential for success.
In FY 2009, EPA's Superfund program must devote additional attention to the growing
universe of sites that reach the post-construction complete phase. Approximately 65
percent of NPL sites have achieved construction completion and are in the post-
construction phase of the cleanup pipeline, while many other sites have achieved
completion of some milestone of their cleanup process.
The goal of post-construction completion activities is to ensure that Superfund response
actions of both Federal and private sites provide for the long-term protection of human
health and the environment. Post- construction completion activities also involve
optimizing remedies to increase effectiveness and/or reduce cost without sacrificing long-
term protection of human health and the environment. Five-Year Reviews generally are
required when hazardous substances remain on site above levels that permit unrestricted
use and unlimited exposure. These reviews are usually performed five years following
the initiation of a CERCLA response action, and are repeated in succeeding five-year
intervals so long as future uses remain restricted. Five-year reviews provide an
opportunity to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to determine
whether it remains protective of human health and the environment.
The Agency will also take new actions in FY 2009 to improve program management and
increase efficiency. In coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
consulting engineers, EPA plans to establish a Center of Expertise to advise Regional
offices on how to appropriately stage significant design and construction projects.
Through the Center, technical resources will be made available to EPA Regional project
managers to help promote the efficiency of project delivery and facilitate project progress
through the Superfund pipeline. In addition, the Agency will continue focusing on
optimizing groundwater remedies and sharing best practices with Regional offices for
cost management and efficiency improvements.
IX. Program Contacts (staff)
Program/Issue
General OSWER
Superfund Remedial
Contact
Sue Priftis (202) 566- 1901
Howard Rubin (202) 566-1899
Glen Cuscino (202) 566-1906
Art Flaks (703) 603-9088
Janet Weiner (703) 603-8717
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 7
-------
Program/Issue
Emergency Management
Brownfields
OSWER Revitalization
Solid Waste
Underground Storage Tanks
Federal Facilities
Tribal
Innovation
Clean Energy/ Greenhouse Gas
Environmental Justice & CARE
Contact
Lisa Guarneiri (202) 564-7997
Josh Woodyard (202) 564-9588
Bill Finan (202) 564-7981
Juanita Standifer (202) 566-2764
Rachel Lentz (202) 566-2745
Patricia Overmeyer (202) 566-2774
Wayne Roepe (703) 308-8630
Angela Talaber (703) 308-1848
Carolyn Hoskinson (703) 603-7166
Lynn DePont (703) 603-7148
Hal White (703) 603-7177
Tencil Coffee (703) 603-0053
Felicia Wright (202) 566-1886
Jeffrey Kohn (202) 566-1407
Cathy Allen (202) 566-1039
Kent Benjamin (202) 566-0815
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 8
-------
Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Response Programs
Goal Three: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.2.2: Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land
On December 11, 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). CERCLA was enacted to fill
a major gap in environmental and health protection by providing the Federal government
with additional statutory authority to respond to releases and threats of releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants. CERCLA was later amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act in 1986.
The Superfund Remedial program manages the risks to human health and the
environment at contaminated properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other
action, and in so doing helps make these properties available for reuse. Resources in this
program are used to: 1) collect and analyze data on sites to determine the need for a
Federal CERCLA response, which may culminate in the placement of a site on the
National Priorities List (NPL), 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, 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.
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program facilitates faster, more effective and
less costly cleanup and reuse of Federal facilities while ensuring protection of human
health and the environment from releases of hazardous substances. Nationwide, there are
thousands of Federal facilities which are contaminated with hazardous waste, military
munitions, radioactive waste, fuels, and a variety of other toxic contaminants. These
facilities include various types of sites, such as Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS),
active, realigning and closed installations, abandoned mines, nuclear weapons production
facilities, fuel distribution areas, and landfills.
The Agency fulfills a number of statutory and regulatory obligations at Federal facilities,
including conducting oversight of those sites on the Superfund NPL where cleanup is
being done by other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense (DoD) and the
Department of Energy. A major role of the program is to ensure statutory responsibilities
related to the transfer of contaminated Federal properties at both NPL and non-NPL sites
are properly met. Such responsibilities include approval of transfers prior to
implementation of remedies at NPL sites (i.e., early transfer), and approving
determinations that remedies are operating "properly and successfully" at both NPL and
non-NPL sites. Often EPA, and the parties implementing the remedies, face unique
challenges due to the types of contamination present, the size of the facility and extent of
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 9
-------
contamination, ongoing facility operations that need to continue, complex community
involvement requirements, and complexities related to the redevelopment of the
facilities.6
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program also supports the DoD at selected
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installations. With the enactment of BRAC
legislation, more than 500 major military installations representing the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Defense Logistics Agency were slated for realignment or closure in 1988,
1991, 1993, 1995 and 2005. Under the first four rounds of BRAC, 107 of those sites
were identified as requiring accelerated cleanup. Seventy-two Federal facilities currently
listed on the NPL were identified under BRAC 2005 as closing, realigning or gaining
personnel.7 EPA has worked with the DoD over the past several years on their effort of
privatizing BRAC sites.
Working together with Federal, state and Tribal partners, the Superfund Response
program accomplished the following activities as of the end of FY 2007,8
Completed 395 final assessment decisions, for a cumulative total of 39,766 sites
evaluated since the program's inception;
Added 12 new sites to the NPL, and proposed 17 sites to the NPL. As of the end
of FY 2007, 1,635 sites were either proposed, final, or deleted from the NPL, of
which 177 were Federal facility sites;
Selected final cleanup plans at 26 sites. These additional plans bring the
cumulative total of sites with final cleanup plans to approximately 75 percent of
1,569 final and deleted NPL sites;
Oversaw ongoing construction at more than 200 remedial design projects and 400
remedial construction projects, conducted either by EPA (or states) or potentially
responsible parties under EPA or state oversight;
Obligated more than $82 million in appropriated funds, state cost-share
contributions, and potentially responsible party settlement resources for 19 new
construction projects ranked by the National Risk-Based Priority Panel at 19
National Priorities List (NPL) sites. This represents all new construction projects
that were ready for funding in FY 2007.
Achieved control of all identified unacceptable human exposures at a net total of
13 additional sites, bringing the program's cumulative total to 1,282 sites under
control;
Achieved control of the migration of contaminated groundwater through
engineered remedies or natural processes at a net total of 19 additional sites,
bringing the program's cumulative total to 977 sites under control;
Achieved construction completion at 24 sites for a cumulative total of 1,030 NPL
6 For more information on the Federal Facilities program go to http://epa.gov/fedfac.
7 For more information on the BRAC program go to
http://epa.gov/fedfac/documents/baseclosure.htm.
8 For more information regarding the program's cumulative accomplishments through FY
2007, please refer to the Goal 3 Chapter of the Agency'sFY 2007 Performance and
Accountability Report at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2007par/index.htm
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 10
-------
sites. In addition, 7 sites were deleted from the NPL for a cumulative total of 320
NPL site deletions;
Conducted 203 Five-Year Reviews.
Program Priorities
In FY 2009, as in prior years, cleanup and response work at contaminated sites remains
the top priority of the Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Response programs.
The Superfund Response program will continue to address intractable and complex
environmental problems, such as contaminated soil and groundwater affecting residential
areas that can cause human health problems. The goal of this work is ultimately to
reduce current, direct human exposures to hazardous pollutants and provide long-term
human health protection. In addition to its cleanup work, the Superfund program will also
undertake temporary activities, when appropriate, to protect people from threats posed by
uncontrolled hazardous wastes or contaminated groundwater, such as providing
alternative drinking water supplies or relocating residents. These efforts demonstrate the
Agency's commitment to protecting human health from both possible short- and long-
term effects of site-related contamination.
Performance goals and measures for the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program
are a subset of the Superfund Remedial program's measures. The Agency's ability to
meet its annual Superfund targets is partially dependent on work performed by other
Federal agencies at NPL Federal facility sites.
Performance Goals for FY 2009:
(1) 400 remedial final site assessment decisions;
(2) A net total of 10 additional sites with human exposures under control;
(3) A net total of 15 additional sites with groundwater migration under control;
(4) 30 additional sites deemed site-wide ready for anticipated use;
(5) 35 construction completions; and
(6) 6.7 sites with current or long -term exposure controlled per million dollars
expended (PART efficiency measure).
The Superfund Federal Facilities program underwent a PART assessment entitled "EPA
Support for Cleanup of Federal Facilities" in FY 2005 and received an overall rating of
"moderately effective." As follow-up to the PART, the program has been working with
other Federal agencies to attain long-term environmental measures. These efforts will
continue in FY 2009. In addition, the program conducted a policy review in FY 2006 to
ensure policies and guidance documents are still relevant and comprehensive. The
program implemented several of the resulting recommendations in FY 2007 and will
implement additional recommendations in FY 2008. Another evaluation of the program is
currently being conducted. Results and recommendations generated from this evaluation
may be implemented as early as FY 2009. The current program evaluation will analyze
the Program's planning and data processes for cleanup milestones.
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 11
-------
Implementation Strategies to Meet Performance Goals
This NPM guidance provides direction to the Regions to meet the priorities of the
Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Response programs. In FY 2009, the
Superfund Response program will focus on cleaning up sites and returning them to
beneficial reuse. The general approach for achieving these goals will be assessing the
worst sites first, ensuring that human exposure to toxic chemicals and migration of
contaminated groundwater are under control, completing construction of remedies and
ensuring sites are ready for anticipated use. States, tribes and other Federal agencies are
key partners in the cleanup of Superfund hazardous waste sites, and Superfund's Regional
offices will continue to work closely with these partners in accomplishing key goals and
objectives under the EPA FY 2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan.
EPA is committed to providing resources to maintain adequate construction progress at
all sites, including large and complicated remedial projects, once construction has started.
Funding for Superfund construction projects is critical to achieving risk reduction,
construction completion, and restoration of contaminated sites to productive reuse. The
program will continue to work with Regions to improve long-term planning construction
estimates and funding strategies. The Agency will also continue to emphasize the
importance of the community in its decision-making and remedy implementation and
construction activities.
EPA also will devote more attention to the growing universe of sites that reach the post-
construction complete phase. Over 65 percent of NPL sites have achieved construction
completion and are in the post-construction phase of the cleanup pipeline, while many
other sites have achieved completion of some aspects of their cleanups. EPA plans to
conduct over 200 five-year reviews in FY 2009, and the Agency will continue to need
resources to conduct activities to ensure remedies are working optimally and as intended
at sites where any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site
above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure sites.
The Superfund Response program is also evaluating all construction complete sites to
ensure any necessary institutional controls (ICs) have been implemented. This work is
identifying many older sites for which ICs should have been implemented. The program
is also making 1C information available on the internet to enable the public to view 1C
instruments affecting individual sites.9 A system has been developed to capture this
information. Headquarters is regularly monitoring Regions' progress in reviewing all
construction complete sites and instituting effective ICs. The Cross-Program
Revitalization Measure, described below, measures progress in this area.
On March 2, 2007, OSRTI and FFRRO released the Final Guidance outlining how the
Superfund and Federal facilities programs will document and report performance in
achieving Land Revitalization.10 This guidance complements the October 18, 2006,
9 Please visit the following website to search Superfund site information:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm
10 Please see guidance at http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/sf ff final cprm guidance.pdf
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 12
-------
Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures (CPRM
guidance), which provides the overarching framework for this effort across all OSWER
cleanup programs, and reflects comments received on the OSRTI / FFRRO December 21,
2006 draft Guidance for Documenting and Reporting Performance in Achieving Land
Revitalization.
At the end of FY 2007, Regions entered data into CERCLIS for the Cross-Program
Revitalization Measures and the Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use performance
measure. Results of this data entry indicate that 244 NPL sites currently meet the criteria
for the Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (which requires that ICs to be in
place). FY 2007 targets for this measure were exceeded, and targets for this measure
have been set through 2011. Over the course of FY 2008, OSRTI and FFRRO will be
analyzing CPRM information in order to ensure that the data are of sound quality and to
prepare the data for OSWER communication efforts.
To further enhance program effectiveness, the Agency will continue focusing on
optimizing groundwater remedies and sharing best practices with Regional offices for
cost management and efficiency improvements. EPA is also monitoring Regional use of
resources, including special accounts. New Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) fields will include more
planning information for these accounts, and Headquarters will incorporate this
information in making funding decisions at sites.
In FY 2007, the program introduced a new efficiency measure that tracked the number of
NPL sites with human exposures under control per million dollars. EPA is currently
working to modernize the program's data repository (i.e., CERCLIS) to ensure accurate
and complete information on program performance and financial management.
