Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Budget Request to OMB
Table of Contents	

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
      EPA's Mission	1
      Annual Performance Plan and Budget Request Overview	1
      Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change	1
      Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water	2
      Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration	3
      Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems	3
      Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship	4
      Homeland Security	5
      Human Capital	6
      Workforce	6
      Organization of the Annual Performance Plan and Budget Request	7
         Annual Performance Plan and Budget Request Components	7

RESOURCE SUMMARY TABLES
      Appropriation Summary	1
         Budget Authority / Obligations	1
         Full-Time Equivalents (FTE)	2

GOAL AND OBJECTIVE OVERVIEW
      Goal, Appropriation Summary	1
           Budget Authority / Obligations	1
           Full-Time Equivalents (FTE)	3
      Clean Air and Global Climate Change	5
           Goal, Appropriation Summary	5
      Clean and Safe Water	13
           Goal, Appropriation Summary	13
      Land Preservation and Restoration	26
           Goal, Appropriation Summary	26
      Healthy Communities and Ecosystems	37
           Goal, Appropriation Summary	37
      Compliance and Environmental Stewardship	52
           Goal, Appropriation Summary	52

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
      Resource Summary Table	1
      Program Projects in S&T	1
      Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs	3
      Climate Protection Program	7
      Drinking Water Programs	10
      Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	12
      Federal Support for Air Quality Management	14

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Budget Request to OMB
Table of Contents	

      Federal Support for Air Toxics Program	16
      Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification	18
      Forensics Support	22
      Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection	25
      Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	28
      Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	32
      Human Health Risk Assessment	34
      Indoor Air: Radon Program	38
      IT / Data Management	40
      Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides	42
      Pesticides: Review / Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides	44
      Radiation: Protection	46
      Radiation: Response Preparedness	48
      Reduce Risks from Indoor Air	50
      Research: Air Toxics	52
      Research: Drinking Water	55
      Research: Endocrine Disrupter	59
      Research: Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)	61
      Research: Human Health and Ecosystems	63
      Research: Land Protection and Restoration	69
      Research: Pesticides and Toxics	72
      Research: Water Quality	75
      Research: Computational Toxicology	79
      Research: Economics and Decision Science (EDS)	82
      Research: Fellowships	85
      Research: Global Change	87
      Research: NAAQS	90
      Research: Sustainability	93

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM AND MANAGEMENT
      Resource Summary Table	1
      Program Projects inEPM	1
      Acquisition Management	4
      Administrative Law	6
      Alternative Dispute Resolution	8
      Beach/Fish Programs	9
      Brownfields	13
      Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	15
      Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination	17
      Civil Enforcement	19
      Civil Rights / Title  VI Compliance	22
      Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs	25

                                         i-2

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Budget Request to OMB
Table of Contents	

      Climate Protection Program	28
      Commission for Environmental Cooperation	32
      Compliance Assistance and Centers	34
      Compliance Incentives	38
      Compliance Monitoring	41
      Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations	44
      Criminal Enforcement	47
      Drinking Water Programs	50
      Endocrine Disrupters	54
      Enforcement Training	56
      Environment and Trade	58
      Environmental Justice	60
      Exchange Network	63
      Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	66
      Federal Stationary Source Regulations	69
      Federal Support for Air Quality Management	71
      Federal Support for Air Toxics Program	75
      Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management	78
      Geographic Program:  Chesapeake Bay	80
      Geographic Program:  Great Lakes	84
      Geographic Program:  Gulf of Mexico	88
      Geographic Program:  Lake Champlain	91
      Geographic Program:  Long Island Sound	93
      Geographic Program:  Other	95
      Great Lakes Legacy Act	99
      Homeland Security: Communication and Information	102
      Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection	104
      Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	107
      Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	109
      Human Resources Management	Ill
      Indoor Air: Radon Program	114
      Information Security	116
      International Capacity Building	118
      IT / Data Management	121
      Legal Advice:  Environmental Program	125
      Legal Advice:  Support Program	127
      LUST/UST	128
      Marine Pollution	131
      National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways	134
      NEPA Implementation	137
      Pesticides:  Field Programs	139
      Pesticides:  Registration of New Pesticides	142

                                         i-3

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Budget Request to OMB
Table of Contents	

      Pesticides: Review / Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides	145
      Pollution Prevention Program	149
      POPs Implementation	154
      Radiation: Protection	156
      Radiation: Response Preparedness	159
      RCRA:  Corrective Action	161
      RCRA:  Waste Management	164
      RCRA:  Waste Minimization & Recycling	168
      Reduce Risks from Indoor Air	172
      Regional Geographic Initiatives	175
      Regional Science and  Technology	177
      Regulatory Innovation	179
      Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis	182
      Science Advisory Board	184
      Science Policy and Biotechnology	185
      Small Business Ombudsman	187
      Small Minority Business Assistance	189
      State and Local Prevention and Preparedness	192
      Stratospheric Ozone:  Domestic Programs	194
      Stratospheric Ozone:  Multilateral Fund	197
      Surface Water Protection	199
      Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management	204
      Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction	206
      Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program	210
      TRI / Right to Know	213
      Tribal - Capacity building	215
      US Mexico Border	219
      Wetlands	222

INSPECTOR GENERAL
      Resource Summary Table	1
      Program Projects in IG	1
      Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations	2

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
      Resource Summary Table	1
      Program Projects in B&F	1
      Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	2
      Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	4

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND
       Resource Summary Table	1

                                        i-4

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Budget Request to OMB
Table of Contents	

       Program Projects in Superfund	1
       Acquisition Management	3
       Alternative Dispute Resolution	5
       Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations	7
       Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	9
       Civil Enforcement	12
       Compliance Assistance and Centers	14
       Compliance Incentives	16
       Compliance Monitoring	18
       Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations	20
       Criminal Enforcement	22
       Enforcement Training	25
       Environmental Justice	27
       Exchange Network	29
       Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	32
       Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management	35
       Forensics Support	37
       Homeland Security: Communication and Information	39
       Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection	41
       Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	43
       Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	46
       Human Health Risk Assessment	48
       Human Resources Management	50
       Information Security	52
       IT / Data Management	54
       Legal Advice:  Environmental Program	57
       Radiation: Protection	59
       Research:  Land Protection and Restoration	61
       Research:  SITE Program	65
       Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal	67
       Superfund: Enforcement	70
       Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness	74
       Superfund: Federal Facilities	76
       Superfund: Remedial	79
       Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies	84
       Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement	86

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
      Resource Summary Table	1
      Program Projects in LUST	1
      Acquisition Management	2
      Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	3

                                         i-5

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Budget Request to OMB
Table of Contents	

       Compliance Assistance and Centers	5
       Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	7
       Human Resources Management	9
       IT / Data Management	10
       LUST Cooperative Agreements	12
       LUST/UST	15
       Research: Land Protection and Restoration	19

OIL SPILL
       Resource Summary Table	1
       Program Projects in Oil	1
       Compliance Assistance and Centers	3
       Civil Enforcement	6
       IT Data Management	9
       Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response	12
       Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	16
       Research: Land Protection and Restoration	19

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
       Resource Summary Table	1
       Program Projects in STAG	3
       Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality	14
              Clean School Bus Initiative	15
       Program Area: Brownfields	16
             Brownfields Projects	17
       Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance	20
             Infrastructure Assistance:  Alaska Native Villages	21
             Infrastructure Assistance:  Clean Water SRF 	23
             Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program  	25
             Infrastructure Assistance:  Drinking Water SRF	27
             Infrastructure Assistance:  Mexico Border	29
             Infrastructure Assistance:  Puerto Rico	31
       Program Area: Categorical Grant	32
              Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection	33
              Categorical Grant: Brownfields	35
              Categorical Grant: Environmental Information	37
              Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance	39
              Categorical Grant: Homeland Security	41
              Categorical Grant: Lead	43
              Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)	45
              Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement	48
              Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation	50
              Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)	52
              Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention	56

                                          i-6

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Budget Request to OMB
Table of Contents	

             Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)	58
             Categorical Grant: Radon	60
             Categorical Grant: Sector Program	62
             Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management	64
             Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds	67
             Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance	69
             Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management	71
             Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program	73
             Categorical Grant: Underground Inj ection Control (UIC)	76
             Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks	79
             Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development	82
PROGRAM PERFORMANCE AND ASSESSMENT
       Supplemental PART Information	1
       Annual Performance Goals and Measures	7
           Clean Air and Global Climate Change 	7
           Clean and Safe Water	26
           Land Preservation and Restoration	41
           Healthy Communities and Ecosystems	52
           Compliance and Environmental Stewardship	80
       Annual Performance Goals and Measures for Enabling Support Programs	92
           Office of Administration and Resources Management	92
           Office of Environmental Information	94
           Office of the Chief Financial Officer	99
           Office of the Inspector General	101
       Verification and Validation	103

APPENDIX
       Homeland Security	1
       Coordination with Other Federal Agencies - Environmental Programs	13
       Coordination with Other Federal Agencies - Enabling Support Programs	43
       Major Management Challenges	45
       EPA User Fee Program	56
       Working Capital  Fund	58
       Acronyms for Statutory Authorities	59
       STAG Categorical Program Grants - Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses	64
       Infrastructure/ STAG Project Financing	74
       Program Projects by Appropriation	78
                                         i-7

-------
                                    EPA's Mission

The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect and safeguard human
health and the environment. This budget supports the Administration's commitment to achieving
environmental  results as we work to develop more efficient methods to conduct our mission. It
also emphasizes the Administration's desire to diversify our energy sources, promote emissions-
reductions technologies, revitalize the Great Lakes, and improve the  security of our Nation's
drinking  water infrastructure. Additionally,  this budget incorporates new responsibilities and
requirements for some of EPA's major programs, along with some new provisions mandated by
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct).

                Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

The EPA's FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional  Justification requests  $7.3
billion in discretionary budget authority and 17,560 Full Time Equivalents (FTE). This request
demonstrates the Agency's efforts to work with its State, Tribal, and local government partners
in its  efforts to protect clean air and water, preserve and restore contaminated lands, promote
healthy communities and ecosystems, assure compliance with environmental regulations, and
secure the Nation's environmental assets through  homeland security programs such  as Water
Sentinel.  Specific narratives for each program outline what the resources accomplish and FY
2007 priorities. Human Capital and EPA's workforce levels are two  overarching resource areas
that impact  all programs and projects. A discussion of planning and management initiatives
follows.

Human Capital

In FY 2007 EPA will continue to develop and refine its Human Capital strategies, to ensure that
the Agency recruits, trains and retains a qualified pool of employees to protect human health and
safeguard the  air,  water and land. EPA will continue its systematic approach to workforce
planning  throughout the Agency including:  setting targets, and closing  competency gaps,  in
mission critical occupations (MCOs); increasing emphasis on innovative and flexible recruitment
and hiring strategies to address personnel shortages within MCOs;  and improving  the overall
effectiveness of the hiring process for the Agency's  workforce.

EPA has  met many important milestones in implementing its revised Human Capital Strategy,
and the Human Capital  Accountability Plan.  In FY 2005, EPA National Program Managers
(NPMs) and Regional offices formally  adopted the Human Capital  Strategy, and developed
office-specific  Action Plans, using the Agency's Human Capital strategy framework. Results of
the Agency's Action Plans will then be used to inform the Human Capital strategic planning
process, and to make future strategic workforce decisions.

In FY 2006, as part of workforce planning efforts,  EPA will complete  an assessment of current
competency gaps for senior management, the first selected MCO sample group. In FY 2007, the
Agency will further its Workforce Planning efforts  by closing  competency  gaps in senior
leadership positions and developing plans to address the competency gaps  in other MCOs.  The
results will  continue to be evaluated through our Human  Capital accountability reporting,
                                        I/O- 1

-------
ensuring a highly  skilled, diverse, results-oriented workforce with the right mix of technical
expertise, experience, and leadership capabilities.

Workforce

EPA values its world class workforce and uses its expertise to meet urgent responsibilities across
a broad range of national and local environmental issues.   In FY 2007  adjustments to EPA's
workforce management strategy will help better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.  A
key step is aligning the total number of authorized positions and actual FTE utilization.  In FY
2007  EPA's  estimated  17,560 FTE will  work toward advancing  the  Agency's mission  of
protecting human health and the environment.

Organization of the Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

The   main  body   of  the  EPA  Congressional  Justification  presents  the  budget  in  a
programmatically-focused format to facilitate Congressional review  and decision-making. The
format  includes program justifications at the  program/project level with  the  information
presented in  order by appropriation, program  area, and  program  project.  Additionally, the
justification clearly details the change between the FY 2006 Enacted Budget versus the FY 2007
President's Budget.

EPA  performs its  work under five strategic goals. A goal  overview section outlines how the
related efforts in program/projects are designed to fit together to attain long-term measurable
outcomes. The budget totals  shown by goal offer a look at the full  costs associated with
achieving the goal. In other words, rent, LAN infrastructure, and other Agency-wide costs are
allocated  to each  goal. Details  of the  specific  cost areas are found in the program/project
narratives. Measuring outcomes is a primary emphasis  of PART reviews, highlighted in the
Program  Performance  and  Assessment Section. Resource tables  and supporting appendix
materials  complete the document, offering easy reference for budget numbers as well as items  of
special interest.

Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification Components

       EPA's Annual Performance Plan is integrated into  the annual Budget request. Where
applicable, programmatic  funding increases are tied  to  performance measures and associated
targets by program/project.
                                         I/O-2

-------
Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification:

Chapters include:

Introduction and Overview

Resource Summary Tables
    •   Resources by Appropriation

Goal and Objective Overview (Goals 1-5)
    •   Resource Table by Goal and Appropriation
    •   FY 2007 Goal and Objective Summary (Goals 1-5)

Program/Project by Appropriation (S&T, EPM, IG, BF, SF, LUST, OIL, STAG)
    •   Resources for Appropriation
    •   Annotated Bill Language by Appropriation
    •   Resource Table by Appropriation, Program/Project
    •   Program/Project Fact Sheets (the following included within each factsheet)
          -  Resource Chart ($s, FTEs)
          -  Program/Project description
          -  FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan
          -  Performance Targets
          -  FY 2007 President's Budget versus FY 2006 Enacted
          -  Statutory  Authorities

Program Performance  and Assessment
    •   PART
          -  OMB Report
          -  PART Supplemental Information

    •   Performance
          -  6-year array of APGs, PMs and Baselines
          -  6-year array of APGs, PMs and Baselines for Enabling Support Programs

Appendix
    •   Coordination with Other Federal Agencies - Environmental Programs
    •   Coordination with Other Federal Agencies - Enabling Support Programs
    •   Major Management Challenges
    •   User Fees
    •   Working Capital  Fund
    •   Acronym List for Statutory Authority
    •   STAG Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses for Categorical Grants
    •   Infrastructure / STAG Project Financing
    •   Program/Projects by Appropriations
                                       I/O-3

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Resource Summary Tables

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY	1
   Budget Authority / Obligations	1
   Full-time Equivalents (FTE)	2

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
          FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                           APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
                               Budget Authority / Obligations
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Oil Spill Response
   Superfund Program
   IG Transfer
   S&T Transfer
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
SUB-TOTAL, EPA

Rescission of Prior Year Expired Contracts,
Grants, and Inter agency Agreements
   Environmental Programs and Management
   Science & Technology
   State and Tribal Assistance Grants
   Hazardous  Substance Superfund

TOTAL, EPA
FY 2005
Obligations
$785,903.1
$2



$1
$1

$3
$8




,309,238.0
$45,007.1
$45,181.0
$17,594.9
,320,886.4
$15,182.0
$38,821.1
,374,889.5
$70,589.5
,608,479.6
,256,882.7
$0
$0
$0
$0
FY 2006
Enacted
$730,810.0
$2,346,711.0
$36,904.0
$39,626.0
$15,629.0
$1,198,581.0
$13,337.0
$30,156.0
$1,242,074.0
$79,953.0
$3,213,709.0
$7,705,416.0
$-2,000
$-1,000
$-66,000
$-11,000
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$788,274.0
$2,306,617.0
$35,100.0
$39,816.0
$16,506.0
$1,217,827.9
$13,316.0
$27,811.1
$1,258,955.0
$72,759.0
$2,797,448.0
$7,315,475.0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3,256,882.7
$7,625,416.0
$7,315,475.0
                                         RT-1

-------
                             Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                             APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
                                   Full-time Equivalents (FTE)

                                                  FY 2005          FY 2006          FY 2007
                                                Obligations         Enacted          Pres Bud
Science & Technology
   Authorized Ceiling                                                    2,438.1
   FY 2005 Final/FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage           2,416.1            2,420.0           2,431.6

Science and Tech. - Reim
   Authorized Ceiling                                                       3.0
   FY 2005 Final / FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage              3.0               3.0              3.0

Environmental Program & Management
   Authorized Ceiling                                                   11,048.1
   FY 2005 Final / FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage          10,904.2           10,966.0          11,007.5

Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
   Authorized Ceiling                                                       1.5
   FY 2005 Final / FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage             48.5               1.5              1.5

Inspector General
   Authorized Ceiling                                                     267.7
   FY 2005 Final/FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage            270.8             265.7            267.7

Oil Spill Response
   Authorized Ceiling                                                      99.2
   FY 2005 Final/FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage             91.9              98.5             98.7

Oil Spill Response - Reim
   Authorized Ceiling                                                       0.0
   FY 2005 Final/FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage              7.5               0.0              0.0