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 13
-------
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Prevention Programs
Goal Three: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.2.1: Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional Releases
EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases
of hazardous substances and oil to human health and the environment. Under the
National Response System (NRS), EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard evaluate thousands of
spills and releases annually and often respond. The Federal response is essentially a
safety net to address the incidents that are beyond the capability or otherwise cannot be
adequately addressed by the state, Tribal or local agency or responsible party. 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.
The NRS is a multi-agency preparedness and response mechanism that includes the
National Response Center, the National Response Team (composed of 16 Federal
agencies), 13 Regional Response Teams 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. When an
incident occurs, these groups coordinate with the OSC in charge to ensure that all
necessary resources, such as personnel and equipment, are available and that
containment, cleanup, and disposal activities proceed quickly, efficiently and effectively.
To prepare for large-scale responses to incidents such as the World Trade Center, the
anthrax attacks, and the Columbia Shuttle recovery, the Agency instituted its National
Approach to Response (NAR). The NAR emphasizes the need to provide the necessary
levels and appropriate types of support during major responses and greater consistency
across the Regions in emergency response capabilities. Preparedness on a national level
is essential to ensure that emergency responders are capable of managing multiple, large-
scale emergencies. EPA will improve its capability to effectively prepare for and respond
to these incidents, working under its statutory authorities and, for major high
consequence incidents, will work closely with the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and other government agencies within the National Response Framework (NRF).
As part of enhancing its readiness capabilities, EPA is continually working to improve
internal and external coordination and communication mechanisms. For example, EPA's
National Incident Coordination Team brings together various program offices during a
response to ensure coordination of all Agency activities. Under the Continuity of
Operations/Continuity of Government program, EPA continually upgrades and evaluates
plans, facilities, training, and equipment to ensure that essential government business can
continue during a catastrophic emergency.
EPA will continue 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 equipment, response training and exercises, and technical
capabilities. We also will review response data provided in "after-action" reports
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 14
-------
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.
EPA has enhanced its emergency response and removal capabilities through the
development of the Core Emergency Response (Core ER) assessment tool program. The
Core ER sets standards to ensure that each Region works toward improving and
maintaining an excellent response program. EPA recently implemented a revised Core
ER tool to address the current state of emergency response excellence, in light of lessons
learned from responses to recent terrorist incidents (e.g., 9/11, anthrax contamination)
and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The strategic target associated with these efforts is, "By
2011, achieve and maintain at least 95 percent of the maximum score on readiness
evaluation criteria in each Region."
Facility Oil Spill Preparedness and Prevention
The amended Clean Water Act requires facilities with certain quantities of oil to prepare
Facility Response Plans (FRPs) and submit them to EPA (or other appropriate Federal
agencies) for review and approval. Approximately 4,000 facilities must submit FRPs to
EPA. EPA uses information in the FRPs to develop Area Contingency Plans under the
National Contingency Plan. EPA inspects FRP facilities and conducts unannounced
drills to test facility preparedness.
The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulation under the Clean
Water Act requires covered facilities to take specific steps to prevent and contain oil
spills. EPA estimates that approximately 600,000 facilities are subject to the SPCC
regulation. EPA amended the SPCC regulation in December 2006 and proposed
additional amendments in 2007. Facilities will have to develop and/or amend SPCC
plans in compliance with the amended regulation in 2009. EPA inspects approximately
1,000 SPCC facilities each year.
Evaluation, Measures, and Targets
In its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, EPA has set a target to improve the Agency's homeland
security and emergency response preparedness by 10% each year as measured through
the Core ER evaluation process. This process reviews Regional capabilities related to:
health and safety; training and exercises; proper delegation and warrant authorities; and,
response readiness including equipment, transportation and outreach. In FY 2007, the
Core ER assessment tool was expanded to gauge staff capability to implement policies,
put skills into practice and use equipment. For FY 2008, the measure has been re-
phrased as "Score on annual Core ER assessment" to more clearly state how we gauge
progress in improving our capabilities.
11 For more information on EPA's proposed amendments to the SPCC regulation, please see
http://www.epa.gov/OEM/content/spcc/spcc oct07.htm
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 15
-------
In FY 2005, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reassessed the Superfund
Removal program and assessed, for the first time, the Oil program using OMB's Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The Removal program achieved a rating of moderately
effective and the Oil program achieved a rating of adequate. Both programs are required
to implement several OMB recommendations over the next five years in order to make
them more efficient and effective, including the development of better outcome
measures. Those recommendations are outlined below.
OMB Recommendations for the Superfund Removal program:
Modernize the program's data repository (CERCLIS) to ensure accurate and
complete information on program performance and financial management;
Investigate the feasibility of outcome measures that test the linkage between
program activities and impacts on human health and the environment; and,
Develop a plan for regular, comprehensive and independent assessments of
program performance.
OMB Recommendations for the Oil program:
Develop stronger strategic planning procedures to ensure continuous
improvement in the program, including regular procedures that will track and
document key decisions and work products;
Evaluate the data quality of key data sources used by the program to improve the
accuracy and reliability of performance information; and,
Develop a forum for sharing and implementing best practices among Regional
offices that will improve the program's overall performance and efficiency.
EPA is addressing these recommendations aggressively. For example, detailed logic
models were developed for the Superfund Removal program and Oil program to facilitate
the development of new outcome measures. EPA has also determined that "compliance"
with the FRP and SPCC regulations means that a facility is found to be in compliance
with the regulatory requirements at the time of an inspection (rather than coming into
compliance later in the year).
As a result of the PART process, both the Superfund Removal program and the Oil
program have annual, long-term and efficiency measures for which they must report.
Those measures are outlined below.
Annual Output Measures and FY 2009 targets:
Removal: Voluntary removal actions overseen by EPA and completed (target
130)
Removal: Superfund-lead removal actions completed (target: 195)
Oil: Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to Spill Prevention, Control
and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations (target: 58%)
Oil: Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to Facility Response Plan
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 16
-------
(FRP) regulations (target: 82%)
Long-term Output Measures:
Removal: Total completed voluntary removal actions overseen by EPA
Removal: Total completed Superfund-lead removal actions
Oil: Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters by facilities subject to the FRP
regulations
Oil: Compliance rate of all facilities subject to FRP regulations
Efficiency Measures:
Removal: Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually per million dollars
Oil: Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters per million program dollar spent
annually on prevention and preparedness at FRP facilities
During FY 2008, potential new outcome measures will be pilot tested for both the
Superfund Removal and Oil programs.
SUPPORTING CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION, PREPAREDNESS,
AND RESPONSE AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVELS
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Subobjective 4.1.2: Reduce Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA, also
known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act), created
requirements for state and local planning and preparedness for chemical emergencies, and
for public access to information concerning potential chemical hazards. State Emergency
Response Commissions (SERCs) establish Local Emergency Planning Committees
(LEPCs) that use information about chemicals in the community to develop
comprehensive emergency plans. In addition, tribes can establish Tribal Emergency
Response Commissions (TERCs). There are more than 3,000 LEPCs nationwide. EPA
has supported this program with guidance, technical assistance, and some limited grants.
EPA also worked with the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to
develop and provide the Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations
(CAMEO) software to these committees free of charge.
In 1990, section 112(r) of the amended Clean Air Act (CAA) established requirements
regarding the prevention and detection of accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. The
Risk Management program established under those requirements is an extension of the
EPCRA planning and preparedness programs. Facilities that handle certain quantities of
regulated substances must develop risk management plans (RMPs) and submit them to
EPA. In turn, EPA makes RMPs available to state agencies, LEPCs, and the public.
Facilities first submitted RMPs in 1999 and updates are required at least every 5 years
and more frequently as changes are made at the facility.
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 17
-------
RMPs must include the following: an assessment of potential offsite consequences of an
accidental release from a facility; a history of releases that have occurred at the facility; a
program to prevent accidental releases; and, an emergency response program that is
coordinated with the LEPC in the area where the facility is located.
EPA, working with states, tribes, local communities, industry, and other Federal
agencies, oversees these programs with the perspective that:
Operators of facilities who have hazardous chemicals are primarily responsible
for the safe handling of those chemicals; and,
State, tribal and local governments (as well as the community) play a critical role
in risk reduction as well as mitigating the effects of chemical accidents.
In order to continue to assist state, local and tribal governments and industry in reducing
the risks from chemical accidents or mitigating the effects of those accidents should they
occur, EPA will:
Continue to provide guidance, tools, and technical assistance to states, tribes,
local communities, and industry to better enable them to reduce risk;
Analyze existing RMP data as well as data gathered from audits to understand
potential chemical risks and the causes and effects of releases; and,
Assist states, tribes, local communities, and industry in understanding how these
chemical risks could affect communities, and how to reduce risk and prepare to
address and mitigate risks should a chemical accident occur.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish a system to audit and inspect RMPs. The
audit/inspection system is used to continuously assess the quality of risk management
programs, gather information on chemical risks, and check compliance with the
requirements. All of these elements of the audit/inspection system assist in improving
RMPs and reducing chemical risks. In the past, EPA established numerical
audit/inspection targets without regard to the level of facility risk. Recently, however,
there have been a number of developments relating to high-risk hazardous chemical
facilities that warrant increased focus by the Agency on the implementation of accident
prevention and emergency planning and response regulations at such facilities.
Section 550 of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 required DHS to
publish interim final regulations for high-risk chemical facilities. The Act required
regulations to establish risk-based security performance standards, vulnerability
assessments, and the development and implementation of site security plans for high-risk
chemical facilities. In April 2007, DHS published the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standards (CFATS) in 6 CFR Part 27. In developing the CFATS regulations, DHS relied
significantly on the data collected by EPA under the CAA Section 112(r) Risk
Management Program and incorporated the RMP list of chemicals and threshold
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 18
-------
quantities in its criteria for determining high-risk facilities. EPA believes that having
well-implemented risk management programs at such facilities will further the aims of
both CAA Section 112(r) and the Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
In March 2007, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)
published its final report on the March 2005 accident at the BP America refinery in Texas
City, Texas. This accident resulted in 15 deaths, 180 injuries, and over $1.5 billion in
financial losses. The CSB investigation report recommended among other things that the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) implement a national emphasis
program for all oil refineries to focus on factors that caused or contributed to the BP
accident. In response, OSHA has committed to conduct comprehensive Process Safety
Management (PSM) inspections at all PSM-regulated refineries in Federal OSHA States
over the next two years and to encourage states that administer their own OSHA plan to
implement a similar emphasis program.
In view of these developments, EPA will focus the audit/inspection system under CAA
Section 112(r) on high-risk chemical facilities. Therefore, Regions should consider the
following factors in focusing their compliance monitoring activities:
Facilities whose reported RMP worst-case scenario population exceeds 500,000
people;
Facilities holding any RMP-regulated substance on site in an amount more than
10,000 times the RMP threshold quantity for the substance;
Facilities whose reported RMP worst-case scenario endpoint distance equals or
exceeds 25 miles;
Facilities that have had one or more significant accidental releases within the
previous five years; and,
Other facilities where information possessed by the Regional office indicates that
the facility may be high-risk.
Typically, oil refineries are expected to be among the facilities warranting focus. Under
GPRA, EPA has set as a strategic target to improve by ten percent by 2011 the 2007
baseline capabilities of LEPCs to prevent, prepare for, and respond to chemical
emergencies. EPA will collect information from LEPCs during 2007 to establish the
baseline.
EPA also collects information on the number of RMP audits and/or facility inspections
completed each year. The performance target for the number of RMP audits/inspections
is 400 per year. In FY 2006, EPA and delegated states conducted 637 field
audits/inspections and, in FY 2007, conducted 628 audits/inspections. Under GPRA, EPA
has set the following three strategic targets for the RMP program:
By 2011, continue to maintain the RMP prevention program and further reduce by
5 percent the number of accidents at RMP facilities (the baseline is an annual
average of 340 accidents, based on RMP program data through 2003);
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 19
-------
By 2011, reduce by 5 percent the consequences of accidents at RMP facilities as
measured by injuries, fatalities, and property damage (the baseline is an annual
average of 358 injuries, 13 fatalities, and $143.5 million in property damage at
RMP facilities from 1995-2003); and,
By 2011, vulnerability zones surrounding RMP facilities will be reduced by 5
percent from the 2004 baseline, which will result in the reduction of risk for more
than four million people (the 2004 baseline is 1,086,428 square miles of
cumulative area of RMP facility vulnerability zones).
EPA Regions are not required to provide data annually relative to these strategic targets.
EPA will analyze data in the RMP database to determine progress toward these targets
and the status of progress in 2011.
Performance goal and target for FY 2009:
Number of risk management audits/inspections completed (target 400).
Useful websites:
Office of Emergency Management http://www.epa.gov/oem
National Response Team (NRT) http://www.nrt.org
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 20
-------
Brownfields Cleanup and Land Revitalization Program
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Subobjective 4.2.3: Assess and Clean Up Brownfields.
EPA's Brownfields program will continue to facilitate the cleanup, redevelopment and
restoration of brownfields properties. Under the Brownfields Law (Public Law 107-118,
"Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act"12 ), brownfields are
defined (with certain exclusions) as real properties, the expansion, redevelopment, or
reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Brownfield properties include, for example,
abandoned industrial sites, drug labs, mine-scarred land, or sites contaminated with
petroleum or petroleum products. Through its Brownfields program, EPA will continue
to provide for the assessment and cleanup of these properties, to leverage redevelopment
opportunities, and to help preserve green space, offering combined benefits to local
communities.
Strategic Measure and Target:
Working with state, tribal, and local partners, promote the assessment, cleanup, and
sustainable reuse of brownfields properties.
By 2011, conduct environmental assessments at 13,900 (cumulative) properties,
make an additional 1,125 acres of brownfields ready for reuse, and leverage $12.9
billion (cumulative) in assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment funding at
brownfields properties.
Performance Goals for FY 2009:
Number of Brownfields properties assessed (target: 1,000).
Number of Brownfields properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding (target:
60).
Acres of Brownfields property made ready for reuse (target: 225).
Number of jobs leveraged at Brownfields sites (target: 5,000).
Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields
sites (target: $0.9).
Number of tribes supported by Brownfields cooperative agreements (reporting).
Brownfields Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund, and Job Training Grants
EPA will continue to provide Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund, and Job
Training grants to communities. Brownfields Assessment grants provide funding to
inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning and community involvement
12 Signed in January 2002, for more information on Public Law 107-118 go to
http://www.epa.gov/swerosps^f/sblrbra.htm.
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 21
-------
activities related to brownfields sites. Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund grants provide
funding for a grantee to capitalize a revolving loan and for a grantee to make subgrants to
carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites. Brownfields Cleanup grants will fund
cleanup activities at brownfield sites owned by grant recipients. EPA also will provide
funding to create local environmental job training programs to enhance the economic
benefits, derived from brownfield revitalization efforts, to the community.
EPA will publish proposal guidelines, solicit proposals, conduct a national competition,
announce, and award Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund, and Job Training
grants. To ensure a fair selection process, evaluation panels consisting of EPA Regional
and Headquarters staff and other Federal agency representatives will assess how well the
proposals meet the selection criteria outlined in the statute and the proposal guidelines.
Final selections will be made by EPA senior management after considering the ranking of
proposals by the evaluation panels. The statute requires that funds be directed to the
highest ranking proposals.
Proposal Guidelines for Brownfields Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund and
Cleanup Grants are available at: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/applicat.htm
Proposal Guidelines for Brownfields Job Training Grants are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/applicat.htm
Following award, EPA will assist grantees in achieving specific objectives as agreed
upon in the project work plan. EPA will conduct post award monitoring activities to
ensure the successful implementation of projects. Grant terms and conditions require
grantees to complete Property Profile Forms or Job Training Forms. Using these forms,
EPA will collect information on property acreage, assessment completion date, whether
cleanup is necessary, cleanup completion date, status of institutional controls, leveraged
jobs, and leveraged dollars. In addition, the program will use Property Profile Forms to
collect information on the new performance measure, "Acres Made Ready for Reuse."
Reporting forms are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/rptforms.htm
Recipients of Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund Grants, and Job Training
Grants will be able to submit Property Profile Form and/or Job Training Reporting Form
data electronically using the Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System
(ACRES). EPA Regions will verify data submitted by grantees in the ACRES system.
Grantees that do not have capability for electronic reporting will be able to submit paper
forms.
Brownfields State and Tribal Response Programs Grants
EPA will continue to work in partnership with state and Tribal programs to address
brownfield properties. The Agency will provide states and tribes with tools, information,
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 22
-------
and funding they can use to develop response programs that will address environmental
assessment, cleanup, characterization, and redevelopment needs at sites contaminated
with hazardous wastes and petroleum. The Agency will continue to encourage the
empowerment of state, Tribal, and local environmental and economic development
officials to oversee brownfield activities and the implementation of local solutions to
local problems. EPA will publish an annual guidance regarding the criteria for state
funding.
Grant Funding Guidance for State and Tribal Response programs (CERCLA)
Section 128(a) is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/swerospsM/state tribal.htm#grant
Following award, EPA will assist grantees in achieving specific objectives as agreed
upon in the project work plan. EPA will conduct post award monitoring activities to
ensure the successful implementation of projects. Grantees will complete Property
Profile Forms to document completion of site specific assessments and cleanups. Using
these forms, EPA will collect information on property acreage, assessment completion
date, whether cleanup is necessary, cleanup completion date, and the status of
institutional controls. In addition, the program will use Property Profile Forms to collect
information on the new performance measure, "Acres Made Ready for Reuse."
Reporting forms are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/rptforms.htm
State and tribal response program grants contribute to the Brownfields program overall
accomplishments. The Property Profile Forms submitted by state and tribal grantees for
site-specific assessments and cleanups, conducted with CERCLA 128 funds, contribute to
the "Properties Assessed" and "Properties Cleaned Up" measures. There are no separate
state or tribal specific targets for the "Properties Assessed" and "Properties Cleaned Up"
measures. Therefore, for the state template measures in Appendix 6, the Brownfields
National Program will report out the overall program accomplishments. Regions should
not complete the State grant template and should not set state or tribal specific targets.
Brownfields and OMB's Program Assessment and Ranking Tool (PART)
The Brownfields program received a PART evaluation in 2003. At that time, the
program received an "adequate" rating. The program then prepared and is currently
implementing an improvement plan. The improvement plan addresses program
performance and efficiency measures, information collection procedures, and program
evaluation.
Beginning in FY 2008, the Brownfields program will report on a new efficiency measure,
"Acres of brownfields properties made ready for reuse per million dollars of public and
private assessment and cleanup funding invested."
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 23
-------
Information on the Brownfields program's PART evaluation and improvement
plan is available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary.10001132.2005.html
Information on EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm
Cross Program Revitalization Measures
The Brownfields program has implemented the Cross-Program Revitalization Measures.
The program is using Property Profile Form data to report on the Universe Indicator
(properties and acres where assessment or cleanup reported complete for the first time
under a Brownfields grant) and Types of Uses Indicator (Greenspace, Residential,
Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use). The program is also using the Property Profile
Form to collect information on the "Ready for Reuse" measure (based on status of
cleanup and institutional controls (ICs)) which equates to both "Protective for People
under Current Conditions" (PFP) and "Ready for Anticipated Use" (RAU) measures.
Information concerning OSWER's Cross-Program Revitalization Measures may
be found at: http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/landrevitalization/docs/cprmguidance-
10-20-06covermemo.pdf
The Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization's Environmental Justice Action
Plan (The OBLR EJAction Plan)
The objective of the OBLR EJ Action Plan is to effectively integrate environmental
justice into all EPA strategic planning, program policies, and daily operational activities
that results in a measurable benefit to the life of impacted communities. OBLR's efforts
to address environmental justice are directly supportive of EPA's larger goals to address
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, Objective 4.2: Communities, Sub-
objective 4.2.3: Assess and Clean up Brownfields.
For Calendar Year 2008-2009, the Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization
established the following goals/activities with corresponding outputs and outcomes
related to:
1) Training, Research, and Technical Assistance
enhanced understandings of health risks associated with
methamphetamine contaminated brownfield sites on tribal lands and
training for at least 100 tribal representatives on methamphetamine health
related exposure risks at abandoned labs, assessment, and cleanup
methods;
outreach and education to community-based organizations and community
development corporations in socio-economically disadvantaged
communities throughout New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania
regarding the resources needed and economic feasibility of undertaking
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 24
-------
brownfields redevelopment projects;
technical assistance to communities experiencing issues associated with
vapor intrusion, institutional controls, and concerns related to siting
schools on brownfields;
training and education to at least 10 communities interested in developing
brownfields job training programs;
development of a hedonic pricing model used to identify the contribution
of social, economic, and environmental changes to property values in low-
income and minority communities with significant brownfields.
2) Program Assessment
correlate existing brownfields assessment, targeted brownfields
assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan fund geographic data with US
census demographic data to better understand the socioeconomic
composition of communities who have received brownfields funding and
subsequent future targeted outreach efforts.
3) Direct Assistance to Environmental Justice Communities to Conduct Targeted
Brownfields Assessments (TBAs)
In partnership with the Community Action for a Renewed Environment
program (CARE), provide targeted brownfields assessment (TEA) funding
to Level I CARE grantees to assist in identifying, inventorying, and
assessing brownfield properties in approximately 10 communities
throughout the United States.
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 25
-------
RCRA Waste Management Programs
In F Y 2009, the RCRA program will have two main areas of focus - safe waste
management and resource conservation. In support of safe waste management, EPA will
continue existing program obligations such as ensuring the safe management of
hazardous and non-hazardous waste and cleaning up hazardous and non-hazardous
releases. The RCRA hazardous waste program is also close to completing a major effort
to bring corrective action sites under control, and will be focusing on effectively moving
these sites toward final cleanup.
As the hazardous waste program completes the issuance of initial permits to the majority
of facilities, the number of new facilities needing permits has been decreasing.
Therefore, we will continue to increase emphasis on ensuring facilities have updated
controls to prevent releases. Under EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, EPA will prevent
releases at 500 RCRA hazardous waste management facilities by implementing initial
approved controls or updated controls by 2011. Beginning in FY 2009, EPA will target
initial approved controls and updated controls under one measure to align with the
Strategic Plan.
For both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, the RCRA program will continue to work
with tribes on a government-to-government basis to foster improved waste management
practices. The non-hazardous waste regulatory program will continue to provide
technical assistance to our state partners, and to other federal agencies, in areas where
particular Agency expertise can be of help, such as bioreactor and other landfill
technologies, homeland security issues, and disaster debris management. In addition, the
RCRA program will continue to work to meet the commitments made as part of the
Special Regional Priority for the Mexico Border area.
Under our resource conservation efforts, EPA will continue to focus on effective
materials management and increased efforts regarding municipal solid waste, non-
hazardous industrial materials, and chemicals reduction. We will build upon the
successful efforts of the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC)13 to meet the objectives
of the 2020 Vision Paper (Beyond RCRA) to reduce the generation of wastes, increase
recycling of industrial materials and municipal solid waste (MSW), and look at
sustainable use of all resources.
The following information provides strategic targets, direction, and priorities for the FY
2009 operating year and is organized according to the Agency's Strategic Plan sub-
objectives.
13 For more information concerning the RCC, please see
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/index.htm
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 26
-------
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.1.1: Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling
The RCRA program will emphasize its strategy to conserve resources, reduce waste, and
reduce priority chemicals. The RCC, one of OSWER's Office of Solid Waste's (OSW's)
highest priorities, continues to be a principal mechanism for achieving these objectives.
Regions will be expected to champion and support the four national RCC focus areas:
Recycling of MSW;
Reusing and recycling of industrial materials;
Reducing priority chemicals; (covered under sub-objective 5.2.2); and
Reusing and recycling of electronics.
Under EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, we maintained our goal of recycling 35% of
municipal solid waste by 2008. OSW and the Regions have identified a new long-term
2011 GPRA goal of 80 billion pounds, to replace the current 35% MSW recycling goal.
This goal is composed of an annual recycling target of 20 billion pounds over a four year
period (2008-2011). This new, long-term goal will more directly reflect EPA's influence,
resources, and contributions to the nation's goal of increasing municipal solid waste
recycling.
The new MSW measure also reflects our intent to put forth goals which are reflective of
MSW programs at both the national and the regional level. Regional commitments will
be tracked in ACS under the measure, "Billions of pounds of MSW reduced, reused or
recycled." Currently, EPA is working through issues related to information collection
activities to support reporting results of the Waste Wise program. The outcome of that
effort could impact measures used to track the progress of the RCC program.
EPA Regions and OSW will continue to focus their primary MSW recycling efforts on
the three targeted materials: paper, organics (food waste and green yard waste), and
packaging/containers. EPA's MSW Recycling Implementation Plan includes specific
activities each Region will commit to undertake and identifies approaches and tools to
support these activities. For FY 2009, OSW is requesting that all Regions identify ACS
commitments in the area of MSW recycling that contribute toward our national recycling
and energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction goals.