   Superfund Program
      Authorized Ceiling                                                  3,126.2
      FY 2005 Final / FY 2006-2007 Estimated
      Usage                                           3,020.9            3,103.0           3,097.1
   IG Transfer
      Authorized Ceiling                                                    94.1
      FY 2005 Final / FY 2006-2007 Estimated
      Usage                                             87.0              93.4             94.1
   S&TTransfer
      Authorized Ceiling                                                   106.3
      FY 2005 Final / FY 2006-2007 Estimated
      Usage                                   	125.0    	105.5   	106.2
Hazardous Substance Superfund
   Authorized Ceiling                                                    3,326.6
   FY 2005 Final/FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage           3,232.9            3,301.9           3,297.4

Superfund Reimbursables
   Authorized Ceiling                                                      77.5
   FY 2005 Final/FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage             87.2              76.9             77.5
                                            RT-2

-------
                                                   FY 2005          FY 2006          FY 2007
                                                 Obligations        Enacted          Pres Bud

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
   Authorized Ceiling                                                        77.4
   FY 2005 Final / FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage             72.1              76.8              76.9

FEMA - Reim
   Authorized Ceiling                                                         0.0
   FY 2005 Final / FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage              2.7               0.0               0.0

WCF-REIMB
   Authorized Ceiling                                                       104.7
   FY 2005 Final/FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage             99.7             103.9              110.7

Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund
   Authorized Ceiling                                                       187.2
   FY 2005 Final/FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage            185.3             185.8              187.2

Pesticide Registration Fund
   Authorized Ceiling
   FY 2005 Final / FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage             72.7

TOTAL, EPA
   Authorized Ceiling                                                     17,631.0
   FY 2005 Final / FY 2006-2007 Estimated Usage          17,494.6           17,500.0           17,559.7
                                             RT-3

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Goal and Objective Overview

Goal, Appropriation Summary - Budget Authority/Obligations	1
Goal, Appropriation Summary - Authorized Full Time Equivalents (FTE)	3
Clean Air and Global Climate Change	5
Clean and Safe  Water	13
Land Preservation and Restoration	25
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems	36
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship	51

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                           GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
                                    Budget Authority / Obligations
                                       (Dollars in Thousands)
                                             FY 2005         FY 2006           FY 2007
                                             Obligations     Enacted	   Pres Bud
Clean Air and Global Climate Change           $927,481.7      $923,596.4         $932,024.5
   Environmental Program & Management      $443,492.8      $452,246.5         $446,242.3
   Science & Technology                      $210,039.6      $209,077.3         $214,789.2
   Building and Facilities                      $9,881.5         $8,672.3           $8,748.4
   State and Tribal Assistance Grants           $255,475.1      $245,484.0         $253,692.5
   Inspector General                          $5,701.0         $5,040.4           $5,174.0
   Hazardous Substance Superfund             $2,891.7         $3,075.9           $3,378.1

Clean and Safe Water                         $3,517,729.0     $3,133,211.9        $2,731,342.1
   Environmental Program & Management      $503,466.6      $484,969.8         $451,812.7
   Science & Technology                      $134,592.4      $121,337.1         $170,692.3
   Building and Facilities                      $6,717.1         $6,050.8           $6,039.4
   State and Tribal Assistance Grants           $2,848,262.8     $2,501,325.0        $2,085,435.0
   Inspector General                          $24,690.1        $19,529.1           $17,362.7

Land Preservation and Restoration              $1,780,624.2     $1,656,471.0        $1,689,635.1
   Environmental Program & Management      $210,037.2      $216,513.0         $217,902.2
   Science & Technology                      $17,261.4        $14,713.7           $12,149.9
   Building and Facilities                      $5,393.8         $4,966.4           $4,871.3
   State and Tribal Assistance Grants           $121,827.5      $113,718.0         $140,912.2
   Leaking Underground Storage Tanks        $70,589.5        $79,953.0           $72,759.0
   Oil Spill Response                          $17,594.9        $15,629.0           $16,506.0
   Inspector General                          $2,572.0         $2,277.7           $2,494.6
   Hazardous Substance Superfund             $1,335,347.8     $1,208,700.2        $1,222,039.9

Healthy Communities and Ecosystems           $1,257,846.7     $1,249,321.4        $1,228,933.7
   Environmental Program & Management      $616,729.7      $640,732.5         $638,298.6
   Science & Technology                      $345,807.2      $334,290.4         $348,424.1
   Building and Facilities                      $16,249.6        $13,929.8           $13,951.7
   State and Tribal Assistance Grants           $257,253.9      $245,983.0         $213,656.3
                                              G/O-1

-------
   Inspector General
   Hazardous Substance Superfund

Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
   Environmental Program & Management
   Science & Technology
   Building and Facilities
   State and Tribal Assistance Grants
   Inspector General
   Hazardous Substance Superfund
FY 2005
Obligations
$7,906.2
$13,900.2
$773,201.2
$535,511.7
$78,202.5
$6,939.0
$125,660.3
$4,137.8
$22,749.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$6,642.4
$7,743.2
$742,815.3
$552,249.1
$51,391.4
$6,006.7
$107,199.0
$3,414.4
$22,554.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,576.9
$8,026.1
$733,539.6
$552,361.1
$42,218.6
$6,205.1
$103,752.0
$3,491.8
$25,511.0
Sub-Total
                                            $8,256,882.7
Rescission of Prior Year  Expired Contracts,
Grants, and Interagency Agreements
   Environmental Programs and Management   $Q
   Science & Technology                      $0
   State and Tribal Assistance Grants           $Q
   Hazardous Substance Superfund            $Q
$7,705,416.0
$7,315,475.0
$-2,000
$-1,000
$-66,000
$-11,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
                                              3,256,882.7     $7,625,416.0
                   $7,315,475.0
                                             G/O-2

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                         GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
                              Authorized Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
                                          FY 2005        FY 2006           FY 2007
                                          Obligations     Enacted	    Pres Bud
Clean Air and Global Climate Change          2 646 4         2 655 3            2 652 0
   Environmental Program & Management     \ 339 g         \ 395 5            \ 379 Q
   Science & Technology                     674 8           679 2              688.3
   Inspector General                        345            355               395
   Hazardous Substance Superfund            \f \            17 g               \f 5
   Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim            39            o 3                03
   Science and Tech. - Reim                  30            39                30
   FEMA-Reim                           2.3            0.0                0.0
   WCF-REIMB                           2L8            23,0               24.3

Clean and Safe Water                        2,906.9         2,930.1            2,906.8
   Environmental Program & Management     2 249 7         2 257 2            2 245 1
   Science & Technology                     476 5           5145              5116
   Inspector General                        150.0           141.7              132.4
   Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim            ^5 5            Q 3                03
   WCF-REIMB                           154            165               174

Land Preservation and Restoration             4 592 5         4 737 g            4 686 2
   Environmental Program & Management     1 195 2         1 228 2            1 229 3
   Science & Technology                     4g 3            520               512
   Leaking Underground Storage Tanks        72 i            77 4               75 9
   Oil Spill Response                        919            992               987
   Inspector General                        15 5            K, 5               199
   Hazardous Substance Superfund            30617         31744            31206
   Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim            HQ            Q 1                01
   Oil Spill Response - Reim                  75            Q 0                00
   FEMA-Reim                           04            0.0                0.0
   Superfund Reimbursables                 37 2            77 5               77 5
   WCF-REIMB                           115            124               129
                                           G/O-3

-------
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems          3 374 g         3 812 5             3 834 2
   Environmental Program & Management     2 470 1         2 496 5             2 520 5
   Science & Technology                     1,014.3         1,023.6             1,016.1
   Inspector General                         45 4            48 2               50 2
   Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund            185 3          187 2              187 2
   Hazardous Substance Superfund            427            199               213
   Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim             89            05                05
   Pesticide Registration Fund                72 7            00                00
   WCF-REIMB                            354            36 6               38.5

Compliance and Environmental Stewardship    3 454 Q         3 495 3             3 480 5
   Environmental Program & Management     3 999 5         3 170 7             3 133 6
   Science & Technology                     202.2          168.9              164.5
   Inspector General                         25 1            24 8               26 6
   Hazardous Substance Superfund            1113          1145              1379
   Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim             10 1            03                03
   WCF-REIMB                            157            i62               175

Total                                      17,494.6        17,631.0            17,559.7
                                            G/O-4

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                   CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Protect  and improve the air  so  it is healthy to breathe  and risks to human health  and the
environment are reduced.   Reduce greenhouse  gas  intensity  by  enhancing partnerships with
businesses and other sectors.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:


    •   Through 2010, working with  partners, protect human health and the environment by
       attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and reducing the risk from
       toxic air pollutants.
    •   By 2008, 22.6 million more Americans than in 1994 will be experiencing healthier indoor
       air in homes, schools, and office buildings.
    •   By 2010, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have
       stopped declining and slowly begun the process of recovery, and the risk to human health
       from  overexposure to  ultraviolet  (UV)  radiation,  particularly  among  susceptible
       subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
    •   Through 2008, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be
       prepared to minimize  impacts to human health and the environment should unwanted
       releases occur.
    •   Through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 45  million metric tons
       of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the President's 18 percent greenhouse gas
       intensity improvement goal by 2012.  (An  additional  75  MMTCE to result from the
       sustained growth in the climate programs are reflected in the Administration's business-
       as-usual projection for greenhouse gas intensity improvement. )
    •   Through 2010, provide and apply  sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by
       conducting   leading-edge  research   and  developing  a  better  understanding  and
       characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 1.
                           GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
                                Budget Authority / Obligations
                                   Full-time Equivalents
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Clean Air and Global Climate
Change
Healthier Outdoor Air
Healthier Indoor Air
FY 2005
Obligations
$927,481.7
$588,382.2
$48,141.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$923,596.4
$583,161.8
$46,956.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$932,024.5
$596,460.1
$47,674.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
$8,428.1
$13,298.3
$718.1
                                         G/O-5

-------

Protect the Ozone Layer
Radiation
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$16,872.9
$34,905.9
$111,978.8
$127,200.4
2,646.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$16,666.0
$36,213.8
$111,091.4
$129,506.6
2,655.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$21,625.0
$37,242.7
$110,298.0
$118,723.8
2,652.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
$4,959.0
$1,028.9
($793.4)
($10,782.8)
o o
-J.J
EPA implements the Clean Air and Global Climate Change goal through national and regional
programs  designed to provide healthier outdoor and indoor air for all Americans, protect the
stratospheric  ozone layer, minimize the  risks from radiation releases, reduce greenhouse  gas
intensity,  and enhance science and research.  In implementing  the  goal, EPA carries out its
responsibilities through programs that include several common elements:  setting risk-based
priorities;  facilitating regulatory reform  and market-based approaches; partnering with  state,
Tribal, and local governments, non-governmental organizations, and industry; promoting energy
efficiency; and using sound science.

EPA's key clean air programs - including those addressing particulate matter, ozone, acid rain,
air toxics, indoor air, radiation and stratospheric ozone depletion - focus on some of the highest
health and environmental risks faced by the Agency.  These programs have achieved results.
According to EPA's projections, every year, state and federal air pollution programs established
under the Clean Air Act help prevent tens  of thousands of premature mortalities, millions of
incidences of chronic and  acute illness,  tens  of thousands of hospitalizations and emergency
room visits, and millions of lost work days.
                                         G/O-6

-------
                      Comparison of Growth Areas and Emissions
200%
150%  -
100%  -
                                                               Gross Domestic Product
                                                               Aggrogate Emissions
                                                               (Six Principal Pollutants)
                                      D4
   According to EPA analyses, the benefits of implementing the Clean Air Act exceed costs by
   a factor of six or seven to one.  Based on EPA's estimates, Clean Air Act costs have been
   relatively small  compared to the dollar value of public health and environmental benefits.
   For example,  EPA estimates that for every dollar the agency spends on voluntary climate
   change programs returns $75 in energy savings.

The FY 2007 budget request includes funding for implementing provisions of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, which includes new responsibilities and requirements in the fuels and diesel retrofit
programs. In the area of fuels, EPA is required to develop a number of new regulations, revise
several existing regulations, revise models and undertake a series of fuel-related studies and
analyses.    This effort includes promulgating  regulations for: a major new  renewable fuels
program; the current reformulated gasoline (RFG) program; new regulations requiring health and
environmental testing of fuels; and in  conjunction with DOE,  conducting a study on Federal,
state, and local fuel requirements with recommendations on harmonization. The request includes
funding for expanded diesel retrofit program for a variety of sources.

The Clean Air Rules are a suite of actions that will dramatically improve America's air quality
and will address the transport of pollution across state borders.  The rules provide national tools
to achieve significant improvement in air quality and the associated benefits of improved health,
longevity and quality  of life  for all Americans.  Taken together, they will make significant air
quality improvement in years to come.  The Clean Air Rules encompass the following major
rules:
                                         G/O-7

-------
Clean Air Mercury Rule:  EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (originally proposed as the
Utility Mercury Reductions Rule) on March 15, 2005.l  This rule will build on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, the largest
remaining domestic  source of human-caused  mercury emissions.  Issuance of the  Clean Air
Mercury Rule marks the first time EPA has regulated  mercury emissions from utilities, and
makes the U.S. the  first nation in the world to control emissions from this  major source of
mercury pollution. Mercury is a persistent, toxic pollutant that accumulates in the food chain.
While concentrations of mercury in the air are usually low, mercury emissions can reach lakes,
rivers and estuaries and eventually build up in fish tissue. Americans are  exposed  to mercury
primarily by eating certain species of fish. However, close to 80 percent of the fish Americans
buy comes from overseas, from other countries and from waters beyond our reach and control.
The  United  States contributes just a small percentage of human-caused mercury emissions
worldwide - roughly three percent with U.S. utilities responsible for about one percent of that.

NonRoad Diesel Rule: The Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule, a component of the National Clean
Diesel Campaign (NCDC),  will improve  diesel  engine function to remove emissions  and
innovative diesel fuel refining techniques  to remove sulfur. The black puff of smoke  seen
coming from construction and other nonroad diesel equipment  will be eliminated. Even  with
more stringent heavy-duty highway engine standards set to take effect over the next decade, over
the next twenty years millions  of diesel engines  already in use will continue to emit  large
amounts of nitrogen  oxides and particulate matter, both of which contribute to serious public
health problems. The Diesel Retrofit work will be covered under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
These problems are manifested by thousands of instances of premature mortality, hundreds of
thousands of asthma attacks, millions of lost work days, and numerous other health impacts.  The
NCDC works to reduce the pollution emitted from diesel engines across the country through the
implementation of varied control strategies and the aggressive involvement of national, state, and
local partners.

Ozone Rule:  The Clean Air Ozone Rules (dealing with  8-hour ground-level ozone designation
and implementation) designate those areas where  air does not meet the health-based standards
for ground-level ozone and classify the seriousness of the problem in each area.  The Rules also
set forth the schedule and minimum elements required in plans states must submit to reduce the
levels of ozone in areas where the ozone standards are not met.  Ground-level ozone is an air
pollutant that causes human health problems, and damages crops and other vegetation. It is a key
ingredient of urban smog.

Fine Particle Rule:  The Clean Air Fine Particle Rules (dealing with PM 2.5 designations and
implementation) designate those areas where air does not meet  the health-based standards for
fine-particulate pollution and classify the seriousness of the problem in each area. An upcoming
rule will also set forth the schedule and minimum elements required for state plans to reduce the
levels of fine particulate matter in areas where the standards are not met.  Particulate Matter is
associated with increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for people with  heart
and lung disease as well as increased work and school absences.  It is also the major source of
haze that reduces visibility in many parts of the United States, including our National Parks.
                                         G/O-8

-------
The Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Nonroad Diesel Rule, combined with other existing state
and Federal programs, including the Tier 2 clean vehicles and gasoline sulfur standards for cars
and light trucks, the heavy duty diesel engines and low sulfur diesel rule, and the NOx SIP Call
Rule to reduce interstate ozone, will bring well over half of counties now monitoring non-
attainment into attainment with the fine particle and ozone standards.

The  Indoor  Air Program characterizes the risks  of indoor  air  pollutants  to  human  health,
develops techniques for reducing those risks, and educates the public about what they can do to
reduce their risks from indoor air.  Through voluntary partnerships with non-governmental and
professional  organizations,  EPA educates and  encourages individuals, schools, industry, the
health care community, and others to take action to reduce health risks in indoor environments
using a variety of approaches including national public awareness, media campaigns, as  well as
community-based outreach and education.    EPA also uses technology-transfer to improve the
design, operation, and maintenance of buildings - including schools, homes, and workplaces - to
promote healthier indoor air. EPA also supports a national radon (second only to smoking as a
cause of lung cancer)  program that encourages voluntary national, regional, state, and tribal
programs and activities that support initiatives targeted to radon testing and mitigation as well as
radon resistant new construction.

For more than a decade, businesses and organization have partnered with EPA through voluntary
climate protection programs to pursue common sense approaches to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and help in meeting the President's greenhouse gas intensity goal. Voluntary programs
such as Energy Star and SmartWay Transport have contributed to increasing the use of energy-
efficient products and practices and reducing emissions of carbon dioxide as well as methane and
other greenhouse gases with very high global warming potentials. These partnership programs
help spur investment in advanced  energy  technologies and  the  purchase  of energy-efficient
products  and create emissions reduction benefits that accrue over the lifetime of the investment
or product.

EPA's  Domestic  Stratospheric Ozone  Protection  Program will continue to  implement the
provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer  (Montreal Protocol),  contributing  to the  reduction  and control  of  ozone-depleting
substances (ODSs) in the U.S. and lowering health risks to the American public associated with
exposure to UV radiation.