EPA Regions should base their FY 2009 ACS MSW recycling commitments primarily on
what they expect to accomplish through their Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) and
extramural dollars. WasteWise partner accomplishments, as outlined in the WasteWise
apportionment paper, also may be factored into ACS MSW recycling commitments.
Regions should continue general outreach efforts to promote MSW recycling and
implement the activities listed in the MSW Recycling Implementation Plan. Regions also
should work closely with states to support and complement state and local efforts.
In these key areas, we have identified, or have started to identify, targets and measures
that will demonstrate the positive benefits of this program. OSWER will be tracking a
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 27
-------
new measure in FY 2009 to reflect the energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction
benefits associated with our efforts under the RCC. This new measure is expressed in
terms of British thermal units (BTUs) of energy conserved and metric tons of carbon
equivalents (MICE) of green house gas emissions reduced by RCC. EPA Regions and
HQ will continue to work together to determine the best steps to take to conserve
resources and divert more materials to reuse and recycling.
Electronics Program
The RCC national electronics program focuses on three main goals: environmental
design and procurement, operation and maintenance (extending product life), and reuse
and recycling. EPA has developed several programs which address these goals. OSW
will continue to expand our partnership program, Plug-In to eCycling, increasing on an
annual basis the pounds of electronics recycled nationwide and strengthening our
outreach for recycling of electronics equipment. EPA will continue to support the
successful launch of its cell phone campaign. Encouraging widespread use of the EPEAT
tool is a key component of a vigorous electronics reuse and recycling program. In 2009,
Regions will continue to strive to achieve the gold rating under the Federal Electronics
Challenge.
Industrial Materials Program
OSW, working with the Regions, developed an industrial materials reuse and recycling
implementation plan which we expect to finalize in 2008. We also are working together
to improve our construction and demolition materials data and measures. The industrial
materials reuse and recycling program will continue to focus on coal combustion
products (CCPs), construction and demolition (C&D) materials, and foundry sands.
Recycling these materials can conserve resources, reduce energy use, reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, reduce costs, and extend the life of landfills. Regions have developed
effective working relationships with their state counterparts and should continue to foster
collaborative efforts to share information and data and to coordinate among state
programs. EPA will continue to partner with the Industrial Recycling Council (IRC), the
industrial materials component of the National Recycling Coalition, and the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials' Beneficial Use Task Force.
Measuring and reporting on success is a critical component of any credible program.
EPA established two FY 2011 GPRA goals in its strategic plan: increase the use of coal
combustion ash to 50%; and, increase the reuse and recycling of C&D materials to 65%.
We will track progress for the coal ash goal at the national level. We have updated the
construction and demolition materials characterization report and have asked several
stakeholders for their review. The reviewers identified a number of potential
improvements. We will finalize this report in 2008 and plan to update it every five years.
We are working with available State data to determine if it is sufficient to set targets and
to track progress with efforts to increase construction and demolition reuse and recycling.
We will complete our preliminary analysis of this data by April 2008. At that time, OSW
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 28
-------
and the Regions will decide on a viable approach to measuring and reporting C&D
materials reuse and recycling during FY 2009.
During FY 2009, Regions should build on their prior successes by continuing to increase
the reuse and recycling of industrial materials in an environmentally sound manner.
Regions should focus their efforts on two programs: the Industrial Materials
Construction Initiative, which is a comprehensive venue for fostering reuse and recycling
of all three of EPA's focus materials; and the Coal Combustion Products Partnership
(C2P2).
The Industrial Materials Construction Initiative
In 2006, each Region committed to identifying and working with at least one major
construction project in their Region. In FY 2009, Regions should continue their efforts in
this area. Regions are asked to identify significant, upcoming construction projects and
initiate discussions with developers, builders, and others who influence materials use to
encourage the wider use of coal ash, reusable, construction and demolition materials, and
foundry sands. OSW provided the Regions with a list of top Regional construction
projects and continues to forward new projects as they are identified. OSW also will
provide Regions with materials to use as tools to move this effort forward. In addition,
OSW is developing a cross marketing construction toolkit which will be available later in
2008.
In FY 2009, OSW will be tracking Regional accomplishments and challenges in the
Industrial Materials Construction Initiative through routine calls and other efforts.
Regions should document construction project case studies to capture and share the
knowledge gained and lessons learned, including challenges to reuse and recycling and
how those challenges are overcome. Regions then can apply the case study information
in marketing the concept to other projects. Effective case studies should include the
amount of material used, reused, and/or recycled, as well as energy savings, greenhouse
gas reductions, and cost savings.
Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2)
Regions should continue to expand the C2P2 and encourage the use of coal combustion
products (CCPs). Actions include mentoring the current membership, recruiting new
members to the partnership (including generators), creating case studies of CCPs used,
and working with state agencies and others to put CCPs to use in transportation and
building projects. Concerns have been raised that EPA's air regulations will negatively
affect CCP characteristics. OSW and Regions will seek to address such concerns with
assistance from experts within the Agency, other agencies, industry, and academia.
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 29
-------
Performance Track
14
OSWER continues to support Performance Track , an Agency-wide priority innovation
program that recognizes and rewards private and public facilities that demonstrate top
environmental performance. OSWER has worked with OPEI to develop RCRA
incentives15 for member facilities. RCRA programs are encouraged to promote adoption
of these incentives by the states and assist in their implementation. OSWER's National
Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP), a partnership program that targets
priority chemical reduction, has worked with Performance Track to form the National
Challenge Goal for Priority Chemicals. Under this challenge, Performance Track
members declaring a 10% reduction goal for one or more priority chemicals can use that
single goal to count as two of four goals needed to demonstrate continuous environmental
improvement over a three year period.
In addition, OSWER has collaborated with Performance Track to create a community
land revitalization indicator. Performance Track members can also select the community
land revitalization indicator as one of its continuous environmental improvement goals
over a three year period. The Performance Track member invests in a contaminated
property (brownfield) cleanup project in the local community, working with partners who
have a revitalization plan for that property. Performance Track members do not own or
have a financial interest in the selected property.
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.1.2: Manage Hazardous Wastes and Petroleum Products Properly
In FY 2009, the permitting program should collectively achieve 100 additional annual
accomplishments for initial and updated approved controls. Since all but two states are
authorized to issue permits, and because states receive grant funds to implement the
RCRA hazardous waste program, Regions must work with states to:
Update and implement multi-year strategies to meet the FY 2009 annual goal and
the FY 2011 strategic goal.
Update assessments of what is needed for each facility to achieve approved
controls and update when each facility is projected to achieve approved controls.
Consider risk in determining the prioritization of facilities to be addressed in the
multi-year strategies.
During FY 2009, Regions should work with the states towards achieving the FY 2011
national strategic target of preventing releases at 500 RCRA hazardous waste
management facilities by implementing initial approved controls or updated controls.
This should result in getting at least 98% of the facilities on the permitting baseline under
approved controls, and updating controls at additional facilities, for a total of 500
14
For more information concerning Performance Track, please see http://www.epa.gov/perftrac/
15 For more information concerning RCRA Incentives, please see
http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/benefits/regadmin/waste.htm
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 30
-------
facilities between FY 2007 and FY 2011. OSW, in partnership with the Regions and
states, will be developing the next generation of strategic goals to demonstrate the
magnitude of environmental benefits delivered by the program.
In 2004, OMB assessed the RCRA base program, permits and grants under the PART,
which is used to determine the effectiveness of Federal programs. As an outcome of this
assessment, a new efficiency measure has been proposed based on: (1) number of
facilities with new or updated controls and (2) permit costs and base program
appropriations. Calculations for the baseline year 2007 are 2,484 facilities with new or
updated controls at a cost of $689.71 million (3.60 facilities per million dollars of
program cost) and an efficiency measure target for F Y 2008 of a 1 percent improvement
from the baseline (3.64 facilities per million dollars).
Regions are to work closely with states to ensure that environmental regulations,
applicable Federal environmental justice policies, strategies, tools and training programs
are used to adequately address environmental justice concerns. Progress towards RCRA
GPRA goals in potential environmental justice communities should advance at least at
the same pace as in other communities.
After substantial work by OECA, OSW, and the RCRAInfo V4 Design Team, mandatory
financial assurance data elements jointly decided by EPA and states as part of the
WIN/Informed process are being added to RCRAInfo and will now become a part of our
data system. This information (1) will allow states to coordinate their review of these
instruments better, (2) will provide state and national information on the types of
instruments used and their providers, and (3) fulfills commitments the Agency has made
to the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office.
Details on the mandatory data elements and data entry were provided to the RCRAInfo
users' community in the Consolidated High Level Design Document. These data
elements will require states to input information on the financial assurance instruments
that are being used by treatment, storage and disposal facilities. The modifications to the
data system are expected to be complete in the first quarter of FY 2009. We are
requesting that by the end of FY 2009 states will have input information on 75% of the
covered facilities. Our current expectation is that data for the remaining facilities will be
input by the end of the second quarter of FY 2010.
Tribal Programs
EPA has significant responsibilities related to the safe management of solid and
hazardous waste in Indian country. Regions with federally-recognized tribes should
devote resources to assisting tribes, consistent with the 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan,
which established two performance measures. Regions will be expected to achieve the
following targets during FY 2009:
Assist tribal governments to ensure that an additional 16 tribes are covered by an
integrated waste management plan approved by an appropriate governing body;
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 31
-------
Assist tribal governments to ensure that an additional 27 open dumps in Indian
country and on other Tribal lands are closed, cleaned up, or upgraded.
The Indian Health Service, in collaboration with EPA, customized the IHS Operation and
Maintenance Data System (OMDS) database, a subset of the web Sanitation Tracking
and Reporting System (w/STARS). The w/STARS database will be the official
repository for EPA to hold all data on open dumps on tribal lands. Regions should input
data to accurately populate the database during FY 2009.
Furthermore, EPA has recently provided information regarding the elements of an
integrated waste management which Regions should use when evaluating what plans
should be reflected in the ACS for this performance measure.
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.2.2: Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land
EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan commits the RCRA Corrective Action Program to three
long-term GPRA goals. Achieving the following three goals will be the program's
highest priority for 2009-2011, but it must be noted that the program plans to work with
Regions and states to revise these goals upwards based on early progress toward the
original 2011 goals, an effort that will conclude in the 2nd quarter FY 2008:
Control all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination to
health-based levels for current land and/or groundwater use conditions at 95 percent
of all high-National Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPS)-ranked sites
on the 2020 Corrective Action Universe.
Control the migration of contaminated groundwater at 80 percent of all high-NCAPS
sites on the 2020 Corrective Action Universe.
Complete construction of final remedies at 22 percent of the entire 2020 Corrective
Action Universe.
EPA developed the 2020 Corrective Action Universe in 2007 with extensive input from
the Regions and states. The 2008 Corrective Action Baseline included the program's
1,968 highest-priority sites, and now the majority of those sites have human exposures
(95 percent) and the migration of contaminated groundwater (81 percent) under control.
Thirty percent have now reached final remedy construction as well. As a result of these
successes, the 2020 Universe includes all 3,746 sites expected to need corrective action,
and program goals from 2009 onward will track human exposures, the migration of
contaminated groundwater, and final remedy construction at all 3,746 sites. The ultimate
goal is to have final remedies constructed at 95 percent of all corrective action sites by
the end of FY 2020.
The President's FY 2009 Annual Plan and Congressional Justification commits the
RCRA Corrective Action Program to three 2009 goals that apply to the entire 2020
Universe (independent of NCAPS rankings). Annual commitment system (ACS) targets
for FY 2009 will reflect the revised 2011 targets expected 2nd quarter FY 2008, including
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 32
-------
national and region-by-region targets, and they will likely be higher that what is
presented below:
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
RIO
Tot
al
2020
Universe
(facilities)
277
334
601
557
860
414
198
98
317
90
3,746
Human Exposures
Under Control
(CA725)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60
Groundwater
Migration Under
Control (CA750)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60
Remedy
Construction
(CA550)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
OECA encourages the Regions to use enforcement authorities and tools where
appropriate to address the aforementioned program goals. In addition, the Superfund and
RCRA Corrective Action enforcement program commitments for the financial assurance
priority are included in OECA's portion of the annual commitment system.
Each Region should work with states to update their strategies to achieve 2009 targets
once the 2011 goals are revised. The strategies should be facility-specific, and should
describe how available resources will be used to achieve the goals. The strategy should
include plans for frequent contact with states to discuss their progress in meeting the
2009 goals.
Each Region should also work with their states to promote making RCRA ready for
anticipated use determinations to support OSWER's Cross-Program Revitalization
measure. (See "Guidance for Documenting and Reporting RCRA Subtitle C Corrective
Action Land Revitalization Indicators and Measures" at www.epa.gov/correctiveaction.)
The annual target for increasing the efficiency of the RCRA Corrective Action program
is three percent. Each Region should work with its states to increase the number of final
remedy components constructed during FY 2009 and future years by three percent per
year, presuming that costs remain constant. The number of final remedy components
constructed will be measured from RCRAInfo as the total number of area-specific and
facility-wide construction completions (CA550) completed during 2009.
Regions will support and work closely with their states to ensure that environmental
regulations, applicable Federal environmental justice (EJ) policies, strategies, tools and
training programs are used to adequately address EJ concerns. Progress towards RCRA
GPRA goals in potential EJ communities should advance at least at the same pace as in
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 33
-------
non EJ areas. Regions should work with their states to help develop and offer innovative
approaches that will empower citizens' groups to ensure successful voluntary cleanups.
PCBs
In an effort to improve program and administrative efficiencies, the management of the
PCB cleanup and disposal program was transferred from EPA's Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) to the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) in FY 2008. OPPTS is continuing to oversee PCB issues relating to
use and manufacturing, and OSWER is managing the PCB cleanup and disposal program
under the requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and its regulations.
During FY 2009, Regions are expected to continue to issue approvals for PCB cleanup
and disposal as required under 40 CFR 761.61. OSW is assessing the current ACS
measures and will be working with the Regions to update for FY 2009.
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Subobjective 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship
Priority Chemical Reductions
The National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) is the RCRA program
focused on the waste minimization of potentially hazardous chemicals and program
progress is tracked by a GPRA goal. NPEP is also a key component of the Resource
Conservation Challenge. The strategic goal, as stated in the 2006 - 2011 EPA Strategic
Plan, is: by 2011, reduce 4 million pounds of priority chemicals from waste streams as
measured by National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) contributions,
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), and other tools used by EPA to achieve
priority chemical reductions.
In FY 2009, EPA will achieve NPEP priority chemical reduction goals by identifying for
partnership and enrolling individual facilities, and when possible multiple facilities, in
industrial, manufacturing, federal facilities, and municipal, and other sectors which are
responsible for the highest volume of priority chemicals and/or highest risk if released to
the environment. Source reduction is the preferred means of chemical reduction, but
recycling is an acceptable alternative when viable source reductions options have been
eliminated. Contributions toward the GPRA goal can be achieved by recruiting several
small generators as well as by targeting large volume generators.
Regional and state recruiters who enroll partners in NPEP will contribute to the national
priority chemical goal and may contribute to additional regional or state specific chemical
reduction goals. Decisions regarding chemicals (in addition to the 31 priority chemicals)
selected for reduction are based on the chemical waste minimization potential, risk, and
generation trends as well as volume of chemical released to the environment.
Information on the specific actions and means by which reductions are achieved is
provided in the RCC Priority Chemical Action Plan. At this time there are no specific
GPRA goals associated with the identification of other chemicals of national concern.
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 34
-------
However, the priority chemicals list is currently being reevaluated as part of the 2009-
2014 strategic planning process.
The projected FY 2009 national goal is to reduce priority chemicals by 1,000,000 pounds.
This may be adjusted, depending on FY 2008 partner commitments. Based on targeting
information provided by OSW, and other available information, Regions will establish
specific annual regional reduction goals, identifying the number of pounds of reductions
each Region will seek to achieve each year to reach the 2011 Priority Chemical GPRA
goal. Regional annual priority chemical reduction targets will be entered into the ACS.
In addition, the RCRA program has committed to targeted cost efficiencies associated
with reducing priority chemicals through its OMB efficiency measure, in which:
Efficiency is measured by the pounds of priority chemicals reduced from the environment
per federal government dollar spent. Federal spending consists of program
implementation costs including, FTE and contract spending.
The program has committed to achieving 0.6 pounds of priority chemicals removed per
dollar spent.
For further information, please see the following websites:
http://www.epa.gov/npep
http://www.epa.gov/rcc/action-plan/act-p3.htm
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/priorities/chemical.htm
Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign (SC3)
The Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign (SC3) is a part of RCC. The Campaign
strives to facilitate: (1) removal of legacy accumulations of dangerous chemicals from
K-12 schools; (2) implementation of strong, sustainable chemical management in schools
to prevent the development of accumulations of chemicals in the future; and, (3) raising
awareness of the problem.
During FY 2006, EPA established a multi-Agency Steering Committee in collaboration
with the Department of Education, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and developed a multi-Agency strategy to address the issue. In
FY 2007 and 2008, EPA made progress on building a national campaign that includes a
public/private network to make responsible chemical management available to all schools
across the nation. The network partnerships will help us to create sustainable chemical
management programs in schools that ultimately decrease the number of injuries and
school days lost due to poor chemical management and chemical spills, which is likely to
improve the learning environment in K-12 schools across the nation.
While building these partnerships in FY 2009, EPA and its Federal partners will place
their effort on the following goals and objectives:
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 35
-------
Gathering baseline data and raising national awareness of the potential dangers of
chemical accumulations in K-12 schools: better characterize the scope of the
problem; communicate with stakeholders and engage them in addressing the
problem; and coordinate Federal agency programs to provide a clear, unified SC3
message.
Facilitate Chemical Cleanout and prevention of future chemical management
problems: improve access to information resources (tools, manuals, criteria) and
provide technical assistance; institutionalize good chemical management
practices, including training, purchasing, and planning; and recognize successes
through SC3 awards.
In FY 2009, EPA headquarters and the Regions will continue to analyze the state of
chemical management in K-12 schools and develop tools to raise awareness and educate
school and industry partners about the issues surrounding chemical management.
To bring this information, expertise, and resources to as many school districts as possible
across the country, EPA headquarters and Regions will focus their efforts on developing
and strengthening partnerships to build this national network. Regions will be the key to
making this vision a reality. As we sign on partners who want to help schools, it will be
the regional knowledge of the local landscape that will help match partners with school
districts lending their expertise to grow the campaign and assure that it complements and
embraces other Agency Healthy School Environments Initiatives. Regions will also take
the lead in identifying and targeting local industries that have the ability to assist with the
Campaign. Success in FY 2009 will be measured by the number of partnership
agreements established, schools affected, and sustainable practices established.
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 36
-------
Underground Storage Tanks Program
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.1.2: Manage Hazardous Wastes and Petroleum Products Properly (UST)
Subobjective 3.2.2: Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land (LUST)
Program Overview
The purpose of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) program is to protect groundwater
resources from contamination caused by releases of regulated substances (typically
petroleum-based motor fuels and their additives) from leaking underground storage tanks
(LUSTs).15 The program is designed to implement a dual approach for achievement of
this goal: the first is to prevent and detect releases from UST systems, and the second is
to clean up contamination from releases that do occur. Both of these program elements
are part regulatory and part block/formula grant, and they work in concert with one
another as an integrated whole. The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) was
created in 1985 as the result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments
(HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. The HSWA
added Subtitle I, which directs EPA to develop a comprehensive program for the
regulation of UST systems "as may be necessary to protect human health and the
environment."
The Underground Storage Tanks program provides states16 and tribes with financial and
technical assistance and assists with capacity building through training and state program
approval. Only for the relatively few USTs on Indian country does EPA directly
implement the program. Supported by grants and cooperative agreements, state agencies
implement the program for the vast majority of USTs. Except for a small core of
headquarters personnel, Federal UST program personnel are geographically dispersed to
EPA's 10 Regional offices and it is Regional personnel who both directly implement and
enforce the program at the local level (on tribal lands) and also provide technical,
logistical, and administrative support to the state programs in their region.
Regulatory Framework
Regulations promulgated by EPA in 1988 establish the regulatory framework for
achieving the program's goal. Regulations at 40 CFRPart 280, "Technical Standards and
Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage
Tanks", include both technical standards and financial requirements for owners and
operators of UST systems and are broken down into eight subparts:
15 Thirty-nine states identify leaking underground storage tanks as one of the top 10 sources of groundwater
contamination. (EPA Office of Water 305(b) report, Figure 6-5, http://www.epa.gov/owow/305bA.
16 The term "states" as used in this guidance refers collectively to UST programs implemented by the
individual states, territories, and the District of Columbia, see the definition of "State" in the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976 (42 U.S.CA. 6903 at http-//iixr.nrlp. hnu.fp gnv/spnrr.h/r.ritprin ,?htmf)
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 37
-------
1. Program Scope and Interim Prohibition (Subpart A);
2. UST Systems: Design, Construction, Installation, and Notification (Subpart B);
3. General Operating Requirements (Subpart C);
4. Release Detection (Subpart D);
5. Release Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation (Subpart E);
6. Release Response and Corrective Action for UST Systems Containing Petroleum
or Hazardous Substances (Subpart F);
7. Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure (Subpart G); and
8. Financial Responsibility (Subpart H).
State programs that have regulations that are no less stringent than Federal regulations
can be approved to operate in lieu of the Federal program. The procedures for approving
such state programs are found at 40 CFR Part 281: "Approval of State Underground
Storage Tank Programs". These regulations are broken down into six subparts:
1. Purpose, General Requirements and Scope (Subpart A);
2. Components of a Program Application (Subpart B);
3. Criteria for No Less Stringent (Subpart C);
4. Adequate Enforcement of Compliance (Subpart D);
5. Approval Procedures (Subpart E);
6. Withdrawal of Approval of State Programs (Subpart F).
Thirty-six states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have received approval for
their UST programs. The remaining 14 states and 4 territories implement UST programs
under their own authorities in cooperation with EPA.
Program Funding
EPA provides funds to help states implement their programs through grants or
cooperative agreements under the authorities and appropriations described below.
Specific activities eligible for funding are determined through discussions between the
states and tribes and the EPA Regional offices based on national guidance17 issued by
OUST for implementation of the Energy Policy Act.
In FY 1999, through PL 105-276, Congress gave EPA authority to provide assistance
agreements to federally-recognized tribes to develop and administer underground storage
tank (UST) prevention programs and leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup
programs. In general, such assistance agreements can be used for the same purposes for
tribes as they are used for states, however, EPA does not have authority under RCRA to
approve tribal programs to operate in lieu of the Federal program. Examples of eligible
projects that can be conducted under these grants include the development and
administration of an UST or LUST program, conducting an unregistered tank survey,
providing leak detection and installer training, and cleaning up releases.
17 Funding provided to states must be expended in accordance with grant guidelines (see
http://www. epa.sov/s\verustl/fedlaws/epact_05.htm) EPA issued to implement Title XV, Subtitle B of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (see http://www.epa.sov/swerustl/fedlcnvs/publ_l09-058.pdf).
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 38
-------
In 2004, through PL 107-73, Congress gave EPA authority to award cooperative
agreements to federally-recognized tribes and eligible tribal consortia to assist EPA in
implementing federal environmental programs in the absence of an approved tribal
program. These agreements are called Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative
Agreements (DITCA's) and they provide tribes with the flexibility and opportunity to
hire and train environmental staff to effectively manage UST programs, promote
compliance, and address specific tribal needs and priorities within EPA's authority for
direct implementation.
UST State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Any STAG funding appropriated in
FY 2009 for the UST leak prevention programs will be given as grants under the
authorities of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976, as amended by the
Superfund Reauthorization Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle I), Section 2007(f), 42 U.S.C.
6916(f)(2); and such additional authority as may be provided for in EPA's annual
appropriations acts. For the Tribal Grants: P.L. 105-276. STAG funding is provided in
grants and cooperative agreements to assist states, territories, Federally-recognized Indian
tribes and Intertribal Consortia that meet the requirements at 40 CFR 35.504, in the
development and implementation of underground storage tank (UST) programs.
The UST State Grant program is implemented by regulations at 40 CFR 35.330. There is
a 25-percent matching requirement for states under 40 CFR 35.335. There is no
matching requirement for grants to tribes or Intertribal Consortia under Public Law 105-
276.18 State matches may include in-kind contributions.
LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreements for UST Release Prevention Activities
Any LUST funding appropriated in FY 2009 for the UST release prevention programs
will be given as grants under the authorities of Section 9011 and other applicable
provisions of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976. This funding
will be used in cooperative agreements to the states and tribes to carry out the Energy
Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 provisions related to the prevention of underground storage
tank (UST) releases. The cooperative agreements will be for prevention and compliance
assurance activities, such as inspections, as well as for enforcement activities related to
release prevention. Priority will be given to providing funds to enable the states to meet
their responsibilities under Title XV, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. States
that have entered into cooperative agreements with EPA have the authority to inspect and
take other compliance and related enforcement actions to prevent releases from USTs.