In FY 2007, EPA will  continue  upgrading the national radiation  monitoring system, thus
improving response time, data dissemination, and population/geographic coverage of the U.S
should there be an  accidental or  intentional  release  of  radiation  either domestically  or
internationally. EPA will also maintain readiness of deployable monitors allowing for sampling
density at locations near and downwind  from radiological incidents.  The Agency will continue
to enhance laboratory  response capacity and  capability to  ensure  a minimal  level of surge
capacity for radiological incidents.
                                         G/O-9

-------
International Activities

EPA will continue to work with other agencies on the Methane to Markets program.   This
program is an international initiative that focuses on advancing cost-effective, near-term methane
recovery and use as a clean energy source. The goals of the program  are to reduce global
methane emissions to  enhance  economic  growth, promote energy  security,  improve the
environment, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Other benefits include improving  mine
safety, reducing waste, and  improving local air quality.  EPA is the lead agency for the Methane
to Markets program.

EPA  will  also participate  in  the  newly-established  Asia-Pacific Partnership   on Clean
Development and  Climate.   The Partnership aims to promote  development and  transfer of
cleaner, more efficient technologies that  can address  greenhouse gas mitigation and energy
security - issues that are crucial not only to the region but the entire world.  Through these
programs, EPA will work with international  governments to transfer American technology and
voluntary program techniques. The Department of State is the lead agency for implementing this
initiative.

Research

EPA's air research provides the scientific foundation for the Agency to fulfill its responsibilities
under the Clean Air Act, which helps make the air safe to breathe and protects human health and
the environment.  The Agency focuses its  research on National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) pollutants and also studies hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

In FY 2007, the Agency's  air research will  continue to strengthen the scientific basis for the
periodic review and implementation of air quality standards.  This research is concentrated on
particulate matter (PM), but includes other NAAQS pollutants.  PM research is aligned with the
ten priority research topics for PM identified  by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).  The
NAS has conducted four reviews of EPA's PM research since 1998 to identify relevant, high-
priority research needs and monitor research performance.

In FY 2007, the Agency's air toxics  research  will complete selected ongoing research efforts and
begin transitioning toward the Multiple Air Pollutant Program (MAPP) focus recommended by
external review. Air toxics research provides health hazard and exposure methods, data, and
models that enable the Agency to reduce uncertainty in risk assessment.  It also produces  tools
that enable national, regional, state,  and local officials to identify and implement  cost-effective
approaches to reduce risk from sources of air  toxics.

Recognizing that environmental  policy and  regulatory decisions will only  be as good as the
science upon which they are based,  EPA  makes every effort to ensure that its science is of the
highest quality and relevance, thereby providing the basis for sound environmental results.  EPA
uses the Research and  Development (R&D) Investment Criteria of quality, relevance,  and
performance in its decision-making processes through a) the use of research strategies and plans,
b) program review and evaluation by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) and the Science
Advisory Board (SAB), and c) peer review.
                                         G/O-10

-------
In 2005, the BOSC evaluated the NAAQS research program to assess the quality and relevance
of its research and the program's historical performance.1 The subcommittee concluded that the
program has reduced scientific uncertainty and  that there was a  high  degree of integration
between the  program's in-house and  external research, which is  usually conducted  through
competitive,  peer-reviewed  grants under the  Agency's  Science to Achieve Results  (STAR)
program.

Research is guided by strategies and plans that are developed with participation from  Agency
research programs' major clients.  Strategies outline the research needs and priorities.  Multi-
year research plans outline steps for meeting strategic research needs and annual performance
goals and measures for evaluating progress.

Taken  together, these mechanisms serve to ensure that EPA's research and  science remain
relevant, of high quality, and contribute to superior environmental performance.

The Agency  approaches its research programs' workforce planning in a manner consistent with
its  human  capital strategy.   Key  elements of this strategy include working to develop and
implement a holistic approach to recruitment, preserving a diverse workforce that reflects a wide
spectrum of viewpoints, and retaining existing talent.

Workforce

Senior management supports Human Capital efforts to develop leadership and technical skills for
all  employees supporting the Clean Air and Global Climate Change Goal.  Offices within the
Goal are analyzing their knowledge management needs and capabilities as an important  element
of the overall strategic succession plan.  This analysis includes evaluating the skills of the current
workforce and needs for the future to ensure that EPA possesses the skills necessary to meet the
challenges that lie ahead.

The Agency  approaches its research programs' workforce planning in a manner consistent with
its  human  capital strategy.   Key  elements of this strategy include working to develop and
implement a holistic approach to recruitment, preserving a diverse workforce that reflects a wide
spectrum of viewpoints, and retaining existing talent.

EPA offices work together to enhance information and data access across the offices,  and better
communicate EPA's message about air  quality.

FY2005 PARTs

 The following programs  were assessed in  2005 though OMB's Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART).

    •  National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Federal Program
1 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors, Particulate Matter and Ozone
Research Program (Washington: EPA, 2005). Available at: 


                                         G/O-11

-------
   •   Air Quality Grants and Permitting Programs
   •   Indoor Environments
   •   National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Research (re-PART)

More detailed information is provided in specific program project descriptions.
                                        G/O-12

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                              CLEAN AND SAFE WATER

Ensure  drinking water is safe.   Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic
ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide
healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:


    •   Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including
       protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
    •   Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal
       and ocean waters.
    •   Provide and apply  a sound scientific foundation to EPA's goal of clean and safe water by
       conducting  leading-edge  research  and  developing  a  better  understanding  and
       characterization of the environmental outcomes under Goal 2.
                            GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
                                 Budget Authority / Obligations
                                    Full-time Equivalents
                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Clean and Safe Water
Protect Human Health
Protect Water Quality
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$3,517,729.0
$1,270,988.5
$2,121,752.9
$124,987.5
2,906.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$3,133,211.9
$1,220,989.2
$1,791,519.9
$120,702.8
2,930.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,731,342.1
$1,177,458.2
$1,412,740.6
$141,143.3
2,906.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
($401,869.8)
($43,531.0)
($378,779.3)
$20,440.5
-23.3
Over the 30 years since enactment of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts (CWA and
SDWA), government,  citizens, and the private sector have worked together to  make dramatic
progress in improving the quality of surface waters and drinking water.  Thirty years ago, much
of the Nation's tap water had either very limited treatment (usually disinfection) or no treatment
at all.  About two-thirds of the surface waters assessed by  states were not attaining basic water
quality goals and were considered polluted.2  Some  of the Nation's  waters  were open sewers
posing health risks  and many water  bodies  were so polluted that  traditional uses,  such as
swimming, fishing, and recreation, were impossible.
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting
America's Water. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
                                         G/O-13

-------
Today, drinking water systems monitor and treat water to assure compliance with drinking water
standards covering a wide range of contaminants. In addition, EPA now protects  sources of
drinking water  through activities  such as regulating underground injection  of wastes.   The
number of polluted waters has been reduced  and many clean  waters  are even healthier.  A
massive investment of Federal, state, and local funds resulted in a new generation of wastewater
treatment facilities able to provide "secondary" treatment or better.  EPA has issued national
discharge regulations  for  over 50 industrial  categories.3  In  addition,  sustained  efforts  to
implement "best management practices" have helped reduce runoff of pollutants from diffuse or
"nonpoint" sources.

Cleaner, safer water has renewed recreational, ecological, and economic interests in communities
across the nation.  The  recreation, tourism, and travel  industry is one of the largest employers in
the nation, and  a  significant portion of recreational spending comes from swimming, boating,
sport fishing, and hunting.4   Each year, more than 180  million people visit  the shore for
recreation.5  In 2001, sportspersons spent a total of $70 billion- $35.6 billion  on fishing, $20.6
billion on  hunting, and $13.8  million  on items used for both hunting and  fishing.  Wildlife
watchers spent an additional $38.4 billion on their activities around the home and on trips away
from home.6  The commercial fishing industry, which  also requires clean water and healthy
wetlands, contributed $28.6 billion to the economy in 2001.7 The Cuyahoga River, which once
caught fire, is now busy with boats and harbor businesses that generate substantial revenue for
the City of Cleveland.  The Willamette River in Oregon has been restored to provide swimming,
fishing, and water sports. Even Lake Erie, once infamous for its dead fish, now supports a $600
million per year fishing industry.8

Although  there   has   been  much  progress   on  important  economic,  human health  and
environmental benefits, there is still work to be done  to realize the vision of clean rivers, lakes,
streams and coastal areas and safe water to drink. In 2007, EPA will work with states and tribes
to continue accomplishing measurable improvements in the safety of the Nation's drinking water
and in the condition of rivers, lakes and coastal  waters.    This Overview  summarizes key
environmental and public health goals and describes the general strategies EPA proposes to
implement to accomplish these goals.   With the help of states,  tribes and other partners, EPA
expects to  continue progress toward protecting human health  and improving  water  quality by
2008, including -

    •   Water Safe to Drink:  increase the percentage of population served by community water
       systems that meet all applicable health-based drinking water standards from 89% to 95%;
3 Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, PARTs 405 -471. Revised as of July 1,2005
4 Travel Industry Association of America. Tourism for America, 11th Edition. Washington, DC: Travel Industry of America.
 Pew Oceans Commission. 2002. America's Living Oceans Charting a Course for Sea Change. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans
Commission.
6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
7 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Fisheries of the U.S. 2001. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
8 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting
America's Water. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.


                                          G/O-14

-------
    •   Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat: reduce the percentage of the water miles/acres identified
       by  states  or Tribes as having fish consumption  advisories in 2002 where  increased
       consumption of safe fish is allowed, (485,205  river miles, 11,277,276 lake acres) while
       increasing  the  percentage  of the  shellfish growing acres monitored  by states that are
       approved or conditionally approved for use from 77% to 91%;

    •   Surface Water Meeting Standards:   address water quality problems on a watershed
       basis so that water quality  standards are fully attained in waterbodies identified by states
       as not meeting standards

    •   Healthy Coastal Waters:  maintain or improve the overall health of each of the  four
       major  coastal ecosystems  around the  country, as measured  by the National  Coastal
       Condition Report.

The clean and  safe water  goals are closely related to goals established in Goal 4 of the Agency
Strategic Plan regarding  improvements  in wetlands,  estuaries, targeted geographic  programs
such as the waters of the  Mexico  Border  region, the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay,  and the
Gulf of Mexico.  The key strategies that EPA plans to implement in FY 2007 to make progress
toward  the public health  and environmental goals identified in the Strategic Plan are briefly
described below.

Water Safe to Drink

For almost 30 years, protecting the Nation's public health  through safe drinking water has been
the shared responsibility of EPA,  the states,  and nearly 54,000  community  water systems
(CWSs)9  nationwide  that  supply  drinking water  to  more  than  260  million  Americans
(approximately 90% of the U.S. population).   Within  this time  span, safe drinking water
standards have been established and  are being  implemented for 91  microbial, chemical, and
radiological contaminants. Forty-nine states have adopted primary authority for enforcing their
drinking water programs.  Additionally, CWS  operators are better informed and trained to both
treat contaminants and prevent them from  entering the source of their drinking water  supplies.

During 2007, EPA, the states, and  CWSs will build on  these successes while working toward the
2008 goal of assuring that 95 percent of the population served by CWSs receives drinking water
that meets all applicable standards.    Collectively,  these core areas and  other  interrelated
elements of the national safe drinking water program form a balanced, integrated framework that
comprises the multiple barrier approach to protecting public health from unsafe drinking water.
EPA has identified key activities within five core program areas  described below that are critical
to ensuring safe drinking water.
9 Although the Safe Drinking Water Act applies to 159,796 public water systems nationwide (as of January 2004), which include
schools, hospitals, factories, campgrounds, motels, gas stations, etc. that have their own water system, this implementation plan
focuses only on CWSs. A CWS is a public water system that provides water to the same population year-round. As of January
2004, there were 52,838 CWSs.


                                          G/O-15

-------
Drinking Water Standards

During FY 2007,  EPA will  continue to assess  the need for new or revised drinking water
standards based on available data on health effects,  occurrence, risks of exposure,  analytical
(detection) methods, as well as information on technologies to prevent, detect, or remove specific
contaminants.  Specifically, EPA will:

   •   Determine whether to regulate at least five unregulated contaminants on the second
       contaminant candidate  list  (CCL)  and,  through  the  Six-Year Review  of  existing
       regulations, whether a revision to an existing standard is warranted;
   •   Continue analysis to prepare the Agency's  third CCL;
   •   Continue the comprehensive Lead and Copper Rule Review that began in 2004;
   •   Begin to develop revisions to the Total Coliform Rule (TCR); and
   •   Consider additional protections of drinking water distribution systems.

Drinking Water Implementation

During FY 2007,  EPA will  support  state  efforts  to  meet existing and  new drinking water
standards including the Cryptosporidium  (Long  Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment),
Disinfection (Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule), and Ground Water Rules.
In many states, EPA will  be responsible  for  directly  implementing the  early monitoring
requirements under the Cryptosporidium and Disinfection rules.  In addition,  initial monitoring
requirements  under the revised arsenic rule  and  revised radionuclides rule will be underway.
EPA and the states will use the following tools to encourage compliance:

   •   Public Water  System Supervision (PWSS) Program Grants:  These grants to states
       and tribes provide assistance to implement and enforce National Primary Drinking Water
       Regulations to ensure the safety of the Nation's  drinking water resources and to protect
       public health.

   •   Sanitary Surveys: Sanitary surveys  are on-site reviews  of the water sources, facilities,
       equipment,  operation,  and maintenance  of public water systems.  All states are  to be in
       compliance with requirements to conduct sanitary surveys  at CWSs  once every three
       years starting in 2004.

   •   Data Access, Quality, and Reliability:  EPA will complete the modernization of the
       Safe Drinking Water  Information System  (SDWIS), which serves as the primary source
       of national information on compliance with  all health-based, regulatory requirements of
       SDWA.

Promotion of Sustainable Management of Drinking Water Infrastructure

The Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF), established under the SDWA, offers
low interest loans to  help public water  systems across  the nation make improvements  and
upgrades to their water infrastructure,  or support  other activities that build system capacity.  In
FY 2007, the DWSRF program will provide an estimated 600 additional loans.  EPA will  also
                                        G/O-16

-------
work with states to increase the percentage of loan  agreements made each year that return a
system to compliance, estimated to be 30% of loan agreements in 2002.

Protection of Sources of Drinking Water

In FY 2007, EPA will work with states  and water systems to improve protection of sources of
drinking water in two key  areas.

    •   Voluntary Source Water Protection Strategies:  EPA will promote the concept of a
       multiple barriers approach to  drinking water program management and  will work with
       states to track, to the extent  feasible, the development and implementation of source
       water protection strategies. EPA  has set a goal of increasing the number  of source water
       areas (both surface and ground water) for community water systems that have minimized
       risk to public health from an estimated baseline of 5% of all areas in 2002 to 20% in FY
       2007.
    •   Underground  Injection Control:   EPA works with states  to  regulate  injection of
       hazardous substances and other waste to prevent contamination of underground sources
       of drinking water.  In FY 2007, EPA will continue to focus on shallow wells (Class V) in
       source water areas.  EPA and the states will  work to assure that  all identified Class V
       motor vehicle waste disposal wells are closed by 2008.  EPA and states will also work to
       assure that 100 percent of Class I, II, III and V wells that are determined to be in violation
       are addressed.

Assurance that Critical Water Infrastructure is Secure

In FY 2007, EPA will  continue to lead and support state and water utility efforts to secure their
water infrastructure from terrorist threats  and other intentional harm. In addition, due to its
responsibilities under Homeland Security Presidential Directives 7 and 9, EPA will support the
water sector  in  implementing  protective  measures  and  in continuing  to pilot a new  and
innovative drinking water surveillance and monitoring program. In FY  2007, EPA will establish,
in selected  cities, additional pilot contamination warning systems based  upon  intensive water
monitoring  and other  surveillance.   The  pilots will  integrate information from contaminant-
specific  sampling  and laboratory  analysis, on-line  water quality  monitoring, public  health
surveillance, customer complaints and physical security to form a comprehensive contamination
warning  system.  The WaterSentinel   program  will   prove the  concept  of  an  effective
contamination  warning  system, so  that  drinking  water utilities, ideally of all sizes  and
characteristics, could adopt such a system.  The Agency will also provide critical tools, training,
and exercises that will help utilities detect, prevent, and respond to threats.

Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat

Across  the U.S.,  states  and tribes have  issued fish consumption  advisories  for a range of
persistent, bioaccumulative contaminants covering more than 840,000 river miles and 14 million
lake acres as of 2003.10   The EPA Strategic Plan calls for improving the quality of water and
10 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. Fact Sheet: National Listing of Fish Advisories. EPA-823-
F-04-016. August 2004. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/factsheet.pdf


                                          G/O-17

-------
sediments to allow increased consumption of fish and  shellfish.  EPA's national approach to
meeting safe fish and shellfish goals is described below.

Safe Fish

Most of the current fish consumption advisories issued by states are for mercury, PCBs, and
dioxin.  EPA is emphasizing strategic partnerships within the Agency to address these pollutants.
EPA's water program is also addressing remaining controllable sources offish exposure to these
chemicals.  The Agency is:

    •   Developing mercury fish tissue criteria implementation guidance to ensure new criteria
       are incorporated into WQS and implemented in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
       System (NPDES) permits;
    •   Working with states to improve their advisory  programs with  particular emphasis on
       periodic re-sampling of previously tested waters that are under advisory; and
    •   Working to identify emerging contaminants to ensure that routes offish exposure to new,
       emerging contaminants are addressed early.

Safe Shellfish

Success in achieving  the shellfish goals relies on implementation of CWA programs that are
focused on sources of pollution  that  cause shellfish acres to be  closed.   Important new
technologies include pathogen source tracking, new indicators  of pathogen contamination and
predictive correlations between environmental stressors and their effects. Once critical  areas and
sources are identified, core program authorities, including expanded monitoring, development of
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and revision of discharge permit limits can be applied to
improve conditions.

Water Safe for Swimming

Recreational waters, especially beaches in coastal areas and the Great Lakes, provide recreational
opportunities for millions of Americans. Swimming in  some recreational waters, however, can
pose a risk of illness as a result of exposure to microbial  pathogens.  In November 2004, EPA
established  more protective health-based WQSs for bacteria for those states  and Territories
bordering Great Lakes or ocean waters that had not yet adopted standards in accordance with the
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000, an important step  to further
protect the quality of the nation's coastal  recreation waters.11   For FY 2007,  EPA's national
strategy for improving the safety of recreational waters will include these key elements:

Improve Beach Monitoring and Public Notification

A key component of the strategy for improving the  safety of recreational waters is improving
monitoring of public beaches and notifying the public  of unsafe conditions. EPA is working
1' United States Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register; November 16, 2004; Volume 69, Number 220; pages
67217 - 67243. Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters.  Available on the Interenet at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2004/November/Day-16/w25303.htm


                                         G/O-18

-------
with states to implement the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH)
Act.  In FY 2007, EPA expects that all Tier 1 public beaches will be monitored and managed
under the BEACH Act and that states and localities will be taking actions where possible and
appropriate to address sources of unsafe conditions that result in the closure of beaches.

Identify Unsafe Recreational Waters and Begin Restoration

Another important element of the strategy to restore waters unsafe for swimming is to identify
the specific waters that are unsafe and develop plans to accomplish the needed restoration. An
important part of this work is to maintain strong progress toward development of TMDLs based
on the schedules established by states in conjunction with EPA. In a related effort, the Agency
will better focus compliance assistance and, where necessary, enforcement resources on unsafe
recreational waters.  In addition,  working with communities that have frequent wet weather
discharges (which are a major source of pathogens) to ensure progress to reduce the frequency of
these discharges is one of the Agency's national enforcement priorities for FY  2005 through
2007.

Reduce Pathogen Levels in Recreational Waters Generally

In addition to focusing on waters that are unsafe for swimming today, EPA, states and tribes will
work in FY 2007 to reduce the overall level of pathogens discharged to recreational waters using
three key approaches:

    •   Reduce pollution from CSOs;
    •   Address major sources discharging pathogens under the permit program; and
    •   Improve management of septic systems.

Restore and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

A significant investment  of the National Water Program resources  is under the  CWA, which
directly support  efforts to restore and  improve the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams. In FY
2007, EPA will work with  states  to  make continued progress toward the clean water goals
identified in the Strategic Plan by using a two-part strategy.  EPA will also implement core clean
water programs, including innovations that apply  programs on a watershed basis and accelerate
efforts to improve water quality on a watershed basis.

Implement Core Clean Water Programs:

To protect and improve water quality on a watershed basis in FY 2007, EPA, in partnership with
states and tribes, will continue to focus the work on integrating the  six key program areas that
form the foundation of the water program.  Core water program work includes:

    •   Strengthen Water Quality Standards:  The top priority for the criteria  and  standards
       program  in FY 2007 is the continued implementation of the Water Quality Standards
       (WQS) and Criteria Strategy, developed in cooperation with states, tribes, and the public
       in 2003.  The Standards and Criteria Strategy prioritizes key strategic actions EPA and
                                        G/O-19

-------
the states need to complete in order to strengthen the WQS program to guide assessment
and restoration efforts.  This  Strategy calls for EPA to continue  work in developing
scientific  "criteria  documents"  for  key chemical,  microbial, and  water pollutants,
including implementation protocols and methods. Key elements identified in the Strategy
include developing nutrient criteria, adopting biological criteria, approving state WQSs in
a timelier manner,  and providing technical and scientific support to the states and tribes
in conducting Use Attainability Analyses and developing site-specific criteria.  Finally,
EPA will work with states  and tribes to ensure the effective operation and administration
of the standards program.

Improve Water Quality Monitoring:  Scientifically defensible water quality data and
information are essential to  all aspects  of the national program to protect and  restore
water yet, as documented in numerous independent evaluations, Federal and state water
quality monitoring and assessment programs need strengthening.  Top priorities  for FY
2007 are state participation in  efforts to  develop statistically valid monitoring networks,
continued EPA support of states in developing monitoring programs  consistent with
national monitoring guidance published in 2003, and  state support of the national water
quality database.

Develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Related Plans: Development of
TMDLs for an impaired waterbody is a critical tool for meeting water restoration goals.
In FY 2007, EPA will continue to support states as they develop TMDLs to meet court-
ordered schedules  and ensure  that the national  policy of TMDL completion within 13
years of waterbody listing is  met.  EPA will continue to pursue innovative approaches to
help states and other partners develop  and implement waterbody  restoration plans as
efficiently as possible.

Control Nonpoint Source Pollution on a Watershed  Basis:  Polluted  runoff from
nonpoint sources is the largest single remaining cause of water pollution.  In FY 2007,
EPA will use grants to states under Section 319 of the CWA to support efforts to manage
nonpoint pollution through the development  and implementation  of watershed plans.
Special emphasis will be placed on restoring impaired waters on a watershed basis.

Industrial Water Pollution Control:  EPA will develop regulations for industries where
the risk to waterbodies can be reduced and water  quality  can  be improved through
wastewater treatment.   In FY 2007, EPA will be working  on  regulations for the  4
industries identified in the 2004 effluent  guideline plan and any additional industries that
may be identified in the 2006 plan.

Strengthen NPDES Permit Program:   The NPDES  program requires point sources
discharging to water bodies to have permits. In FY 2007, EPA will work with states to
use the "Permitting for Environmental Results Strategy"  to address concerns about the
workload for issuing permits and the health of state NPDES programs.  Additionally,
EPA will finalize a rule that incorporates financial incentives for states that implement
adequate NPDES fee systems.
                                  G/O-20

-------
       Support Sustainable Wastewater Infrastructure: The Clean Water State Revolving
       Funds  (CWSRFs)  provide low-interest loans to help finance wastewater  treatment
       facilities and other water quality projects.  Recognizing the substantial remaining need
       for  wastewater  infrastructure,  EPA  will  continue  to   provide  significant  annual
       capitalization to CWSRFs in FY 2007.  Another important approach to closing the gap
       between the need for clean water projects and available funding is to use sustainable
       management systems to  prolong the  lives of existing systems.   EPA  will work to
       encourage rate structures that lead to full cost pricing and other conservation measures.

Accelerate Watershed Protection

Strong execution of core  CWA programs alone  is not sufficient to maintain  and accelerate
progress toward cleaner water and accomplish the water quality improvements called for in the
Strategic Plan. About a decade ago, EPA fostered the watershed approach, focusing on multi-
stakeholder and multi-program efforts within hydrologically defined boundaries, as a better way
to address water quality problems.  In FY 2007, EPA will accelerate watershed protection by
working in three key areas:

    •   Core Programs Organized by Watershed:  In addition to development of watershed
       based plans, discussed below, core programs can be implemented on a watershed basis.
       Some examples in practice as a result of innovations developed by state, EPA Regions,
       and others are development of TMDLs and NPDES permits on a  watershed basis and
       implementing water quality "trading" programs within a watershed.

    •   Local Watershed Protection Efforts: EPA is developing national tools, training, and
       technical  assistance  that will  help community partnerships to be more  effective at
       improving watershed  health.

    •   Apply  an Adaptive  Management Framework:  The best way to  achieve progress in
       improving and protecting waters and watersheds is by applying an adaptive management
       approach to better understand the problems, set challenging but  realistic goals, and
       address opportunities associated with developing programs and building partnerships at
       the  watershed level.  In FY 2007, EPA will  continue to work with states and tribes to
       apply an adaptive management framework to identify the specific mix of watershed tools
       that best suit local needs and conditions.

Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters

Coastal waters are among the most productive  ecosystems on Earth, but they are also among the
most threatened ecosystems, largely as a result of rapidly increasing growth and development.
About half of  the U.S. population now lives in coastal areas and coastal counties are growing
three  times faster than counties  elsewhere in the Nation.   The  work  described  here will be
closely coordinated with the implementation of the National Estuary Program (described in Goal
4).
                                        G/O-21

-------
For FY 2007, EPA's national strategy for improving the condition of coastal and ocean waters
will include the key elements listed below.  The health of ocean and coastal waters and progress
in meeting EPA's  strategic targets will be tracked through  the  National Coastal Condition
Report. In addition, the OSV BOLD, EPA's ocean survey vessel,  will support monitoring and
assessment needs in coastal regions.

Reduce Vessel Discharges

EPA will focus on enhancing regulation of discharges of pollution  from vessels.  Key work for
FY 2007 includes proposing wastewater standards for cruise ships  operating in Alaskan waters
and cooperating with the Department of Defense to develop discharge standards for all armed
forces vessels.

Manage MPRSA Ocean Dumping Program (Including Dredged Material)

Several hundred million cubic yards of sediment are dredged from waterways, ports, and harbors
every year to maintain the Nation's navigation system. All of this sediment must be disposed of
safely.   EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) share  responsibility for regulating
how and where the disposal of sediment occurs.  In FY 2007, EPA and COE will continue to
focus  resources on improving  how disposal  of dredged  material  is managed, including
evaluating, designating, and monitoring disposal sites. EPA will also review and concur on the
disposal permits issued by COE.

Manage Invasive Species

One of the greatest threats to U.S. waters and ecosystems is the uncontrolled spread of invasive
species.  Invasive species commonly enter U.S. waters through the discharge of ballast water
from ships.  In FY 2007, EPA will assist the U.S. Coast Guard in  its efforts to develop ballast
water discharge  standards.  In  addition, EPA will continue efforts  to target invasive species in
coastal areas. Efforts addressing invasive species on an international level are discussed below.

FY 2005 Performance Assessment Rating Tool Evaluations (PARTs):

The following programs were assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for
the FY 2005 PART process (final PART ratings will be included in the President's Budget):

       Oceans and Coastal Programs
   •   Surface Water Protection Program
   •   Section 106 Categorical Grants
   •   Drinking Water Research

More detailed information is provided in specific program project descriptions.

International Activities

Internationally, our objective is to protect the environmental quality of U.S. coastal and ocean
waters.  U.S. waters are subject to international sources of pollution and EPA's international
                                        G/O-22

-------
efforts in this area are focused on the development and implementation of international standards
necessary to address transboundary sources of pollution, pollution affecting shared ecosystems,
and the introduction of non-indigenous species through maritime shipping. To reach these ends
we are seeking to reduce the introduction of invasive species to U.S. waters by working with the
U.S.  Coast Guard regarding  the  International Ballast  Water Standards Convention under
MARPOL. Another emphasis  is  negotiation of effective international  standards addressing
harmful anti-foulants and air emissions from ships.  Achievement of the objective and strategic
targets will enhance U.S. water quality, human health, and help stabilize  aquatic ecosystems in
North America.

Research

EPA's drinking water and water quality research programs conduct leading edge, problem-driven
research to provide a sound scientific foundation for Federal regulatory decision-making. These
efforts will result in strengthened public health and aquatic ecosystem  protection by providing
data methods, models, assessments, and technologies for EPA program and regional offices, as
well as state and local authorities.

In FY 2007, the drinking water research program will  continue to focus on filling key data gaps
and  developing analytical detection methods for measuring the occurrence of chemical and
microbial contaminants  on the  Contaminant Candidate List (CCL)  and developing  and
evaluating cost-effective treatment technologies for removing pathogens from  water supplies
while  minimizing microbial/disinfection by-product (M/DBP) formation.  The water quality
research program will continue providing approaches  and  methods the Agency and its partners
need  to develop and apply  criteria to support designated uses, tools  to diagnose and assess
impairment in aquatic systems, and tools to restore and protect aquatic systems.

A new investment in FY 2007 will  support research and development of innovative approaches
and technologies aimed at the growing gap in the nation's water infrastructure requirements.
Aging and deteriorated  potable water and wastewater infrastructure  makes it difficult  to meet
Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking  Water Act requirements, and  increases the potential for
waterborne disease outbreaks.  The purpose of this initiative will be to generate the science and
engineering to evaluate promising innovative technologies and techniques to reduce the cost of
operation, maintenance, and replacement  of aging  and failing wastewater and  potable water
conveyance systems and move towards sustainable water infrastructure.

Other important areas of research in FY 2007 will  include:   1) developing  a web-enabled
database  of treatability information for chemicals and pathogens, providing information to the
Agency for prioritization of contaminants and for Homeland Security efforts; 2) reporting on
public health  benefits  associated  with improvements in  drinking water treatment  to reduce
microbial exposures;  3) conducting wetlands research to develop  a  hierarchical assessment
approach to address the objectives  of the President's initiative to preserve and restore wetlands,
and augment the current no-net-loss policy; and 4) performing a suite  of epidemiological studies
to establish a strong, defensible link between rapid  water quality  indicators and swimming-
associated health effects.
                                         G/O-23

-------
Recognizing that environmental  policy and regulatory  decisions will only be  as good as the
science upon which they are based, EPA makes every effort to ensure that its science is of the
highest quality and relevance, thereby, providing the basis for sound environmental results. EPA
uses the Research  and Development (R&D)  Investment Criteria  of quality,  relevance, and
performance in its decision-making processes through the use of research strategies and plans,
program review and evaluation by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) and the Science
Advisory Board (SAB), and peer review.

In 2005, the BOSC evaluated the Agency's drinking water research program to assess the quality
and relevance of its research and  the program's historical performance.  The subcommittee
concluded that the program has produced significant research, which in turn has been used by the
Agency's Office of Water (OW), states, and industry to achieve outcomes. The subcommittee
also lauded the program's use of the Agency's Science to  Achieve Results (STAR) program,
which awards competitive research grants through a rigorous peer review process. The FY 2005
PART  process resulted in specific annual and long term performance measures that will improve
quantification of outcomes. Notably, the drinking water research program will measure the long
term utility of its products for key decisions by the Office of Water.

Strategies are tailored to specific research needs and priorities. The Agency maintains multi-year
research plans (MYP) that outline steps for meeting those strategic research needs and annual
performance goals (APG) and measures (APM) for evaluating progress.

Taken  together, these  mechanisms serve to ensure that  EPA's research and  science remain
relevant, of high quality, and contribute to superior environmental performance.

In order to sustain a viable and credible workforce, the Agency approaches its research programs'
workforce planning in a manner consistent with its human capital strategy.  Key elements of this
strategy include  working  to develop and  implement a  holistic  approach to recruitment,
preserving  a diverse  workforce  that reflects  a wide spectrum  of viewpoints, and  retaining
existing talent.
                                        G/O-24

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                    LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up
contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by releases of harmful substances.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:

    •   By  2008, reduce  adverse effects  to  land  by reducing waste  generation, increasing
       recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products at facilities
       in ways that prevent releases.
    •   By 2008, control the risks to human health and the environment by mitigating the impact
       of accidental or intentional releases and by cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites
       or properties to appropriate levels.
    •   Through  2008, provide and apply  sound science for protecting and restoring land by
       conducting  leading-edge  research  and  developing  a  better  understanding  and
       characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 3.
                           GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
                                Budget Authority / Obligations
                                   Full-time Equivalents
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Land Preservation and Restoration
Preserve Land
Restore Land
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$1,780,624.2
$217,596.8
$1,501,041.1
$61,986.3
4,602.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$1,656,471.0
$217,305.7
$1,383,140.1
$56,025.2
4,737.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,689,635.1
$242,090.9
$1,395,285.3
$52,258.9
4,686.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
$33,164.1
$24,785.2
$12,145.2
($3,766.3)
-51.6
Uncontrolled,  hazardous and nonhazardous  wastes  on the land  can migrate  to  the air,
groundwater, and surface water, contaminating drinking water supplies,  causing acute  illnesses
or chronic  diseases, and threatening healthy ecosystems in urban, rural, and suburban areas.
Hazardous  substances  can  kill living  organisms in lakes  and rivers,  destroy  vegetation in
contaminated areas, cause major reproductive complications  in wildlife, and otherwise  limit the
ability of an ecosystem to survive.

EPA leads the country's activities to prevent and reduce the risks posed by  releases of harmful
substances  and by contaminated land.  The most effective approach to controlling these risks
incorporates  developing  and implementing  prevention   programs,   improving   response
                                        G/O-25

-------
capabilities, and maximizing the effectiveness of response and cleanup actions. This approach
will help to ensure that human health and the environment are protected and that land is returned
to or continues to be used beneficially.

EPA will work to preserve and restore the land with the most effective waste management and
cleanup methods available. EPA uses a hierarchy of approaches to protect the land: reducing
waste at its source, recycling waste, managing waste effectively by preventing spills and releases
of toxic materials, and cleaning up contaminated properties.  The Agency especially is concerned
about threats to our most sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and individuals with
chronic diseases, and prioritizes cleanups accordingly. Additional information on these programs
can be found at: www.epa.gov/superfund, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/, and
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/er/index.htm.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA,  or
Superfund)  and the Resource  Conservation  and Recovery Act  (RCRA)  provide the  legal
authority for most of EPA's work toward this goal.  The Agency and its partners use Superfund
authority to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites and return the land  to
productive use. Under RCRA, EPA works in partnership with states and Tribes to address risks
associated with leaking underground storage tanks and with the generation and management  of
hazardous and nonhazardous waste.