EPA provides financial assistance to tribes to develop and implement programs to
manage USTs. This financial assistance program is not eligible for inclusion in
Performance Partnership Grants under 40 CFR 35.133. Cooperative agreements are only
available to states that have UST programs. Additionally, these cooperative agreements
are only available to Federally-recognized tribes and Intertribal Consortia that must meet
18 See Section 66.804 of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CDFA) at
http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/CATALOG.PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?p_ars_names=prog_nbr&p
_arg_values=66.804
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 39
-------
the requirements, as described in the Federal Register Notice, Vol. 67, No. 213, pp.
67181-67183, "Update to EPA Policy on Certain Grants to Intertribal Consortia."
LUST prevention funding is awarded under an allocation process developed by the
Agency. The Agency distributes funds based on the number of federally-regulated USTs
in a State and other indicia of State needs. States will provide a twenty-five (25) percent
match for cooperative agreements awarded under Section 9011 and other applicable
provisions of Subtitle I. There is no matching requirement for LUST prevention
cooperative agreements for tribes or Intertribal Consortia awarded pursuant to annual
appropriation acts.
LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreements for Corrective Action Activities Any
LUST funding appropriated in FY 2009 for the UST cleanup programs will be given as
grants under the authorities of Section 205 of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986. EPA awards cooperative agreements to states under the
provisions of EPA's annual appropriations act, Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
of 1976 (SWDA), as amended, and Public Law 105-276, Title III, October 2, 1998,
Section 9003(h)(7) of the SWDA. Under Public Law 105-276, Congress authorized EPA
to use LUST Trust Fund appropriations to award cooperative agreements to tribes for the
same purposes as those set forth in Section 9003(h)(7). Policies and procedures
applicable to EPA-State LUST Trust Fund cooperative agreements are presented in detail
in OSWER Directive 9650.10A, issued May 24, 1994.19 LUST corrective action funding
awarded under Section 9003(h)(7) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is subject to an
allocation process developed by the Agency. By guidance, the Agency has established a
process for allocating funds to states under Section 9003(h)(7) based on the cumulative
numbers of confirmed UST releases, cleanups initiated, cleanups completed, the
percentage of the population using groundwater for drinking water, and the number of
states with approved UST programs. This program allocates funding to tribes and
Intertribal Consortia non-competitively based on their programmatic needs and national
guidance. States must provide a 10-percent cost share for cooperative agreements
awarded under Section 9003(h)(7). There is no matching requirement for corrective
action cooperative agreements for tribes or Intertribal Consortia awarded pursuant to
Public Law 105-276.
Headquarters and Regional Underground Storage Tanks Program Funds from
OUST's EPM and LUST national program accounts, subject to availability, support
activities that promote the prevention, identification, corrective action, enforcement and
management of releases from underground storage tank systems.
EPA's Regulatory Responsibilities for Monitoring Performance Under Grants and
Cooperative Agreements As a provider of Federal funds to state UST programs, EPA
has a responsibility under 40 CFR Part 31 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for
Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) and Part 35 (State
and Local Assistance) to monitor state performance and require performance reporting
under the funding sources listed above for each of the elements of 40 CFR 280 and 281 to
19 See http://www. epa.gov/swerustl/directiv/d96501 Oa. htm
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 40
-------
ensure accurate and complete information on program performance and financial
management.
Regions are also responsible for negotiating the terms and amounts of the assistance
agreements listed below and also for monitoring performance and requiring performance
reporting under these agreements:
1) Underground Storage Tanks (UST) program grants authorized by Section 2007(f)(2)
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) and certain provisions of the EPAct and funded
with State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) appropriations,
2) State Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) cooperative agreements authorized
by Section 9003(h)(7) and 9011 and funded by LUST appropriations,
3) UST and LUST assistance agreements to tribes authorized by P.L. 105-276 and funded
by STAG and LUST appropriations, and
4) Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements authorized in EPA's annual
appropriations and funded by STAG appropriations.
5) Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1976, Section 8001 (a) and (b) as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-616.
Performance Indicators
To monitor performance of the program in meeting its twin objectives (prevention and
detection of releases, and cleaning up contamination from releases that do occur) OUST
has established two primary performance objectives.
The first objective, prevention and detection of releases, has two measures: (1) significant
operational compliance (SOC) and (2) number of confirmed releases.
(1) SOC. This measures the number of tanks that comply with both of the release
prevention and release detection requirements, and that the tanks are operating and the
systems are properly maintained. The implementation of EPA's traditional tools,
supplemented by the new tools provided to the program through the Energy Policy Act
(EPAct) of 2005, will over time work with state authorities to show a marked increase
in the SOC rates across the country. These new tools include: conducting inspections
of all active tanks every three years, prohibiting delivery to noncompliant tanks, and
requiring either secondary containment for new tank systems or financial
responsibility for manufacturers and installers.
(2) Number of confirmed releases. A primary goal of the UST program is to reduce
the number of releases that occur annually to less than 10,000. It is critical that every
release that occurs (whether the total is greater than or less than 10,000) be discovered,
addressed, and reported as expeditiously as possible, because costs for cleanup are
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 41
-------
sharply reduced the earlier a release is discovered. Inspections and compliance
certifications can create incentives for owners and operators to properly operate and
maintain their systems because the more well-maintained these systems are, the fewer
leaks there will be. With groundwater being the primary source of drinking water to
nearly half of the country's population, leaks from USTs are a significant threat to
human health and the environment. By decreasing the numbers of new releases, and
continuing our focus on the cleanup program as described below, the underground
storage tank program will make an important contribution to the nation's health.
Release Prevention and Detection Performance goals for FY 2009:
Increase the rate of significant operational compliance by 1% over the
previous year's target. The FY 2009 target is 69%.
No more than 10,000 confirmed releases each year.
The second objective, cleaning up contamination from releases that do occur, has a single
measure, which is increasing the number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards
for human exposure and groundwater migration.
Over the history of the program, there have been a total of over 474,127 confirmed
releases. The EPA, states, and tribes have worked together to clean up over 365,361 of
these, leaving a backlog of 108,876 remaining to be completed.20 Because there are
roughly 7,000 to 8,000 new releases added to this backlog every year, reducing the
backlog remains a challenge for the program. EPA has efforts underway to continue to
reach out to new partners and find new information and new tools to enhance the
ability to address these cleanups. For example, EPA is working to better understand
the nature of the cleanups remaining to be completed in the backlog. If EPA can better
characterize these remaining cleanups, EPA plans to design targeted strategies that
will increase the pace of addressing those sites. EPA is also working to monitor the
financial mechanisms being used by states and private parties to finance cleanups, in
order to assure there is, and will continue to be, sufficient funding available. EPA is
also working to build on the success of the traditional Brownfields program by looking
for opportunities to promote the cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned gas
stations. Another important resource EPA provides to states and tribes is continuing
research into the specific contaminants at LUST cleanup sites, the risk associated with
them, and appropriate cleanup tools to address them.
Performance goal for FY 2009:
Number of cleanups completed that meet state risk-based standards for human
exposure and groundwater migration. FY 2009 target is 13,000.
1 For the most current corrective action measures, see http://www.epa.sov/swerustl/cat/camarchv.htm
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 42
-------
Underground Storage Tank Programs on Tribal Lands
EPA is responsible for directly implementing the UST program in Indian country. As part
of this obligation, the Agency assists tribes in developing their capacity to administer
UST programs and works to ensure that UST facilities in Indian country operate in
compliance with regulations in order to prevent and clean up leaks. Federal funding is
provided to support prevention and remediation activities such as training for tribal
environmental staff, education for owners and operators in Indian country about UST
requirements, site assessments, cleaning up releases, and Indian country UST data
collection and improvement efforts.
In August 2006, EPA published a forward-looking strategy21 for the implementation of
the UST program in Indian country. This strategy was developed with the close
collaboration of tribes and lays out priorities and objectives for the Agency to improve
the UST tribal program. In particular, the strategy identifies steps that EPA and tribes can
take to further the cleanup and compliance of USTs. EPA intends to work with tribes
towards meeting the objectives of the strategy which include strengthening relationships,
communication, and collaboration; improving information sharing; implementing the
provisions of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct); and implementing UST prevention and
LUST cleanup activities.
In the upcoming years, EPA will continue to work with tribal partners to meet or exceed
established goals to improve UST compliance and release cleanup in Indian country
along with meeting the objectives laid out in the tribal strategy. EPA will also work to
meet the EPAct requirement of conducting on-site inspections of all tanks in Indian
country once every three years.
Performance goal for FY 2009:
Number of cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human
exposure and groundwater migration in Indian country. FY 2009 target is 30.
Program Priorities and Initiatives
Implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 The UST provisions of the Energy Policy
Act (EPAct) significantly affect the program at both the Federal and state level. Among
other things, it expands eligible uses of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Trust Fund, and includes a number of provisions to strengthen program implementation.
To implement the new law, EPA and states and tribes will work closely with other federal
agencies, tank owners and operators, and other stakeholders to bring about the mandated
changes affecting underground storage tank facilities.22 Key objectives of EPAct
implementation include: (1) conducting more frequent inspections; (2) prohibiting
delivery to noncompliant tanks; and (3) requiring either secondary containment for new
tank systems or financial responsibility for manufacturers and installers.
21 Refer to Strategy for An EPA/Tribal Partnership To Implement Section 1529 Of The EPAct Of 2005,
August 2006, EPA-510-F-06-005, http://v>vnv.epa.sov/OUST/fedlaws/Tribal%20Stratesy_080706r.pdf
22 For further information and final EPA grant guidance, see
\\ttp://www.epa.£ov/swenistl/fedlaws/EPActUST.htm.
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 43
-------
Improving Compliance EPA recognizes that compliance with UST regulations offers
the best prospects for preventing releases, detecting releases as soon after they occur as
practicable, and cleaning up releases as early as possible to minimize harmful
environmental impacts and protect human health. Key objectives of this initiative
include: (1) providing assistance to states and tribes in implementing the UST program;
(2) providing assistance and alternative mechanisms (e.g., conducting more frequent
inspections, prohibiting delivery to noncompliant tanks, and requiring either secondary
containment for tank systems or financial responsibility for manufacturers and installers)
to states to help them meet their new responsibilities authorized under the Energy Policy
Act (EPAct)23; (3) providing assistance to tribes in conducting inspections in Indian
country of all tanks not inspected since 1998, and then conducting on-site inspections of
all tanks every three years thereafter; (4) encouraging owners and operators to properly
operate and maintain their USTs; (5) ensuring owners and operators routinely and
correctly monitor all regulated tanks and piping in accordance with the regulations; and
(6) developing state programs with sufficient authority and enforcement capabilities to
operate in lieu of the Federal program.
Reducing the Cleanup Backlog Since 2000 the number of cleanups completed annually
by states has decreased while Federal LUST appropriation current-year dollars remained
level. The reasons at present are not fully understood.
EPA has initiated a project to collect more information on the existing backlog, and
engage states and regions in developing national and state-specific strategies to
reinvigorate cleanups. Key objectives of this initiative include: (1) achieving a better
understanding of the current backlog of sites and remaining administrative legal and
technical impediments to cleanup; (2) monitoring the soundness of state cleanup funds, a
significant source of funding for addressing LUST cleanups; (3) promoting the continued
use, reuse, and long-term management of LUST sites; (4) focusing on increasing the
efficiency and effectiveness of LUST cleanups nationwide; (5) addressing contaminants
of concern and the impact of contaminants; (6) optimizing the use of cleanup
technologies; and (7) streamlining cleanup decisions and processes.
Revitalizing Abandoned Gas Stations To encourage the reuse of abandoned properties
contaminated with petroleum from underground storage tanks (UST's), OUST created the
USTfields Initiative in 2000. "USTfields" are abandoned or underused industrial and
commercial properties where revitalization is complicated by real or perceived
environmental contamination from underground storage tanks. The purpose of these
pilots was to promote: the importance of public-private partnerships; the critical role of
the state as the primary implementing agency; and the leveraging of private funds to
maximize cleanups. This initiative has evolved and expanded and is now within EPA's
Brownfields program and sites where petroleum contamination is present are referred to
as "Petroleum Brownfields". Key objectives of this initiative include: (1) working with
Brownfields and OSWER Revitalization efforts to implement the petroleum provision of
23 The Energy Policy Act imposed a number of conditions on states receiving funding. For details see
http://www. epa.sov/swerustl/fedlaws/EPActUST. htm
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 44
-------
the Brownfields law, (2) working to increase state tank program participation in
revitalization of petroleum contaminated sites, including measuring progress based on
estimating the number of acres protective for people for future use; (3) identify lessons
learned from EPA's investment in USTfields pilots and subsequent petroleum
Brownfields grant recipients, and; (4) enhancing collaborations with private stakeholders
to help identify and surmount impediments to the revitalization of these smaller members
of the Brownfields universe.