EPA also uses authorities provided under the Clean Air Act,  Clean Water Act, and Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 to protect against spills and releases  of hazardous materials.  Controlling the  many
risks posed by accidental  and intentional releases of harmful substances presents a significant
challenge.   EPA's  approach integrates prevention, preparedness,  and response activities  to
minimize these risks.  Spill prevention activities keep harmful substances from being released to
the  environment.   Improving its readiness to respond  to  emergencies through  training,
development of clear authorities,  and provision of proper equipment ensures  that EPA  is
adequately  prepared to minimize contamination  and  harm to the environment when spills do
occur.

The following themes characterize EPA's land program activities under Goal 3: Revitalization;
Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery; Emergency, Preparedness and Response
and Homeland Security;  and implementation of  the recently-authorized Energy Policy Act  of
2005 (EPAct).

•  Revitalization:  All of EPA's cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial, Superfund Federal
   Facilities Response,  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, helping limit urban sprawl, fostering ecologic habitat
   enhancements, enabling economic development, and maintaining or improving quality  of
   life.  Efforts are underway to develop cross-program revitalization measures that will enable
   EPA to  capture a broader  array of accomplishments  resulting  from the assessment and
   cleanup of properties.
                                        G/O-26

-------
•  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, Tribes,  states,  communities,  and consumers;  (2)  stimulating
   infrastructure development, environmentally  responsible behavior by product manufacturers,
   users, and  disposers ("product  stewardship"),  and  new  technologies;  and  (3)  helping
   businesses, government,  institutions, and consumers  through education, outreach, training,
   and technical assistance.

•  Emergency Preparedness, Response, and  Homeland  Security:   EPA has a major role in
   reducing the risk to human health and the environment posed by accidental or intentional
   releases  of harmful substances and oil.   EPA will  continue to improve its capability to
   effectively prepare  for and  respond to these incidents, including natural disasters  such as
   Hurricane Katrina, working closely with other Federal agencies within the National Response
   Plan.

•  Implementing New Energy and  Transportation Legislation:  EPA has  a critical role in
   implementing the EPAct. The EPAct contains numerous provisions that significantly affect
   Federal and state underground storage tank (UST) programs. In FY 2007,  EPA will provide
   assistance to states  to help them meet their new responsibilities, which include performing
   additional inspections, developing operator training requirements, prohibiting fuel deliveries
   at non-compliant UST facilities, and requiring secondary containment for  new and replaced
   tanks and piping or  financial responsibility  for tank installers and manufacturers.

Controlling Risks to Human Health and the Environment at Contaminated Sites

EPA and its partners work to identify contaminated lands that pose  significant risks to human
health and the environment.  Once identified, these contaminated lands are cleaned up to levels
sufficient to prevent  and control risks to human health  and the environment and, where
necessary, to return the land to productive use.  EPA and its partners follow four key  steps to
accomplish cleanups and control risks to human health and the environment from contaminated
lands:    assessment  of risk, identification  and  stabilization of contaminants,  selection  of
appropriate remedies to address risk posed by  contaminants, and implementation of remedies to
reduce contamination to below health-based risk levels. The Agency's cleanup activities, some
new  and some well-established,  include removing contaminated soil,  capping or containing
contamination in place, pumping and treating groundwater, and bioremediation. New tools,  such
as Triad, a process for  flexible and targeted sampling, help provide a more focused strategy to
characterize contaminated lands. Also, through an Environmental Management Systems (EMS)
approach, which involves  a continuous  cycle of planning,  implementing,  reviewing,   and
improving practices at each site, EPA has improved performance and reduced  operating costs of
remedies while ensuring continued protectiveness.

EPA has ongoing cleanup and  property transfer responsibilities at some of the Nation's most
contaminated Federal properties, which range  from realigning and closing military installations
and former military properties  containing unexploded ordnance, solvents and other industrial
chemicals, to Department of Energy sites containing nuclear waste.  EPA's Superfund Federal
Facilities Response program helps Federal and local governments, Tribes, states, redevelopment
authorities  and the  affected communities  ensure contamination at Federal or former Federal

                                        G/O-27

-------
properties is addressed in a manner that protects human health and the environment.  For more
information  on  the   Superfund Federal  Facilities  Response  program,  please   refer  to
http://www.epa.gov/fedfac.

EPA uses a variety of tools to accomplish cleanups,  including permits, enforcement actions,
consent agreements, and  Federal  facility agreements.   Cleanup  programs  at  all  levels  of
government work together to  ensure that appropriate cleanup tools  are used; that resources,
activities,  and results are coordinated with partners and stakeholders and communicated to the
public  effectively; and that cleanups are protective and contribute to community revitalization.
The Agency's two major cleanup programs, Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action,  now rely
on similar human health and groundwater protection environmental indicators.  EPA is working
to coordinate  across all of its cleanup programs, while maintaining  the flexibility needed to
accommodate differences in program authorities and approaches.

EPA  fulfills  its  cleanup  and waste  management  responsibilities on Tribal lands  by
acknowledging Tribal sovereignty, which means recognizing Tribal governments as  the most
appropriate authorities  for setting standards, making policy  decisions,  and  managing programs
consistent with Agency standards and regulations. EPA works with its  Federal,  state, Tribal, and
local government partners to  identify facilities and sites  on or adjacent to Indian country
requiring attention and to monitor changes in priorities.

Even though the Superfund program  met its FY 2005  targets for a majority of its  existing
performance measures, challenges remain for the coming years. The program  has a number of
projects ready for construction,  while  it also needs to fund several  large, complex  remedial
projects at an optimal pace.  In addition, as the program has matured, it  has become necessary for
the Agency to devote more resources toward post construction activities,  including long-term
remedial actions and five-year reviews. Therefore,  the Agency proposes to redirect resources
from earlier phase activities toward construction in FY 2007.

To meet its objective to control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated
properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other action, and to make land available for
reuse, EPA intends to achieve the following results in FY 2007:

   •   Make 350 final site-assessment decisions under Superfund;
   •   Increase the total number of Superfund  sites where all identified unacceptable human
       exposures are  controlled to  at  or below  health-based levels  for  current land and/or
       groundwater use conditions by 10;
   ป   Increase  the total  number of Superfund  sites where the  migration  of  contaminated
       groundwater is under control through engineered or natural processes by  10;
   •   Select final remedies at 25 Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL);
   •   Complete construction of remedies at 40 Superfund sites on the NPL;
   •   Increase  the percentage  of  high priority RCRA facilities with  human exposure  to
       controlled toxins from an estimated 82% in FY 2006 to 89%;
   •   Increase  the percentage of  high priority  RCRA   facilities   with toxic releases  to
       groundwater contamination to 75% from an estimated 68% in FY 2006; and
   •   Complete 13,000 leaking underground storage tanks cleanups.
                                        G/O-28

-------
Enforcement authorities play a unique role under the Superfund  program:   they  are used to
leverage private-party resources to conduct a majority of the cleanup actions and to reimburse
the Federal  government for cleanups financed by the Trust Fund. The Superfund program's
"enforcement first" policy  ensures that sites that have  viable potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) are cleaned up by those parties, allowing EPA to focus appropriated resources on sites
where viable PRPs either do not exist or lack funds or capabilities needed to conduct the cleanup.
In tandem with this approach, various reforms have been implemented  to increase  fairness,
reduce transaction costs, and promote economic development. For more information regarding
EPA's   enforcement   program   and   its   various   components,  please   refer   to
www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/.

The Agency also has been encouraging the establishment and use of Special Accounts within the
Superfund Trust Fund.  These accounts segregate site-specific funds obtained from responsible
parties that complete settlement agreements with EPA. These funds may create an incentive for
other PRPs at that specific site to perform work they otherwise might not be willing to perform.
Alternatively, these funds may be used by the Agency to fund cleanup activities if there are not
known or  viable PRPs. As a result, the Agency can get more sites cleaned up while preserving
the appropriated Trust Fund dollars for sites without viable PRPs.

In FY 2007, the  Agency will continue to implement its "enforcement first" strategy.  It will
negotiate  remedial design/remedial  action cleanup  agreements  and  removal  agreements at
contaminated properties.   Where negotiations fail,  the Agency  will either  take unilateral
enforcement actions to require PRP cleanup or use appropriated dollars to remediate sites.  When
appropriated dollars are used to clean up sites, the program will  recover this money from the
PRPs whenever possible.  The Agency will also continue its efforts to establish and maximize
the use of Special Accounts to facilitate clean up.

By continuing  to  pursue cost recovery settlements,  the program  promotes the principle that
polluters should perform or pay for  cleanups, preserving appropriated Superfund  Trust  Fund
resources  for  site remediation where there  is  no   known  or viable  PRP.   The Agency's
expenditures are recouped through administrative actions, CERCLA section  107 case referrals,
and through settlements reached with the use of alternative dispute resolution.

EPA's financial management offices  provide a full array of support services to the Superfund
program including managing oversight billing for Superfund site cleanups  and financial  cost
recovery.  The Department of Justice supports EPA's Superfund Enforcement program through
negotiations and judicial actions to compel PRP cleanup and litigation to recover Trust  Fund
monies spent.

Encouraging Land Revitalization

Land is one of America's  most valuable resources. However, where contamination presents a
real or perceived threat to human health and the environment,  options and even interest in future
use of that  property may be  limited.  To address these common  scenarios,  EPA's cleanup
programs  have set a national goal  of returning formerly  contaminated sites to long-term,
sustainable, and productive use. This goal creates greater impetus for selecting and implementing
                                        G/O-29

-------
remedies  that,  in addition to providing  clear  environmental benefits, support  reasonably
anticipated future land use options and provide greater economic and social benefits.

To help achieve its land revitalization goals, EPA works with external partners to:  (1) promote
land revitalization by ensuring that current use or reuse options are considered explicitly in the
evaluation of cleanup options; (2) commit the necessary resources to address current use or reuse
as a top priority in cleanup decisions; (3) develop new comprehensive policies and programs to
address unintended  cross-jurisdiction and  cross-program barriers to the protective reuse  of
contaminated properties; (4) promote protective, long-term current use or reuse of properties; (5)
promote sustainable reuse to prevent further contamination and indirect environmental problems
that  may  result from  some reuse  (sustainable reuses include open  spaces,  energy  efficient
buildings, low impact design, smart growth community developments, and wildlife habitats); (6)
develop and promote a land revitalization research agenda that improves our understanding of
and our ability to use protectively or reuse contaminated or potentially contaminated properties;
(7) build  partnerships to leverage knowledge, expertise,  and resources in the revitalization of
properties (including government-to-government  partnerships at the  local,  state, Tribal, and
Federal levels  as  well  as  partnerships   with  non-government, private,  and community
organizations);  (8) expand community capabilities through improved public involvement tools
and  information  systems on contamination, cleanup,  reuse,  and long-term stewardship;  (9)
expand and promote  educational and training programs that encourage  and provide needed tools
to achieve land revitalization;  and (10) promote various approaches to measure  and report the
status and impacts of the collective efforts to revitalize.

For  more  information   concerning EPA's  land  revitalization efforts,   please refer  to
http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/landrevitalization/.

Reducing and Recycling Waste

Preventing pollution  before it is generated and poses harm is often less costly than cleanup and
remediation.   Source  reduction and recycling programs can increase  resource and energy
efficiencies and thereby reduce pressures on the environment.  RCRA directs EPA to minimize
the amount of waste generated and  to improve recovery and conservation of materials through
recycling. To this end, EPA builds on partnerships with other Federal agencies; state, Tribal, and
local governments; business and industry; and non-governmental organizations.  These voluntary
partnerships provide information  sharing, recognition,  and assistance to improve practices in
both public and private sectors.

EPA launched the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) as a major national  effort to find
flexible, yet more protective ways  to conserve our valuable  natural  resources through waste
reduction, energy recovery, and recycling. Through the RCC,  EPA challenges every American
to prevent pollution,  promote recycling and reuse,  and conserve energy and materials. The RCC
programs  foster source reduction and recycling in business, industry, and government; encourage
local  adoption  of economic incentives that further source  reduction  and recycling; reduce
hazardous wastes  containing  priority  chemicals;  promote  waste-based  industries  that
concurrently  create jobs; foster cost-effective recycling programs  in communities and Tribes;
enhance markets for  recycled materials by increasing procurement of recycled-content products;
encourage innovative practices that result in more  cost-effective source reduction  and recycling;
                                         G/O-30

-------
implement the President's Climate Change Action Plan;  and provide information to assess and
track progress in reaching national goals.

Reducing waste generation has clear benefits in combating the ever-growing stream of municipal
solid waste (MSW).    MSW  includes  waste  generated  from residences,   commercial
establishments, institutions, and industrial non-process operations.  Annual generation of MSW
grew steadily from 88 million to 236 million tons between 1960 and 2003.12 In FY 2007, EPA's
municipal solid waste program will implement a set of coordinated strategies, including source
reduction (also called waste prevention), recycling (including composting), combustion with
energy recovery, and landfilling.  Preference will  be given  to strategies that maximize the
diversion of waste from disposal, with source reduction (including reuse) as the highest priority.

To  meet its objective for reducing materials use through product  and process redesign, and
increasing materials and energy recovery from wastes otherwise requiring disposal, EPA intends
to achieve the following results in FY 2007:

    •  Maintain the national average MSW generation  rate at no more than  4.5 pounds per
       person per day; and
    •  Divert 85.2 million tons of MSW from landfills and combustion.

Recognizing that some hazardous wastes cannot be completely  eliminated or recycled, the
RCRA program works to reduce exposure to hazardous wastes by maintaining a cradle-to-grave
approach to waste management.  The program's primary focus is to  prevent hazardous releases
from RCRA facilities and  reduce emissions from  hazardous waste  combustion through a
combination of regulations, permits and voluntary  standards.  State  program authorization
provides the states with primary RCRA implementation and enforcement authority; reduces
overlapping and dual implementation by  the states and EPA; provides the regulated community
with one set of regulations; reduces overall Federal  enforcement presence in the states; and can
provide  the  opportunity  for  some  of  the newer,  less-stringent  RCRA regulations  to  be
implemented by  the  states.   To date,  48  States,  Guam,  and the  District of Columbia are
authorized to issue  permits.   Important goals of the  RCRA program include  strong state
partnerships, the authorization of states for all portions of the RCRA hazardous waste program,
including regulations addressing waste management issues contained in permits, and results-
oriented state oversight.
12 US Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2003 Facts and Figures, Executive
Summary, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, October 2003. Available online at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/msw99.htm. Last updated April 5, 2005.

                                         G/O-31

-------
EPA works with states, Tribes and Intertribal Consortia to prevent, detect, and correct leaks into
the environment from Federally-regulated USTs containing petroleum and hazardous substances.
Achieving significant  improvements  in release prevention and detection requires  a  sustained
emphasis by both EPA and its partners. Because states are the primary enforcers of the UST
program requirements,  EPA  has   adopted  a  decentralized  approach  to  UST  program
implementation by building and supporting strong state and local programs.  Concerns about the
use of fuel  oxygenates, like  MTBE, in  gasoline further underscores EPA's and the states'
emphasis on promoting  compliance with  all UST  requirements.   EPA  provides  technical
information, forums for information exchanges and training opportunities to states, Tribes and
Intertribal Consortia to encourage program development and/or implementation of the  UST
program. In FY 2007, EPA will make grants to states and Tribes under Section 2007(f)(2) of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)  for  underground storage tank detection, prevention and
correction programs and grants or cooperative agreements for new activities authorized by the
Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005 (USTCA), which was enacted as Title XV,
Subtitle B of the EPAct, that are not otherwise provided for in Section 2007 of the SWDA. Due
to authority limits, EPA will not use STAG funds for leaking underground storage tank cleanup
activities that are authorized by Section 205 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986, even if those activities are also authorized by the USTCA.

To meet its objective for reducing releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes
and petroleum products properly, EPA intends to achieve the following results in FY 2007:

   •  Prevent  releases from RCRA  hazardous waste  management  facilities by increasing the
      number  of facilities with permits or other approved controls by 2.4 percent over the FY
      2006 level.  At the end of FY 2005, 90 percent of the facilities had permits or  other
      approved controls;13
   •  Increase the percentage of UST facilities in significant operational compliance with both
      release   detection  and release prevention (spill,  overfill,  and corrosion  protection)
      requirements to 67  percent of the estimated universe of approximately 256,000 facilities;
      and
   •  Reduce the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to  10,000 or fewer. (Between
      FY  1999 andFY 2005,  confirmed  releases averaged 10,844.  The annual number of
      confirmed releases in FY 2005 was 7,421).

Emergency Preparedness, Response,  and Homeland Security

EPA will continue to  improve its emergency preparedness  and response capability,  including
homeland security capabilities.  EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks that accidental and
intentional releases  of harmful substances and oil pose to human health and the environment.
Under the  multi-agency  National Response  Plan  (NRP), EPA evaluates and responds  to
thousands of releases annually. EPA's primary role in the NRP is to serve as  the Federal On-
Scene Coordinator (OSC) for spills and releases in the  inland zone.  As a result of NRP efforts,
many major oil  spills and releases  of hazardous substances have been contained, minimizing the
adverse  impacts on human health and the environment.
13 This goal currently tracks approximately 2,460 hazardous waste management facilities subject to permitting requirements.
This baseline was updated for FY 2006.

                                        G/O-32

-------
An important component of EPA's land strategy is to prevent oil  spills from reaching  our
Nation's waters. Under the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act, the Agency
requires certain facilities (defined in 40 CFR 112.2) to develop and implement spill prevention,
control, and countermeasure (SPCC) plans.  Compliance with these  requirements reduces the
number of oil spills that reach navigable waters and prevents detrimental effects on human health
and the environment should a spill occur.

Each  year, EPA personnel assess, respond to,  mitigate,  and clean up thousands of releases,
whether accidental, deliberate, or naturally occurring.  These incidents range from small spills at
chemical or oil facilities to national disasters, such as hurricanes and earthquakes, to large-scale
terrorist events.

EPA will  work to improve its capability to respond effectively to incidents that may involve
harmful chemical, oil,  biological,  and radiological substances.   The  Agency will  explore
improvements in field and personal protection equipment, expand training for response personnel
and continue to participate in multi-agency training and exercises. EPA also will review response
data provided in the "after-action" reports prepared by EPA emergency responders following a
release and examine "lessons learned" reports to identify which activities work and which need
improvement. Application of this information and  other data will advance the Agency's state-of-
the-art emergency response operations.

EPA's 25-year-old Emergency Response and Removal  program is supported by EPA OSCs, the
Environmental Response Team (ERT) and the National Decontamination Team (NDT), who
respond to small and large scale response actions, disasters and terrorist incidents. Responding to
these incidents is one of EPA's traditional responsibilities.

The FY 2007 President's  Budget request includes funding to  enable  EPA to improve  the
capabilities of EPA's responders  through procurement of state-of-the-art equipment, to organize
a new Environmental Laboratory Response Network (eLRN) program to strengthen such lab
capabilities, expand participation for pre-deployments to national security special events,  and
develop decontamination protocols.

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to implement its homeland  security plans  and  procedures and to
meet its responsibilities in order to respond to major hazardous substance, oil, weapons of mass
destruction (WMD)  or nationally  significant terrorist incidents.   EPA will prepare for the
possibility of simultaneous attacks on multiple targets and will implement the National Approach
to Response (NAR), which is EPA's internal multi-faceted mechanism to effectively manage and
conduct responses to nationally significant events.   The NDT  will  improve  its  specialized
decontamination capabilities to address chemical  and  biological  and/or  radiological agents in
both environmental and building contamination situations.  The ERT will provide training  and
specialized scientific, technical, and health and safety support to EPA's responders.

To meet its objective to reduce and control the risks posed by accidental or intentional releases of
harmful substances by  improving  our Nation's capability to prepare for and  respond more
effectively to these emergencies, EPA intends to achieve the following results in FY 2007:
                                        G/O-33

-------
    •   Improve the Agency's  emergency  preparedness by  achieving and  maintaining the
       capability to respond to simultaneous large-scale emergencies and by improving response
       readiness by 10 percent from the previous year using the core emergency response
       criteria;
    •   Complete 315 removal  actions (excluding actions at Federal facilities and actions by
       PRPs with enforcement instruments);
    •   Inspect or conduct exercises or drills at approximately 200 oil storage facilities required
       to have Facility Response Plans; and
    •   Respond to 300 oil spills.

Implementing New Legislation

EPA has a  critical role to play in implementing the  EPAct.   The EPAct  contains numerous
provisions that significantly affect Federal and state underground storage tank (UST) programs.
The EPAct requires that EPA and states strengthen tank release and prevention programs, such
as:  mandatory inspections every three years, operator  training, prohibition of delivery for non-
complying  facilities, secondary  containment or financial  responsibility  for tank installers, and
various compliance reports.  The EPAct imposes very strict deadlines on  EPA and states; EPA is
required  to develop numerous grant guidelines before the FY  2007 grant cycle and states are
required  to develop their first new requirements for tank owners by February 2007.14  EPA must
develop regulations and guidance that states must adopt, and must develop a strategy for USTs in
Indian Country to bring them into compliance and to clean up leaks. EPA is currently working
with state, tribal, and industry partners to develop and implement the various requirements.

Enhancing Science and Research to Restore and Reserve Land

The FY 2007 land research program supports the Agency's objective of reducing or controlling
potential risks to human health and the environment at contaminated waste sites by providing the
science to accelerate scientifically defensible and cost-effective decisions for cleanup at complex
sites in  accordance with the  Comprehensive Environmental  Response,  Compensation,  and
Liability Act (CERCLA).

In FY 2007, research will focus on contaminated sediments, ground water  contamination, site
characterization, and technical support to specific sites.  Reducing uncertainties in the assessment
of contaminated sediments and developing and evaluating remedial  options will be the focus  of
this research theme.  Ground water research will continue  to develop applications for permeable
reactive barriers and address fate and transport and treatment methods  for contaminants.  Site
characterization and sampling  methods will  continue to support  site  specific statistical  and
analytical applications.   The technical  support  centers will continue to provide  site specific
assistance on technical issues.  Oil spill research will address fate and effects of non-petroleum
oil  and dispersion  effectiveness.   Underground  storage  tank  research  will address fate  and
transport issues for fuel components and remediation methods.
14 For more information, please visit http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf and scroll to Title XV - Ethanol and Motor Fuels,
Subtitle B Underground Storage Tank Compliance, on pages 500-513 of the pdf file.

                                         G/O-34

-------
Multimedia  decision-making  and materials  management constitute the two major areas of
research under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in FY 2007, as the Agency
works toward identifying releases to inform proper facility management. Multimedia research
continues to advance multimedia modeling and uncertainty/sensitivity analysis methodologies
that support core RCRA program needs as well as emerging RCRA resource conservation needs
which  include  beneficial  reuse issues (e.g., electronic  waste recycling  and waste-derived
products). Materials management research will provide technical reports and technical support
on methods to improve industrial and municipal waste management. Materials  management
research will evaluate landfill caps, containment technologies, as well as leachate issues and hard
to treat wastes.

Recognizing that environmental policy and regulatory decisions will only be as good as the
science upon which they are based, EPA makes  every effort to ensure that its science is of the
highest quality and relevance, thereby providing the basis for sound environmental results.  EPA
uses the Research and Development (R&D) Investment Criteria of quality,  relevance,  and
performance in its decision-making processes through a) the use of research strategies and plans,
b) peer  review, and c) program review and  evaluation by the Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) and the Science Advisory Board (SAB).

In 2005, the BOSC evaluated the Land Research Program to assess the quality and relevance of
its research and the program's historical performance.   The BOSC will report its findings to the
Agency in the 2nd quarter of 2006.

Research is guided by research strategies and plans, which are developed with participation from
major clients. The strategy outlines the research needs and priorities. The Agency also maintains
multi-year research plans that outline steps  for meeting strategic  research needs, and annual
performance goals and measures for evaluating progress.

Taken together,  these  mechanisms serve to ensure that EPA's research and science  remain
relevant, of high quality, and contribute to superior environmental performance.

In order to sustain a viable and credible workforce, the  Agency approaches its research programs'
workforce planning in a manner consistent with its human capital strategy. Key elements of this
strategy include working  to  develop  and  implement  a holistic approach to  recruitment,
preserving  a diverse workforce that reflects a wide spectrum of viewpoints, and retaining
existing talent.

FY2005 PARTs

The following programs were assessed by OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for
the FY 2005 PART process  (final PART ratings will be included in the President's Budget):
   •   Superfund Federal Facilities Response
   •   Oil Spill
   •   Superfund Emergency Response and Removal (rePART)

More detailed information is provided in specific program project descriptions.

                                        G/O-35

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                   HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

Protect, sustain, or restore the health  of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated
and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.


STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:


    •   Prevent and reduce pesticide,  chemical, and genetically engineered biological organism
       risks to humans, communities,  and ecosystems.
    •   Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
    •   Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
    •   Enhance the Nation's  capability to prevent,  detect, protect, and recover from acts of
       terror.
    •   Through 2008, provide  a  sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of protecting,
       sustaining,  and restoring  the health of  people,  communities,  and  ecosystems by
       conducting   leading-edge  research   and   developing  a  better  understanding   and
       characterization of environmental outcomes  under Goal 4.
                           GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
                                Budget Authority / Obligations
                                   Full-time Equivalents
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide
Risks
Communities
Ecosystems
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$1,257,846.7
$390,156.3
$290,561.6
$178,713.5
$398,415.4
3,874.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$1,249,321.4
$399,053.9
$272,118.6
$193,885.7
$384,263.2
3,812.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,228,933.7
$376,874.5
$247,874.1
$199,421.1
$404,764.1
3,834.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
($20,387.7)
($22,179.4)
($24,244.5)
$5,535.4
$20,500.9
21.7
                                        G/O-36

-------
EPA must bring together a wide variety of programs, tools, approaches and resources to promote
healthy communities and ecosystems.  Achieving the Agency's goal of protecting, sustaining or
restoring healthy communities and ecosystems requires strong partnerships with  Federal,  state,
Tribal and local governments.    Programs under  this goal  focus  on reducing  chemical and
pesticide risks, addressing high  priority ecosystem  risks, and  supporting local community
priorities.

A key component of this goal is protecting human health and the environment by identifying,
assessing, and  reducing  the  potential risks  presented by the thousands of chemicals and
pesticides   on   which   our    society    and   economy    have   come   to   depend.
EPA must also address  the  emerging  challenges posed  by a  growing array  of biological
organisms—naturally occurring and, increasingly, genetically engineered—that are being used in
industrial and agricultural processes.

Biological agents are potential weapons that could be exploited by terrorists against the United
States.   EPA's  pesticides  antimicrobial program has been very responsive to addressing this
threat by assessing efficacy of antimicrobial products used against biological weapons of mass
destruction, and registering products as necessary.

EPA programs under this goal have many indirect benefits. For example, each year the Toxic
Substances Control  Act (TSCA) New Chemicals program reviews and manages the potential
risks from approximately 1,700 new chemicals and 40 products of biotechnology that enter the
marketplace.  Americans also come into daily contact with any number of chemicals that entered
the  market before the New Chemicals Program was established in 1978, yet relatively little is
known about many  of their potential impacts.  Obtaining basic hazard testing information on
large volume chemicals is one focus of EPA's work in the Existing Chemicals program.  EPA
also plans  a dual  approach to address the possible health risks  associated with nanoscale
materials.  EPA is  currently  reviewing  pre-manufacture notices for  new nanoscale materials
under TSCA to ensure protection  of human health and the  environment.  For new and existing
chemical nanoscale materials, EPA is developing a stewardship program.

The Acute Exposure  Guideline Levels (AEGLs)  Program was designed by  EPA to provide
scientifically  credible data to directly support chemical  emergency  planning,  response, and
prevention  programs mandated  by Congress.   Emergency  workers  and   first responders
addressing accidental or intentional chemical releases need to know how dangerous a chemical
contaminant may be to breathe or touch, and how long it may remain  dangerous.   The program
develops short-term exposure limits applicable to the general population for  a wide range of
extremely hazardous substances (approximately 400).

As  the  population  in  coastal regions grows, the challenges  to preserve and  protect  these
important ecosystems increase.   Through the National Estuary  Program, coastal areas have
proved valuable grounds  for  combining innovative and  community-based  approaches with
national guidelines and interagency coordination to achieve results.
                                        G/O-37

-------
Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems in the world, comparable to rain forests and
coral reefs.  Yet the nation loses an estimated 58,000 acres per year, and existing wetlands may
be degraded by excessive sedimentation, nutrient enrichment, and other factors.15

Large water bodies like the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and  the  Chesapeake  Bay are
surrounded by industrial and other development and have been exposed to substantial pollution
over many years at levels higher than current environmental standards permit.  As a result, the
volume of pollutants in these water bodies has exceeded their natural ability to restore balance.
Working with stakeholders, EPA  has established  special programs to protect and restore these
unique resources by addressing the vulnerabilities for each.

EPA's Brownfields program promotes  the clean up, reuse,  and redevelopment  of brownfields
sites through its assessment, revolving loan fund, and cleanup grants. The program also supports
research,  training,  and technical assistance  efforts;  clarifies  liability issues;  and  promotes
Federal,  state and local  partnerships toward the goal of putting  contaminated  land back into
productive use.

The Agency will continue to  support  the National  Environmental  Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) which provides  the  Agency  significant input from interested  stakeholders such as
community-based organizations, business and industry, academic institutions, state, Tribal and
local governments, non-governmental organizations and environmental groups.

Pesticides and Chemicals Programs

EPA will continue  using both  voluntary and regulatory approaches to address risks  associated
with the use of pesticides  in  the home, work environment and agricultural settings.  These
approaches include identifying  and assessing potential risks from pesticides, setting priorities for
addressing these risks, strategizing for reducing these risks,  and promoting innovative  and
alternative measures of pest control, such as environmental stewardship and  integrated pest
management (IPM). In addition, EPA will strengthen education and training of workers and the
public and promote the registration and use of reduced risk pesticides.

EPA will make progress towards its objective of protecting human  health, communities and
ecosystems from pesticide use by focusing on meeting our Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
statutory mandate of completing the assessment of all  existing tolerances (9,721). This process
includes the issuance of  all food  use Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions  (REDs).   These
regulatory actions will ensure that pesticides on the market and the associated tolerance residues
remain safe for the public and  the environment.  EPA will also continue identifying candidates
for countering potential bioterrorist use of pesticides and biopesticides.
15 Dahl, I.E. 1990. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 1986 to 1997. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available online at:
http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html: Report to Congress on the Status and Trends of Wetlands in the
Conterminous United States, 1986 to 1997.
                                          G/O-38

-------
*TOLERANCE REASSESSMENT SUMMARY BREAKDOWN
Category
Organophosphates
Carbamates
Organochlorine
Carcinogen
High Hazard Inert
Other
TOTALS
*F.PA's
Tolerances
to be
Reassessed
1691
545
253
2008
5
5219
9721
Total
Reassessed as
of 12/19/05
1147
317
253
1530
5
4578
7830
Tolerance Index. Tolerance Trackine Systems and
Tolerances
Remaining
544
228
0
478
0
641
1891
Percentage
Reassessed
67.83%
58.17%
100%
76.2%
100%
87.70%
80.50%
Tolerance Reassessment Database.
EPA plans to emphasize the continuation and further development of programs for the review of
new and existing chemicals.  The Agency will also continue to carry out its mandate to review
potential risks from newly manufactured or imported chemicals before they are  introduced to
commerce.  EPA's "Sustainable Futures" program encourages chemical manufacturers to apply
pollution prevention techniques in the design of new chemicals, so that chemicals entering the
new chemical review process will be less hazardous and less risky.

In addressing chemicals that have entered the market before the inception of the new chemical
review program, EPA will continue to implement its voluntary High Production Volume (HPV)
Chemicals Program, which challenges  industry to develop  chemical  hazard data on  existing
chemicals that it chooses to "sponsor."  This will enable EPA and the public to screen many
chemicals already in commerce for risks  they may be posing.

Complementing HPV is the Voluntary  Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP), a
high-priority screening  program targeting existing chemicals believed to have particular impact
on children's health. Inventory Update Reporting Data, due for submission in 2006, will provide
the Agency with valuable manufacturing, processing and use information on many chemicals in
commerce.   We will make  special efforts  to  assess the  potential risks of newly developed
substitutes for a chemical category of emerging concern: brominated flame retardants.  EPA is
working to engage stakeholders in a cooperative process to evaluate the efficacy and potential
risks of developing flame retardants.  In addition, the Agency will  continue to evaluate and
implement perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) risk management actions as needed and will continue
developments of information collection  and chemical testing rules to address the needs of the
Agency and others.
                                        G/O-39

-------
The lead program is developing a comprehensive program for the management of renovation,
repair and painting activities involving lead based paint hazards and will continue to shift its
focus from oversight and rule development at the Headquarters level to regional oversight of
activities supported through grant funding,  such as state-implemented lead-based paint training
and certification programs and  efforts targeted to high-risk areas, and on implementation of a
few of the highest priority regulatory and outreach efforts.  The Agency will continue to work
with the Maritime Administration (MARAD) in order to dispose of its  fleet of obsolete ships
containing equipment that uses PCBs and will continue to work with the U.S. Navy to develop a
national approval for the reefing of ships.

The Agency will continue Homeland Security activities focused on identifying and reviewing
proposed pesticides for use against pathogens of greatest concern for crops, animals, and humans
in advance  of their potential  introduction, including  testing  of antimicrobial products to
determine which are effective against human pathogens.  If the safety concerns are met, and the
product is effective (in the case of antimicrobials), EPA can approve use of the product.  Close
cooperation with other Federal  agencies and industry will continue in order to carry  out these
activities which directly respond to requirements in Homeland Security Presidential Directives.
Additionally, EPA's Acute Exposure  Guideline  Levels (AEGLs) program will continue to
develop proposed AEGL values.

The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program provides  the public with information on the releases
and other waste  management of toxic chemicals. Two laws, Section  313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community  Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA)  and  Section  6607 of the  Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA),  mandate that EPA annually collect information on listed toxic chemicals
from certain industries  and make the information available to the public through various means,
including a publicly accessible national database. EPCRA also allows EPA to change reporting
frequency by issuing a regulation with a one-year prior notification to Congress.

Water Programs

Protecting the Great Lakes
As the largest freshwater system on the face of the earth (containing 20  percent of the earth's
surface  water and 84  percent16 of the  surface water in the United States),  the Great  Lakes
ecosystem holds the key to the quality of life and economic  prosperity for tens of millions of
people.  While significant progress has been made to restore the environmental health  of the
Great Lakes, work remains.

In FY 2007, EPA will continue efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes, and will work with
state, local,  and  Tribal partners using the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's strategy as a
guide.  The President's May 2004 Executive Order established the  Great Lakes Task Force to
coordinate the Federal effort to improve water quality in the Great Lakes.  EPA is working with
partners to restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem,
by implementing Clean Water Act core programs and other actions including the clean up and
de-listing of Areas of Concern (AOC),  and a reduction in PCB concentrations in lake trout and
  Great Lakes National Program Office. Basic Information, http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/basicinfo.html
                                         G/O-40

-------
walleye.  Some of the key activities include preventing and controlling invasive species, cleaning
up Areas of Concern through the Great Lakes Legacy Act.