Beginning in FY2008, all OSWER offices now report on the number of acres affected by
these revitalization programs. OUST reports on three new measures regarding the acres
addressed by its LUST cleanup program: Universe, Protective for People, and Ready for
Anticipated Uses. These measures will not require any additional reporting from regions
or states, but will simply be calculated from the measures already reported. For example,
one Confirmed Release will equal one site and one acre for the Universe Indicator, which
reports the total number of sites and acres being addressed by the LUST cleanup
program. One Cleanup Completed will also equal one acre for the Protective for People
as well as the Ready for Anticipated Uses Performance Measures.
Evaluating Program Performance Key objectives of OUST's program measurement
and evaluation include: (1) continuing to provide analytical reports that track national and
regional program performance; (2) improving data quality; (3) examining viability and
identifying ways to improve underground storage tank financial assurance mechanisms,
including state cleanup funds, (4) conducting evaluations of specific state cleanup
workloads to determine strategies for expediting and improving state cleanups programs;
(5) developing methods to explicitly highlight the environmental and public health
outcomes and benefits of completing LUST cleanups; (6) considering various options for
performance measure efficiency and accounting for the impacts of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 and (7) continued participation in advancing OSWER's Petroleum Brownfields
and Revitalization work as well as other cross-media and cross task forces, such as long-
term stewardship and identifying USTs and LUSTs in source water areas.
Performance Monitoring and Reporting
Regional Coordination Regional Planning Meetings, Regional Division Directors'
meetings, and regularly scheduled monthly conference calls between OUST and the
Regional UST/LUST Program Managers provide opportunities for OUST and Regional
management to assess the strengths and weaknesses of state programs and decide where
EPA's support is most needed and would be most productive. OUST will hold additional
Regional Planning Meetings, as needed.
Regional offices are expected to verify the accuracy and completeness of data provided
by states. In order to avoid "last minute" reviews, verification must be an ongoing process
each time states submit data to the Regional offices. Regional offices must either develop
their own verification processes or follow verification guidance provided by OUST; in
general, such processes should involve sufficient interaction with states that the Regional
offices can be confident that the data submitted at the end of each reporting period are
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 45
-------
complete, up-to-date, and accurate.24 Each Regional office should conduct reviews of
state data. In addition, Regional offices are held accountable for working with states to
improve their data systems where appropriate.
State Reporting Requirements and Schedule States are required to submit
performance information on a semi-annual basis. States must report Mid-Year
performance data on or before April 5 of each year. Regional offices must report to
OUST the states' Mid-Year performance data on or before April 10 of each year.
States must report to the Regional offices estimated End-of-Year performance data on or
before September 7 of each year. Regional offices must report to OUST the estimated
End-of-Year performance data by September 14 of each year. States must report final
End-of-Year performance data on or before October 8 of each year. Regional offices
must report to OUST final Regional offices End-of-Year performance data on or before
October 15.
Deliverable Dates for State and Regional Programs.
Date
April 5
April 10
September 7
September 14
October 1 - 7
October 15
States
Report mid-year numbers to
Regional offices.
Report Estimates for end-
of-year numbers to
Regional offices.
Report Final end-of-year
numbers to Regional
offices.
Regions
Report Final mid-year
numbers to Headquarters
Report Estimates for end-of-
year numbers to
Headquarters
Report Final end-of-year
numbers to Headquarters
24 Reporting elements are specified in an annual memorandum from OUST's Office Director to Regional
Division Directors, Regional Program Managers, and State program contacts.
FY 2009 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 46
-------
Synopsis of OSWER's Feedback Process
Upon receiving the draft 2009 guidances from the National Program Managers
(NPMs), the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) will post them on its internet
site and notify its counterparts in the EPA Regional offices. OSWER's Assistant
Administrator also will send electronic memoranda to Regional Administrators, with
copies to key program, state and Tribal contacts, transmitting OSWER's Draft NPM
Guidance for review. The review period lasts approximately one month.
OSWER program office contacts (listed at the end of the guidance's executive
summary) work closely with Regional program implementers and will relay any concerns
to OSWER's Office of Program Management (OPM). EPA's state and tribal co-
implementers and stakeholders may send their comments directly to OSWER's Assistant
Administrator or to OCFO management. Regional and stakeholder comments and
suggestions will be considered by OSWER for the final draft of the guidance to be
released in late-April.
FY 2008 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 47
-------
OSWER NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGER GUIDANCE
GRANTS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
FOR FY 2009
OSWER places a high priority on accountability and effective grants management in the
solicitation, selection, award, and administration of assistance agreements in support of
OSWER's mission. The following key areas will be emphasized as we implement our grant
programs:
1. Standardizing the timing of issuance of grants guidance for categorical grants (i.e., by
April of the fiscal year prior to the year in which the guidance applies);
2. Ensuring effective management through emphasis on training and accountability
standards for Project Officers and their managers; and
3. Utilizing new state grant templates to link grants performance to the achievement of
environmental results as detailed in the Agency's Strategic Plan and the OSWER
National Program Manager Guidance.
The Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD), in its efforts to strengthen the management
and oversight of Agency assistance agreements, issued a "Grants Management Plan for 2003-
2008." The plan is designed to help ensure grant programs meet the highest management and
fiduciary standards and further the Agency's mission of protecting human health and the
environment. The plan highlights five grants management goals:
1. Enhance the skills of EPA personnel involved in grants management;
2. Promote competition in the award of grants;
3. Leverage technology to improve program performance;
4. Strengthen EPA oversight of grants; and
5. Support identifying and realizing environmental outcomes.
OSWER continues to promote these goals and is working closely with OGD on updating the
Grants Management Plan.
Timing of Guidance Issued for Categorical Grants
One of OSWER's objectives is to organize and coordinate the issuance of draft and final
guidance documents, including grants guidance, to coincide as much as possible with State,
tribal, and regional planning processes. As a result, all guidance packages for categorical grant
programs are to be issued by April of the year in advance of the fiscal year of availability of
funds if at all possible (i.e., guidance for fiscal year 2008 appropriated funds needs to be issued
by April 2007). Not all categorical grant programs issue annual guidance. These programs may
simply indicate that they are continuing to use their current guidance.
OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 48
-------
Effective Grants Management
OSWER's Acquisition and Resources Management Staff (ARMS) serves as liaison to
OGD and the first resource for Project Officers and their managers in disseminating,
implementing, and ensuring compliance with EPA new and existing grants management
policies and procedures. ARMS also serves as the point of contact in consultations with
our regional offices and Grant Coordinators Workgroup.
ARMS central coordinating role serves to ensure consistent implementation and
compliance with Agency grants management policies and procedures throughout
OSWER Headquarters and regional program offices. This enables OSWER project
officers to focus on how best to properly manage assistance agreements to meet program
goals and objectives.
ARMS provides training, on an as-needed basis, and strongly encourages OSWER Grant
Coordinators, Project Officers, and their managers to participate in training which
addresses the core competency areas identified in the Agency's Long-Term Grants
Management Training Plan.
Promoting Competition
OSWER places great importance on assuring that, to the maximum extent possible, all
discretionary funding opportunities are awarded in a fair and open competitive
environment and that no applicant receives an unfair advantage. OSWER Project
Officers must ensure that these actions are fully compliant with EPA Order 5700.5 Al,
Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements in the solicitation, selection, and award
of assistance agreements.
The competition policy, effective January 15, 2005, applies to:
1. competitive announcements issued, released, or posted after January 14, 2005;
2. assistance agreement competitions, awards, and disputes based on competitive
announcements issued, released, or posted after January 14, 2005;
3. non-competitive awards resulting from non-competitive funding
recommendations submitted to a Grants Management Office after January 14,
2005; and
4. assistance agreement amendments issued after January 14, 2005.
For each competitive funding opportunity announcement, OSWER's Senior Resource
Official certifies that the expected outcomes from the awards are appropriate and in
support of program goals and, that the announcement is written in a manner to promote
competition to the maximum extent practicable.
In accordance with Agency policy, all OSWER competitive funding opportunity
announcement are advertised by posting to Grants.gov, the central Federal electronic
portal for applying for grant opportunities.
OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 49
-------
Ensuring Effective Oversight of Assistance Agreements
Consistent with guidance from the Grants Administration Division, OSWER develops a
Post-Award Management Plan which presents our strategy for ensuring proper oversight
and management of assistance agreements, specifically, grants and cooperative
agreements. The plan, developed in accordance with EPA Order 5700.6 Al, "Policy on
Compliance, Review and Monitoring, " establishes baseline monitoring requirements for
all OSWER grants and cooperative agreements and defines the responsibilities of
OSWER managers for post-award monitoring of assistance agreements. The plan does
not apply to OSWER regional grants or cooperative agreements, nor does it include
requirements for Interagency Agreements (lAGs).
Monitoring activities ensure satisfaction of five core areas:
1. Compliance with all programmatic terms and conditions;
2. Correlation of the recipient's work plan/application and actual progress under the
award;
3. Availability of funds to complete the proj ect;
4. Proper management of and accounting for equipment purchased under the award;
and
5. Compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements of the program.
Baseline monitoring activities are conducted by Project Officers on every assistance
agreement award issued through OSWER program offices. Project Officers are
responsible for conducting baseline monitoring on an ongoing basis throughout the life of
each agreement. The objective is to keep track of progress on the assistance agreement,
ensuring that each recipient maintains compliance with all terms and conditions of the
award, including financial and programmatic conditions.
Annually, OSWER conducts Advanced Monitoring Activities (including both on-site and
off-site evaluative reviews) on a minimum of 10 percent of our assistance agreement
recipients. The reviews are conducted using the "Desk and Off-site Review Protocol" and
"On-Site Review Protocol" guidance offered in EPA Order 5700.6 Al. Project Officers
are required to submit reports of the reviews, in the "Required Format for Writing a
Programmatic Review Report for On-site and Off-site Evaluative Reviews," within 60
calendar days of completion of the evaluation.
OSWER continually stresses the importance of Project Officer's timely submission of
evaluative reviews into the Grantee Compliance Database. Implementation of EPA
Order 5700.8, "EPA Policy on Assessing Capabilities of Non-Profit Applicants for
Managing Assistance Awards, " effective March 31, 2005, further highlights the necessity
of timely submission. Under the Order, Project Officers are required to assess the
programmatic capability of the non-profit applicant, taking into account pertinent
information from the Grantee Compliance Database and the grant application. Project
Officers are required to provide an assurance in the funding recommendation/funding
OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 50
-------
package that the applicant possesses, or will possess, the necessary programmatic
capability.
All competitive grant announcements, under which non-profit organizations can compete,
must contain a programmatic capability ranking factor(s). Non-profit applicants and
other applicants that compete will be evaluated under this factor. Non-profit applicants
selected for funding will be subject to a review for administrative capability similar to
that for non-competitive awards.
Project Officer Performance Standards
OSWER supports the requirement that all employees involved in grants management
should have their grants management responsibilities appropriately addressed in their
performance agreements. On January 5, 2007, the Office of Grants and Debarment
(OGD) issued a memorandum entitled "Assessing 2007 Grants Management
Performance under the Performance Appraisal and Recognition System (PARS)." The
memorandum implements recommendations resulting from a cross-Agency Performance
Measures Workgroup that developed several performance measures for assessing the
grants management performance of project officers, supervisors and managers.
OSWER's Senior Resource Official has mandated the inclusion of factors that address
grants management responsibilities in the performance standards of our Project Officers.
To assist in this effort, OSWER has disseminated the guidance provided by OGD's
January 5, 2007 memorandum to all of our Project Officers, Managers, and Grant
Coordinators. The guidance, as applicable, will be used in 2007 mid-year and end-of-
year performance reviews and in the development of 2008 PARS agreements.
Environmental Results of Grants and Link to Strategic Plan
On January 1, 2005, EPA issued the Environmental Results Order (5700.7). Under the
Order, Program Offices are required to identify and link environmental results from
proposed assistance agreements to the Agency's Strategic Plan/GPRA architecture.
Further, the Order requires that the linkage to the Strategic Plan, as well as anticipated
outputs and outcomes are identified and addressed in assistance agreement competitive
funding announcements, work plans, and performance reports submitted to Grants
Management Offices after January 1, 2005.
In compliance with the Environmental Results Order, OSWER requires that Project
Officers identify the linkage to the Agency Strategic Plan, including goals, objectives,
and sub-objectives, and anticipated outcomes and outputs in all competitive funding
announcements, prior to obtaining AA certification. Additionally, OSWER has identified
environmental results as a "key topic" area in reviewing and approving funding packages
for award, prior to submission to GAD.