       Core Clean Water Programs: While the Great Lakes face a range of unique pollution
       problems (e.g., extensive sediment contamination) they also face problems common to
       most other water bodies around the country.  Core clean water programs must be fully
       and effectively implemented throughout the  Great  Lakes Basin.  EPA will focus on
       assuring that by 2008,  100 percent of the major, permitted discharges to the Lakes or
       major tributaries have permits that reflect the most current standards.  In addition, EPA
       will focus on  assuring that 95  percent of permits are consistent with the national
       Combined Sewer Overflow Policy.

   •   Great Lakes Legacy  Act:  Restoration of contaminated sediments  around the Great
       Lakes is  a critical step toward meeting water  quality goals.  In FY 2007, EPA will
       expedite work to address contaminated sediment.   EPA anticipates that FY 2007 funding
       will result in cleanup of a half million cubic yards of contaminated sediments.

   •   Critical Ecosystem Issues: In FY 2007 EPA will lead the development of management
       recommendations to mitigate the underlying causes of the annual occurrence of high rates
       of oxygen depletion which lead to low dissolved-oxygen levels  in Lake Erie in the so-
       called "dead zone." EPA  will also lead Canadian  and U.S. Federal agencies and the
       academic community in exploring causes of the rapid decline of the Diporeia  population
       in the  Great Lakes.   The dead  zone occurrence and the Diporeia decline are both
       problems believed to be related to  invasive species.

Mexico Border Water Quality
The United States and Mexico have a long-standing commitment to protect the environment and
public health in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region.  The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Program, a joint
effort between the U.S. and Mexican governments,  will work with the 10 border states and with
border communities to improve the region's environmental  health using the Border  2012 Plan.
Under this Plan, EPA expects  to take several key actions to improve water quality  and protect
public health.

   •   Core Program Implementation:  EPA will continue to implement core programs under
       the  Clean Water  Act  (CWA) and related  authorities, ranging  from discharge  permit
       issuance,  to watershed restoration, to nonpoint pollution control.

   •   Wastewater Treatment Financing:  Federal, state, and local institutions participate in
       border area efforts to improve water quality through the construction of infrastructure and
       development  of  pretreatment programs.    Specifically,  Mexico's  National  Water
       Commission (CNA) and  EPA provide  funding and technical assistance  for project
       planning  and construction.  The program has sufficient resources to carry out currently
       approved projects and provides $25 million to address new needs in FY 2007.

   •   Build Partnerships:  In FY 2007, EPA will establish a workgroup with  Mexico to
       develop a workplan to define specific steps needed  to accomplish  the water quality
       improvement goals expressed in the Border 2012 Plan.
                                        G/O-41

-------
National Estuary Program (NEP)/Coastal Watersheds
The  goal of this program is to restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's estuaries and coastal watersheds by protecting and enhancing water quality and living
resources.

In FY 2007, EPA will undertake various efforts in support of coastal watershed protection and
restoration.  In the  area of monitoring, we will continue to  work with our Federal and state
partners on the National Coastal Condition Report, the only statistically-significant measure of
U.S. water quality on a nationwide basis.  We will also support estuarine monitoring efforts
using such tools as the Ocean Survey Vessel Bold, EPA's research vessel. EPA will also support
coastal watersheds to enhance their efforts to address threats to the health of estuaries and coastal
waters through various means, including providing technical assistance on financing estuary and
coastal protection projects, developing and disseminating tools and resources for localities on
planning for growth,  and continuing to play a lead role  in the five-year reassessment of the
Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.

The  NEP  is  EPA's flagship watershed protection  effort. The  NEP  provides inclusive,
community-based planning and action at the watershed level and has an established record of
improvements to ecosystem conditions.

A top priority in FY  2007 is to continue supporting the efforts to  implement Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans in all 28 NEP estuaries.  EPA created a baseline  to track
priority actions in 2004 and now tracks implementation of actions.

The health of the nation's estuarine ecosystems also depends on the maintenance of high-quality
habitat.   Diminished  and degraded habitats  are less able to support healthy  populations  of
wildlife and marine organisms and perform the economic,  environmental, and aesthetic functions
on which coastal populations depend for their livelihood.   A key success has been the restoration
of over 500,000 acres  of habitat over the past decade.  For 2007, EPA has set a goal of protecting
or restoring an additional 75,000 acres of habitat within the 28 study areas.  Finally, EPA will
work with NEPs in FY 2007 to provide more focused support for several priority areas, including
invasive species, nutrient over-enrichment, and coastal growth.

Wetlands Protection
Wetlands are among our Nation's most critical and productive natural resources.  They provide a
variety of benefits, such as water  quality improvements, flood protection, shoreline  erosion
control, and ground water exchange. Wetlands are the primary habitat for fish,  waterfowl, and
wildlife, and as such, provide numerous opportunities for education, recreation, and research.
EPA  recognizes that  the challenges the  nation faces to conserve our  wetland heritage  are
daunting and that many partners must work together for this effort to succeed.  EPA's  strategy
for meeting wetland goals in FY 2007 is described below.

   •   Net Gain Goal: Meeting the  President's  goal  of restoring, protecting, or creating 3
       million wetland  acres primarily will be accomplished  by other Federal programs (Farm
       Bill, agriculture  incentive programs, and wetlands acquisition and restoration programs,
                                         G/O-42

-------
       including those administered by Fish and Wildlife  Service) and non-Federal programs.
       EPA supports the goal through EPA's regulatory programs, including the CWA Section
       404/401 permit review, compliance and enforcement, and other programs. EPA will also
       support states, Tribes, and others to protect and restore wetlands and build capacity to
       increase wetland functionality.  In implementing these responsibilities, each Region will
       identify watersheds where wetlands and other aquatic resources  are most  at risk,
       including from cumulative impacts. EPA will improve levels of protection by integrating
       wetlands protection into other EPA programs such as Section 319, State Revolving Fund,
       NEP;  working with the COE  and/or states on permitting and  mitigation  compliance;
       providing  grants and  technical assistance to  state,  Tribal or local  organizations; and
       developing information, education and outreach tools.

   •   Building upon the analysis of existing mitigation  data base systems, the  COE, EPA,
       USDA, DOT, and NOAA is in the process of establishing a shared mitigation database.
       Utilizing the shared database, the Agencies will provide an annual public report card  on
       compensatory mitigation to complement reporting of other wetlands programs. The COE
       has initiated six new performance measures designed to  improve  permitting and
       mitigation compliance, including compliance  inspections and audits, and resolution of
       enforcement actions.

EPA will  work with the COE to ensure application  of the 404(b)(l) guidelines, which require
that discharges into waters of the U.S.  be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable. Each
Region will  also identify  opportunities  to partner  with  the  COE  in meeting performance
measures  for compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts.  The Agency is also working
closely with the COE to develop and implement wetlands and barrier island restoration projects
along the Gulf Coast to help ensure an improved level of protection from  hurricanes.
                                        G/O-43

-------
Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration
The  Chesapeake Bay  is the largest  estuary in the United  States and  a water resource of
tremendous ecological and economic importance.  For over twenty years, efforts to protect and
restore the Bay have been led by the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council—Bay area governors,
the mayor of the District of Columbia; the EPA Administrator, and the chair of the Chesapeake
Bay  Commission,  a tri-state legislative  body.    This unique  regional partnership has defined
environmental improvements needed in the Bay and developed a strategy that blends regulatory
and voluntary processes.

While there are a number of measures used by the Chesapeake Bay Program, a key measure of
success, which integrates both water quality and essential aquatic habitat, is the restoration of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).  An additional measure of environmental  improvement in
the Bay is the reduction in nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment entering the bay.

To achieve  improved water quality  needed  to restore  submerged  aquatic  vegetation, the
Chesapeake Bay Program partners committed to reducing nutrient and sediment pollution loads
sufficiently to remove the Bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list of impaired
waters by 2010.   Key  elements  of state strategies to achieve these reductions  include: the
implementation of advanced treatment of wastewater to reduce nutrient discharges, the use of a
range of management practices to reduce nutrients and sediments from farms, and the restoration
and protection of riparian forests that  serve as a buffer against sediment and nutrient pollution
that enters waterways from the land.

The targets in EPA's plan for nutrient  and sediment reductions are scientifically based and also
reflect a multi-state consensus.  The Program plans to conduct a full re-evaluation in 2007.  In
the meantime,  the Program  continues  to pursue program strategies  to accelerate  nutrient-
sediment reduction, including state adoption of enforceable bay-specific water quality standards,
an innovative new basin-wide NPDES  permitting strategy for  nitrogen  and phosphorus, and
development  of a  strategy to address  excess animal manure and poultry  litter  for Chesapeake
Executive Council  endorsement in 2005.  Attention is also being given to financing issues.

Protecting the Gulf of Mexico
The Gulf of Mexico basin has been called "America's Watershed."  Its U.S.  coastline is 1,630
miles long; thirty-three major rivers feed into it; and, drainage from 31  states  in addition to a
similar drainage area from Mexico flow into it. One sixth of the U.S. population now lives in
Gulf Coast states.  For FY 2007, EPA has worked with states and other partners to define key
activities to support attainment of environmental and health goals.  These activities fall into three
categories:

       Core Clean Water Programs: The Clean Water Act provides authority and resources
       that are essential to protecting water quality in the Gulf of Mexico and in the  larger
       Mississippi  River Basin  that  contributes  pollution,  especially  oxygen  demanding
       nutrients, to the Gulf.  EPA will work with states to assure effective implementation of
       core  clean  water programs,  including discharge permits,  nonpoint pollution controls,
       wastewater treatment, and protection of wetlands.
                                         G/O-44

-------
       Protecting and Restoring the Gulf of Mexico: A central pillar of the strategy to restore
       the health of the Gulf is restoration of water quality and habitat in 12 priority coastal
       watersheds.   These 12 watersheds include 354 of the impaired segments identified by
       states around the Gulf and will receive targeted  technical  and financial assistance to
       restore impaired waters.   The 2008 goal is to fully  attain water quality standards in at
       least 20 percent of these segments.

       Reducing the Size of the Hypoxic Zone:  Any strategy to improve the overall health of
       the entire Gulf of Mexico must include a focused effort to reduce the size of the zone of
       hypoxic  conditions (i.e.  low oxygen in the water)  in the northern Gulf.  Actions to
       address this problem will need to focus on both controlling localized addition of pollution
       to the Gulf and on controlling the loadings of nutrients from the Mississippi River.

       In working to  accomplish this  goal, EPA and other Federal agencies  will  continue
       implementation of core clean water programs and partnerships among agencies.  Specific
       efforts in FY 2007 will include:

           •   Work with states to select a  project watershed in each of the states in the Lower
              Mississippi River Basin  to  reduce nitrogen  loadings  to the lower Mississippi
              River;
           •   Work with  states and  other partners to  identify  "100 Highest Opportunity
              Watersheds" where nitrogen reduction strategies will be  implemented;
           •   Implement the "Friends of the Gulf award program to recognize corporations,
              organizations,  or individuals that  have taken  effective,  voluntary measures to
              reduce nutrient inputs; and
           •   Work with the private sector to support Industry Led Solutions for  reducing both
              point and nonpoint sources.
Multidisciplinary Programs

Children's Health
EPA's Children's Health program reduces risks to children from  a  range of environmental
hazards. The Agency builds partnerships and effective working relationships with other Federal
agencies,  health care providers,  and  international  organizations  to incorporate  children's
environmental health concerns into their programs and activities. In addition, work is underway
to reduce exposure of older adults to environmental hazards. Efforts focus on building capacity,
providing tools and information for better decision-making, and engaging in outreach activities.
                                         G/O-45

-------
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
To reduce or eliminate the potential risks associated with chemical releases, EPA must first
identify and understand  potential  chemical  risks and  releases.   EPA will  use information
generated  by the Risk Management Program  (RMP), Emergency  Planning  and Community
Right-to-Know  Act (EPCRA), and the Spill  Prevention Control and Countermeasure  (SPCC)
program to supplement data on potential chemical risks and to develop voluntary initiatives and
activities to reduce risk at high-risk facilities, priority industry sectors, and/or specific geographic
areas.

To meet its objective of protecting  human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical
releases through facility  risk reduction efforts  and building community infrastructures,  EPA,
working with state and local implementing agencies, intends to complete 400 RMP audits in FY
2007.  EPA will also continue to work  to  transition the RMP  submission  system to  allow
complete Internet-based risk management plan submission.

Information collected  from the local emergency planning  committees (LEPCs) indicating how
they  have  incorporated appropriate facility risk information into their emergency preparedness
and community right-to-know programs will serve as a baseline from which EPA will track
progress toward this strategic goal in later years. EPA will  also continue an initiative to improve
and enhance emergency preparedness and prevention in Tribal communities.

Brownfields
Economic changes  over several  decades have  left thousands  of communities  with  these
contaminated properties and abandoned sites.  Working with its state, Tribal, and local partners
to meet its objective to sustain, cleanup, and restore communities and the ecological systems that
support them, together with extension of the Brownfields tax credit, EPA intends to  achieve the
following results in FY 2007:

   •   Assess 1,000 Brownfields properties
   •   Clean up 60 properties using Brownfields funding
   •   Leverage $900 million in cleanup/redevelopment funding
   •   Train 200 participants, placing 65 percent in jobs

Smart Growth
The  Smart Growth  program  achieves measurably improved environmental and economic
outcomes by working  with states, communities, industry leaders, and nonprofit organizations to
minimize the environmental impacts of development.  EPA provides tools, technical assistance,
education, research, and  environmental data to  help states  and  communities grow in ways that
minimize environmental and health impacts and evaluate environmental consequences of various
development  patterns.   EPA's  Smart Growth  activities and tools  show  community and
government leaders how they can meet environmental standards through innovative  community
design, and identify and  research new policy initiatives to improve environmental quality by
supporting environmentally friendly development patterns.  In FY 07, EPA plans to build upon
its work in Smart Growth outreach and  direct implementation assistance.

EPA will also continue to coordinate  smart growth work  with EPA's Brownfield  program  to
reuse and revitalize  vacant  and abandoned  properties.   EPA plans  to continue  developing
                                        G/O-46

-------
incentives for brownfield redevelopment,  provide direct assistance to communities working on
brownfields, and maintain our education  and outreach on innovative methods for brownfield
redevelopment.

Community Action for a Renewed Environment
EPA supports community-based, multi-media approaches to the reductions of toxics through the
Community Action to Renew the Environment (CARE) program.  This program  fills a gap in
our national programs which provide a broad level of basic health and environmental protection
but which do not always sufficiently meet the needs of all communities, especially those which
are overburdened by toxic pollutants.  CARE works to reduce those risks through cost-effective,
tailored and immediate actions.  Grants will be awarded to provide funding for communities to
organize and assess the risks in their community and to take action to reduce those risks.  The
program also provides multi-media risk reduction and risk  assessment tools, models to assist
communities  in identifying,  prioritizing  and  reducing  risks.   This program will  result in
measurable results in the reduction of exposures to toxic pollutants including toxic chemicals,
lead, pesticides and particulates, as well as a reduction in exposure to asthma triggers.

Enforcement and Compliance
EPA's continued enforcement efforts will  be strengthened through the development of measures
to assess the impact of enforcement activities, and assist in targeting areas that pose the greatest
risks to  human health or the environment, display patterns  of noncompliance, and include
disproportionately exposed populations.

Environmental Justice
EPA's enforcement program  supports Environmental  Justice efforts by focusing enforcement
actions  and criminal  investigations on industries that  have  repeatedly violated environmental
laws in minority and/or low-income areas. EPA's environmental justice program will continue
education, outreach, and data availability  initiatives.  The program provides a central point for
the Agency to address environmental and human health concerns in minority and/or low-income
communities, segments of  the  population that  have  been  disproportionately  exposed to
environmental   harms  and risks.   The  program will  continue to  manage the  Agency's
Environmental  Justice Community Small  Grants program which  assists community-based
organizations working to develop solutions to local environmental issues.

The Agency will continue to support the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC). The Council provides the Agency with significant input from interested stakeholders
such as  community-based organizations,  business and industry, academic institutions, state,
Tribal and local governments, non-governmental organizations and environmental  groups.  The
Agency will also continue to  chair an  Interagency Working  Group (IWG) consisting  of eleven
departments and agencies, as well as representatives of various White House offices,  to ensure
that environmental justice concerns are incorporated into all Federal programs.

International Affairs
Many human health and  environmental  risks to  the  American public  originate outside our
borders.  Many pollutants can travel easily across borders - via rivers, air and ocean currents, and
migrating wildlife.  Even in  the remote  Arctic, industrial  chemicals such as polychlorinated
                                        G/O-47

-------
biphenyls (PCBs) have been found in the tissues of local wildlife.  Further, differences in public
health  standards can contribute to global pollution.  A chemical of particular concern to one
country may not be controlled or regulated in the same way by another. EPA employs a range of
strategies for achieving its goals.  These strategies include participation  in bilateral programs
(U.S.-Mexico  and  U.S.-Canada  programs,  and  the  Border  Environmental  Cooperation
Commission (BECC)), cooperation with multinational organizations like the Commission  for
Environmental Cooperation, the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization,
and  contribution to a set  of measurable end points  that will show reduction in pollutants of
concern and that will reduce exposure to our citizens along the US borders, and the reduction of
pollutants at their origin thereby reducing the level of pollutants in the global atmosphere.
Research
EPA has a responsibility to ensure that efforts to reduce potential environmental risks are based
on the best  available  scientific information.  Strong science allows identification of the most
important sources of risk  to human health and the environment as well  as the best means to
detect, abate, and avoid possible  environmental problems,  and thereby  guides our priorities,
policies, and deployment of resources.