For consistency, OSWER, in collaboration with our regional and state partners, has
developed new state grant templates for Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance,
OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 51
-------
Brownfields and Underground Storage Tanks grant programs. The templates, mandated
by OMB, will be useful in identifying environmental results from OSWER categorical
grant activities, and their linkage to the Agency's Strategic Plan/GPRA architecture.
The 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan is available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm
Goals 3, 4 and 5 of the Strategic Plan present specific OSWER objectives, sub-objectives
and strategic targets that define, in measurable terms, the change in public health or
environmental conditions to be accomplished by 2008.
OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 52
-------
Environmental Justice
OSWER supports innovative and collaborative approaches to environmental problem-
solving. Environmental justice (EJ) is a priority throughout all of OSWER's waste
programs, promoting healthy and environmentally sound conditions for all people.
OSWER will ensure accountability for implementing EJ measures by continuing to
develop and implement EJ Action Plans which are linked to our Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals.
OSWER's national programs, including Superfund, Emergency Response and
Prevention, RCRA Waste Management, Underground Storage Tanks, Brownfields and
Land Revitalization remain in the forefront of EPA's efforts to advance EJ, and to
integrate these concerns into its daily business. OSWER undertakes EJ-related activities,
such as developing and utilizing assessment methodologies and tools, which support
EPA's annual and long term goals. Regions should refer to OSWER's 2009 NPM
Guidance, and OSWER's 2009 EJ Action Plan, when developing their individual 2009 EJ
Action Plans. In tandem with existing EJ program support, OSWER will focus on the
following key areas to help improve environmental justice program development and
performance:
Enhance and maintain a stable set of internal measures for routine analysis of
OSWER EJ program performance.
Increase the level of understanding of the concept of risk and EPA's
role/approach to risk in communities with environmental justice concerns.
Improve outreach and results from OSWER EJ Fundamentals training.
Improve outreach and tools in OSWER that focus on: analysis, performance
measurement, population vulnerability, cumulative impacts (e.g. multi-facility), or
other EJ-oriented measure of risk and revitalization in communities with EJ
concerns.
Regions are asked to work with states to, in part, "consider risk" when prioritizing
facilities to be addressed in multi-year permitting strategies. Regions could also
be asked to consider population vulnerability, cumulative impacts (e.g. multi-
facility), or other EJ-oriented measure of risk. (Goal 3; Subobjective 3.1.2).
Progress towards RCRA GPRA goals in potential EJ communities should advance
at least at the same pace as in non-EJ areas. (Goal 3; 3.1.2).
Work toward these GPRA goals could be prioritized in part based on EJ-oriented
measures of risk. (Goal 3; 3.2.2).
Regions should support and work closely with states to ensure that environmental
regulations, applicable Federal EJ policies, strategies, tools and training programs
are used to adequately address EJ concerns. (Goal 3; 3.2.2).
Regions are asked to include risk-based measures that address EJ concerns (such
as cumulative impacts, population vulnerability, exposure pathways related to
subsistence fishing, etc.) when making decisions for chemicals to reduce (in
addition to 31 priority chemicals). (Goal 5; 5.2.1).
Regions are encouraged to prioritize reduction efforts toward areas with the
highest overall concentrations of risk. (Goal 5; 5.2.1).
OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 53
-------
In communicating with stakeholders about the Schools Chemical Cleanout
Campaign, OSWER supports a focus on schools that face particularly high
financial and technical barriers to implementation.
Enhanced understandings of health risks associated with methamphetamine
contaminated brownfield sites on tribal lands and training for at least 100 tribal
representatives on methamphetamine health related exposure risks at abandoned
labs, assessment, and cleanup methods. (Goal 4; 4.2.3).
Outreach and education to community-based organizations and community
development corporations in socio-economically disadvantaged communities
throughout New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania regarding the resources
needed and economic feasibility of undertaking brownfields redevelopment
projects. (Goal 4; 4.2.3).
Technical assistance to communities experiencing issues associated with vapor
intrusion, institutional controls, and concerns related to siting schools on
brownfields. (Goal 4; 4.2.3).
Training and education to at least 10 communities interested in developing
brownfields job training programs. (Goal 4; 4.2.3).
Development of a hedonic pricing model used to identify the contribution of
social, economic, and environmental changes to property values in low-income
and minority communities with significant brownfields. (Goal 4; 4.2.3).
Correlate existing brownfields assessment, targeted brownfields assessment,
cleanup, and revolving loan fund geographic data with US census demographic
data to better understand the socioeconomic composition of communities who
have received brownfields funding and subsequent future targeted outreach
efforts. (Goal 4; 4.2.3).
OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 54
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY2009 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX
REGIONAL OFFICE
G/O/S
3.1.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.2.1
3.2.1
3.2.1
3.2.1
3.2.1
3.2.2
ACS
Code
MW9
MWD
324
HWD
ST1
ST6
TR1
TR2
132
133
327A
328A
C1
112
Measure Text
Billions of pounds of municpal solid waste
reduced, reused or recycled.
Millions of tons of construction and demolition
debris that is reused or recycled
Number of inspections and exercises conducted
at oil storage facilities that are required to have
Facility Response Plans.
Number of hazardous waste facilities with new
or updated controls.
No more than 10,000 confirmed releases per
year.
Increase the rate of significant operational
compliance by 1% over the previous year's
target.
Number of tribes covered by an integrated
waste management plan .
Number of closed, cleaned up or upgraded oper
dumps in Indian Country or other tribal lands.
Number of Superfund-lead removal actions
completed.
Number of voluntary removal actions, overseen
by EPA, completed.
Percentage of inspected facilities subject to
Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations found
to be in compliance.
Percentage of inspected facilities subject to Spil
Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
(SPCC) regulations found to be in compliance.
Score in annual Core ER assessment.
Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet
state risk-based standards for human exposure
and groundwater migration.
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
State Grant
Template
Measure
(Y/N)
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Nat.
Target
19.5
XX
250
100
< 10,000
(UST
releases)
69%
16
27
195
130
82%
58%
75%
13,000
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
HQ
Attachment I, page 1
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY2009 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX
REGIONAL OFFICE
G/O/S
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
323
ACS
Code
113
121
141
151
152
CA1
CA2
CAS
S10
OSRE-
01
Measure Text
Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet
risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration in Indian Country.
Number of Superfund final site assessment
decisions.
Number of Superfund construction completions
Number of Superfund sites with human
exposures under control.
Number of Superfund sites with contaminated
groundwater migration under control.
Number of high priority RCRA facilities with
human exposures under control.
Number of RCRA facilities with migration of
contaminated groundwater under control.
Number of RCRA facilities with final remedies
constructed.
Number of Superfund sites ready for anticipated
use site-wide.
Each year through 201 1 , reach a settlement or
take an enforcement action before the start of a
remedial action at 95 percent of Superfund sites
having viable, liable responsible parties other
than the federal government.
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
State Grant
Template
Measure
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Nat
Target
30
400
35
10
15
60
60
100
30
95%
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
HQ
Attachment I, page 2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY2009 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX
G/O/S
3.2.3
323
4.1.2
413
4.1.3
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.3
5.2.1
ACS
Code
OSRE-
02
OSRE-
03
CH2
PC1
PC2
B29
B32
B33
B34
B37
B38
PBS
Measure Text
Each year through 2011, address all Statute of
Limitations cases for Superfund sites with
unaddressed total past costs equal to or greater
than $200,000.
Number of PRP-lead removal completions with
enforceable instruments
Number of risk management plan audits and
inspections completed.
Number of sites receiving 40 CFR 761 .61 (a) or
(c) approvals.
Number of acres to be remediated under 40
CFR 761. 61 (a) or (c) approvals.
Number of Brownfields properties assessed.
Properties cleaned up using Brownfields
funding.
Acres of Brownfields property made ready for
reuse.
Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment
funds leveraged at Brownfields sites.
Number of tribes supported by Brownfields
cooperative agreements.
Number of pounds reduced (in millions) of
priority chemicals as reported by National
Partnership for Environmental Priorities
members.
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
State Grant
Template
Measure
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Nat
Target
100%
50
400
XX
XX
1,000
60
225
5,000
0.9
N/A
1.0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
HQ
Attachment I, page 3
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 2009 STATE GRANT MEASURES APPENDIX
G/O/S
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.3
ACS
Code
HWO
ST6
CA1
CAS
B29
B32
Measure Text
Number of hazardous waste facilities with new or
updated controls.
Increase the rate of significant operational compliance
by 1 % over the previous year's target.
Number of high priority RCRA facilities with human
exposures under control.
Number of RCRA facilities with final remedies
constructed.
Number of Brownfields properties assessed.
Properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
Nat.
Target
100
69%
60
100
1,000
60
REGIONAL OFFICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
HQ
Attachment II
-------
Explanation of Changes from FY 2008 to FY 2009
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Change from FY 2008 Guidance Document
Reason for Change
Sections and Effected Pages
Priorities
Superfund program must devote additional
attention to the growing universe of sites that
reach the post-construction complete phase.
Approximately 65 percent of NPL sites
have achieved construction completion and
are in the post-construction phase of the
cleanup pipeline. Emphasis is primarily to
ensure that remedies remain protective and
also to increase effectiveness and/ or reduce
costs.
Executive summary; page 7.
Strategies
Brownfields Program will streamline the
Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund and
Cleanup (ARC) Grant Guidelines.
To ensure the highest quality, most viable
projects are funded to further meet
assessment, cleanup and land revitalization
goals.
Executive summary; page 7.
In coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and consulting engineers, EPA's
Superfund program plans to establish a
Center of Expertise to advise Regional offices
on how to appropriately stage significant
design and construction projects.
To improve program management and
increase efficiency.
Executive summary; page 7.
Annual
Commitment
Measures
Two hazardous waste management measures
- permits or other approved controls (HW3)
and permit renewals (HW7) are combined
into one measure.
The 2006-2011 EPA
combined the measures.
Strategic Plan
National Program Strategies;
page26.
New municipal solid waste measure,
"Billions of pounds of municipal solid waste
reduced, reused or recycled (MW9)."
Succeeds MSW measure, "Millions of
pounds of municipal solid waste recycled,"
which extends through FY 2008.
Measures appendix;
attachment I, page 1.
Attachment III, Page 1
-------
Change from FY 2008 Guidance Document
Tracking
Process
Contacts
No changes indicated.
Patricia Overmeyer (202) 566-2774
Rachel Lentz (202) 566-2745
Hal White (703) 603-7177
Cathy Allen (202) 566-1039
Reason for Change
New Revitalization program contact.
New Brownfields program contact.
New Underground Storage Tank program
contact.
OSWER's Clean Energy/ Greenhouse Gas
program contact.
Effected Pages and Sections
Executive summary; page 8.
Executive summary; page 8.
Executive summary; page 8.
Executive summary; page 8.
Attachment III, Page 2
-------
State Reporting Burden Recommendations Summary
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Original Reporting Requirement
Quarterly Reporting
Hazardous waste end-of-year reporting
Superfund and Brownfields reports (number of
jobs created)
Hazardous waste reporting
RCRAInfo database
State Underground Storage Tank (UST) Fund
Soundness data form
State Recommendation
Change frequency of Superfund Site
Assessment reports from quarterly to semi-
annually; reduce National Priorities List (NPL)
oversight activities report to annual.
Change from printed reports to electronic.
Eliminate requirement to report on number of
jobs created under Brownfields grants: states
must rely on facilities for data and cannot
verify.
Implement a streamlined program
authorization approval process.
Eliminate requests for reports that can be
generated by EPA through database; improve
user interface; reduce number of corrective
action codes; new EPA software (Jan. '06)
prevents states from uploading Waste Data
System information into RCRA database.
Simplify form and reduce data required.
Change Adopted (FY07/08)
Final rule, effective July 2007, relaxes
reporting frequency. Terms will be based on
the particular cooperative agreement
negotiated between EPA, state or tribe.
R8 and SD have come to an agreement on
preparing a joint end-of-year report beginning
next PPA cycle (2008-2021).
Not a mandatory requirement for state and
tribal 128 grantees; the grant property profile
reporting form asks grantees to provide this
information "as it is available."
EPA implemented a streamlined authorization
application process in 2003. The "Express
Authorization" process has been implemented.
RCRAInfo V4, which is scheduled for release
by end of 2008, will address concerns. EPA
will utilize data available in RCRAInfo for
reporting rather than request the same data
from the regions and states directly. Will be
implemented in FY 2009.
New guidance simplifying the reporting form
will be issued to the regions in 2008.
Attachment IV
------- |