To enable the Agency to  enhance science  and research for healthy people,  communities, and
ecosystems,  EPA will engage in high priority, multidisciplinary  research efforts in areas related
to human  health,  ecosystems,  mercury,  global  change,  pesticides  and  toxics,  endocrine
disrupters, computational toxicology and Homeland Security.
The  Agency is also proposing an  investment in nanotechnology research, and an investment to
promote transparency  of and participation in EPA assessments (as part of the IRIS process) in
FY2007.

In FY 2007, the human health research program will continue  research  efforts on cumulative
risks.  Research will focus on  risk intervention and prevention strategies that ultimately reduce
human risk associated with exposures to single and multiple environmental stressors, including
reducing chemical exposure in schools.  Also, the Agency's  human health risk assessment
research program will complete 16 human  health assessments  of high priority chemicals  for
interagency review or external peer review,  and  deliver final air quality criteria documents  for
lead, which will serve as the basis  for the EPA staff paper supporting the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).

In order to balance the growth of human activity with the need to protect  the environment, it is
important to understand the current condition of ecosystems, what stressors are changing that
condition, what the  effects are of those changes, and what can be done to prevent, mitigate, or
adapt to those  changes.   To  meet these objectives, the Agency's  ecosystems research will
continue to develop approaches to identify and test the linkages between  probability-based and
targeted  water quality monitoring programs, landscape characteristics, and the probability of
water body impairment. The Agency will continue to develop monitoring  methods and  decision
support systems to improve its ability to identify probable causes of ecological impairment in
streams.  Diagnosis and forecasting models previously  developed will be applied to provide a
better scientific basis for ecosystem protection and restoration.
                                         G/O-48

-------
With the completion of critical research efforts in FY 2006 in areas such as the development of
tools and approaches for the prioritization of endocrine disrupter screening and testing needs, the
computational toxicology research program is positioned to expand efforts in FY 2007 to focus
on four key  areas: information technology,  chemical prioritization and  categorization tools,
system biology models, and cumulative risk assessment. In the pesticides and toxics research
program, research designed to provide updated tools for asbestos risk  assessments will be
completed in 2007.

In FY 2007,  an increased investment in nanotechnology  research will accelerate  efforts to
generate the  underlying  science needed to  better  understand  and  predict  the  potential
implications of nanoparticle releases to the environment and their fate, transport, and potential
effects on human health and ecosystems.  Nanotechnology research will also identify how nano-
scale  science  can be  responsibly  used for beneficial environmental  applications,  such as
improved sensors and new control and remediation technologies.

In addition, resources in FY 2007 supporting health risk assessments will elevate  and help to
ensure acceptance of Agency assessments through identification and airing of scientific issues at
an early stage in assessment development, improve transparency in how issues are resolved, and
enhance  the quality, objectivity,  utility,  and integrity of  health assessments that  result  from
advice and  review from the National Academy of Sciences.

Recognizing that environmental policy and regulatory decisions will only be as good as  the
science upon which they are based, EPA makes every effort to ensure that its science is of the
highest quality and relevance, thereby providing the basis for sound environmental results.  EPA
uses the Research  and Development (R&D) Investment Criteria  of quality, relevance,  and
performance in its decision-making processes through the use of research  strategies and plans,
program review and evaluation by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) and  the Science
Advisory Board (SAB), and peer review.

In 2005, the BOSC evaluated the endocrine disrupters, human health, and ecological research
programs to  assess the quality and  relevance  of the research  and the  programs'  historical
performance.   The endocrine disrupters subcommittee concluded that the program's  goals and
scientific questions are  appropriate and represent an understandable and  solid framework for
setting research priorities.  The  human health subcommittee concluded that  the program's
research is  of high quality and appropriately focused.  In addition, the ecological  subcommittee
stated that the potential benefits of the program to the public are evident and clearly articulated.
The subcommittees also reviewed each program's external research, which is usually conducted
through competitive, peer-reviewed  grants under  the Agency's Science  to Achieve Results
(STAR) program.

Research is guided by a number of research strategies and plans, which are developed in concert
with internal and  external partners.   Strategies are  tailored to specific  research needs  and
priorities. The Agency maintains multi-year research plans (MYP) that outline steps for meeting
those  strategic research  needs and  annual performance  goals  and measures  for evaluating
progress.
                                         G/O-49

-------
Three major research programs in this Goal have undergone OMB's PART evaluation through
FY2005.   They include endocrine disrupters research, ecosystems protection research and
human health research.  Climate  change research is tentatively scheduled for PART review in
FY2006.

Lastly, workforce planning is essential to sustaining a viable and credible research program. The
Agency approaches its research program workforce planning in a manner consistent with its
human capital strategy. Key elements of this strategy include working to develop and implement
a holistic approach to recruitment, preserving a diverse workforce that reflects a wide spectrum
of viewpoints, and retaining existing talent.

FY 2005 PARTs

The following programs were assessed by OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for
the FY 2005 PART process:

   •   Lead Risk Reduction
   •   Human Health Research
   •   Ecological Research (re-PART)
   •   Human Health Research
   •   Oceans and Coastal Programs

More detailed information is provided in specific program project descriptions.
                                        G/O-50

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

              COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

Improve  environmental  performance through compliance  with  environmental  requirements,
preventing pollution, and promoting  environmental stewardship. Protect human health and the
environment by encouraging innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses,
and the public that promote environmental stewardship.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:


   •  By 2008, maximize  compliance to protect human health and the environment through
      compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a 5 percent
      increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5
      percent  increase  in the  number  of regulated entities making  improvements  in
      environmental management practices. (Baseline established in 2006.)
   •  By 2008, improve environmental protection and  enhance natural resource conservation
      on the part of government, business, and the public through the  adoption of pollution
      prevention  and  sustainable  practices  that  include  the  design  of products  and
      manufacturing processes that generate less pollution, the reduction of regulatory barriers,
      and the adoption of results-based, innovative, and multimedia approaches.
   •  Through 2008, assist all  federally recognized tribes  in assessing the condition of their
      environment, help in building their capacity to implement environmental programs where
      needed to improve tribal health and environments, and implement programs in Indian
      country where needed to address environmental issues.
   •  Through 2008, strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting environmental
      policies  and  decisions  on  compliance,   pollution prevention,  and  environmental
      stewardship.

                           GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
                                Budget Authority / Obligations
                                   Full-time Equivalents
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
Improve Compliance
Improve Environmental Performance
through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation
FY 2005
Obligations
$773,201.2
$470,414.5
$121,112.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$742,815.3
$485,146.6
$120,975.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$733,539.6
$491,033.4
$112,735.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
($9,275.7)
$5,886.8
($8,240.4)
                                        G/O-51

-------

Build Tribal Capacity
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$88,989.5
$92,684.7
3,464.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$73,551.6
$63,141.4
3,495.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$74,630.5
$55,140.4
3,480.5
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,078.9
($8,001.0)
-14.8
In FY  2007, the  Environmental Protection  Agency will work to  improve  the  nation's
environmental protection practices, and to enhance natural resource conservation on the part of
government, business, and the public. To  accomplish these goals, the Agency will employ a
mixture of effective inspection,  enforcement  and compliance  assistance strategies; provide
leadership and support  for pollution prevention and sustainable  practices; reduce regulatory
barriers;  and  refine and apply  results-based,  innovative, and  multimedia  approaches to
environmental stewardship and safeguarding human health.

In order to be effective, the EPA requires  a strong enforcement and compliance program, one
which  identifies and reduces  noncompliance  problems;  assists the regulated community in
understanding environmental  laws and regulations; responds to complaints  from the public;
strives to secure a level economic playing  field for law-abiding companies;  and deters future
violations. In  FY 2007, the  enforcement program  will also carry out actions outlined in the
Domenici-Barton Energy Policy  Act of 2005,  providing compliance assistance to owners and
operators  of Underground Storage  Tanks. The EPA  will protect human health  and the
environment  by increasing compliance with  existing laws and  regulations. Innovation and
environmental  stewardship will  be encouraged.   In addition,  EPA will  assist Federally
recognized Tribes in assessing environmental conditions in Indian  Country, and will help build
their capacity to implement environmental  programs.  EPA will also strengthen  the scientific
evidence and research supporting environmental policies and decisions on compliance, pollution
prevention, and environmental stewardship.

Improving Compliance with Environmental Laws

Critical to the success of EPA's  mission is a strong commitment to ensuring compliance with
environmental laws and policies. Working in  partnership with state and  Tribal governments,
local communities  and  other Federal agencies,  in FY 2007 EPA will identify and  address
significant  environmental and  public health problems,  strategically deploy its resources, and
make use of integrated approaches to reduce noncompliance and achieve strong environmental
protection outcomes.

In order to meet the Agency's goals, its "smart enforcement" strategy employs an integrated,
common-sense approach to problem-solving and decision-making.  An appropriate mix of data
collection  and analysis; compliance monitoring,  assistance  and incentives; civil  and  criminal
enforcement  resources;  and  innovative  problem-solving  approaches  are  used to  address
significant environmental issues and achieve environmentally beneficial outcomes.
                                        G/O-52

-------
This approach also requires  that  the  Agency develop  and maintain  strong  and flexible
partnerships with regulated entities and a well-informed public, in order to foster a climate of
empowerment and  shared responsibility  for the quality of our  nation's  land, resources and
communities.  Thus the Agency can carefully target its enforcement and compliance assurance
resources, personnel and activities to address the most significant risks to human health and the
environment, and to ensure that certain populations do not bear a disproportionate environmental
burden.

EPA's continued  enforcement efforts  will  be  strengthened through the  development of
meaningful measures to assess the impact of enforcement and compliance activities; assist in
targeting areas that pose the greatest risks to human health or the environment; display patterns
of noncompliance; or include disproportionately exposed populations.  Further, EPA cooperates
with states and the international community to enforce and ensure  compliance with cross-border
environmental regulations, and to help build their capacity to design and implement effective
environmental regulatory, enforcement and Environmental Impact Assessment programs.

Compliance  Assistance and Incentives:   The Agency's Enforcement  and  Compliance
Assurance Program uses compliance assistance and incentive tools to encourage compliance
with regulatory requirements, and  to reduce adverse public health and environmental problems.
To achieve compliance, the regulated community must first understand its obligations, and then
learn how to  best comply with regulatory obligations.  Throughout FY 2007, EPA will support
the regulated universe by working to assure that requirements are clearly understood.  EPA also
enables other assistance providers (e.g., states, universities) to provide compliance information to
the regulated  community.

Compliance  Monitoring:  The Agency  reviews and  evaluates the activities of the regulated
community to determine compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permit conditions and
settlement agreements,  and to determine whether conditions presenting imminent and substantial
endangerment exist. The majority  of work years devoted to compliance monitoring are provided
to the Agency's Regional offices to conduct investigations and on-site inspections, and perform
monitoring, sampling and emissions testing. FY 2007 Compliance Monitoring activities will be
both  environmental media-   and  sector-based.  The  traditional  media-based  inspections
complement those performed by states and Tribes, and are a key part of our strategy for meeting
the long-term and annual goals established for the air, water,  pesticides, toxic substances, and
hazardous waste environmental  goals included in  the EPA Strategic Plan.  The National
Enforcement  and Compliance Assurance Program  will utilize  statistically valid noncompliance
information to select and evaluate National Priorities.

Enforcement: The Enforcement Program addresses violations of environmental laws, to ensure
that violators come into compliance with Federal laws and regulations.  In FY 2007, the program
will  work to achieve the Agency's  environmental goals through consistent,  fair and focused
enforcement of all environmental statutes.  The overarching goal of the Enforcement program is
to protect human health and the environment, targeting its actions according to degree of health
and environmental risk. Further,  it  aims to level  the economic playing field by ensuring that
violators do not realize  an economic benefit from non-compliance, and also seeks to deter future
violations; one way the enforcement  program carries this out is by working with the Department
                                        G/O-53

-------
of Justice (DOJ) on enforcement of all environmental laws and regulations.  In FY 2007, EPA
will continue to implement its National Compliance and Enforcement Priorities, which address
the most widespread types  of  violations  that  also pose  the most  substantive health  and
environmental risks.  The National  Compliance and Enforcement  Priority  list  will use the
statistically valid noncompliance information developed by Compliance Monitoring. Also in FY
2007, the enforcement program  will also carry  out actions outlined in the  Domenici-Barton
Energy  Policy  Act of 2005, providing  compliance assistance to  owners and  operators of
Underground Storage Tanks.

Auditing and Evaluation Tools:  Maximum compliance  requires the active efforts of the
regulated community to  police  itself. Evaluation of  self-reporting will  occur in order to
understand the effectiveness and accuracy of such self-reporting.  Throughout FY 2007, EPA
will continue to investigate options for encouraging self-directed audits and disclosures. We will
also  continue to measure and evaluate  the effectiveness of Agency  programs in  improving
compliance  rates  and  provide  information and compliance assistance  to the  regulated
community. Further, the Agency will maintain its focus on  evaluating the effectiveness of the
innovative approaches developed through  better communication, fostering  partnerships  and
cooperation, and the application of new technologies.

Partnering:  State, Tribal and local governments bear much of the responsibility for ensuring
compliance, and EPA works  in partnership with them and  other Federal agencies to promote
environmental protection.  EPA also develops and maintains productive partnerships with other
nations to enable and enforce compliance with U.S. environmental standards and regulations.

Improving Environmental Performance through  Pollution Prevention

Through pollution prevention integration, EPA will work to bring about a performance-oriented
regulatory system that develops  innovative, flexible  strategies to  achieve measurable  results;
promotes environmental stewardship  in all  parts  of society;  supports sustainable  development
and pollution prevention; and fosters a culture of creative environmental problem solving.

Partnering with Businesses and Consumers: In 2007, through the Pollution Prevention (P2)
program, EPA will continue  to encourage, empower, and assist government and business to
"green" the nation's supply and demand structures to make them more environmentally sound.
Through the Environmentally  Preferable Purchasing Program, the Agency will provide enhanced
guidance to the Federal building community on model green construction specifications and help
Federal  agencies identify and procure those products that generate  the least pollution, consume
fewest non-renewable natural resources, and constitute the least threat  to human health and to the
environment.   EPA's  innovative  Green  Suppliers  Network Program  works  with large
manufacturers to  increase energy  efficiency;   identify  cost-saving  opportunities; optimize
resources and technology through the development of sound business approaches incorporating
pollution prevention; and to promote those approaches among their numerous suppliers.
                                        G/O-54

-------
     "An Ounce of Pollution Prevention is Worth Over 167 Billion Pounds of Cure"

                    A Decade of Pollution Prevention Results, 1990-2000


                    167 Billion Pounds of
                                               Resources Conserved

                                             •  215 million kWh of energy

                                             •  4.1 billions gallons of water

                                             •  $666 million in cost savings


            Source: National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, January 2003 report on achievement of state and local P2
Partnering with Industry:  EPA will continue to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals in use
by encouraging the design of alternative less toxic chemicals and industry processes through its
Green  Chemistry  and  Green Engineering Programs.   New emphasis will  be placed on the
development of environmentally preferable substitutes for emerging chemicals of concern such
as brominated flame retardants, perfluorinated acids, and chemicals which are persistent in the
environment,  toxic,  and capable  of accumulating in  animal,  fish,  and human  tissue.   In
conjunction with the efforts of the  Green Chemistry and Green Engineering Programs, the
Design for the Environment Program will continue collaborative partnerships with industries to
develop safer products, processes and technologies.

Reducing Impacts in the Electronics Lifecycle: EPA is focusing FY 2007 efforts to address
key environmental impacts in the electronics lifecycle. End-of-life impacts of used and obsolete
electronics are  part  of an increasing  and  complex waste  stream  that  poses  enormous
environmental management  problems.  Almost 3 million tons of consumer electronics entered
the municipal waste  stream in 2003,  up from 2  million in 2001.   This  includes  personal
computers, TVs,  other video  and audio products, telephones,  fax  machines, printers,  and
modems.  Electronic products contain hazardous materials.  Monitors, circuit boards, batteries,
and other electronic components contain lead, mercury, brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and
cadmium.

Pollution Prevention Grant Program: Pollution Prevention Grants to states and Tribes enable
them to provide technical assistance, education and outreach to assist businesses and industries in
identifying strategies and solutions  to reduce wastes and pollution at the source. The importance
of tracking outcomes from  P2 grants  has been reinforced  by adding  key  P2 environmental
outcome targets to program guidance reporting measures. The P2 grant management system will
be enhanced by the incorporation of P2 metrics that capture quantifiable environmental results
within individual work plans and sharing those results regionally and nationally.
                                         G/O-55

-------
NEPA Federal Review:  EPA fulfills its uniquely Federal responsibilities under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by reviewing and commenting  on other Federal agency
Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).  NEPA requires that Federal agencies  prepare and
submit EISs to identify potential environmental consequences of major proposed activities, and
develop plans to mitigate or eliminate negative impacts. The Enforcement and  Compliance
Assistance Program maximizes its use of NEPA review resources by targeting its efforts toward
potentially high-impact projects,  thereby promoting cooperation and innovation, and working
towards a more streamlined review process.

Environmental  Information Exchange  Network: The  Exchange  Network Grant Program
provides funding to states, territories, Tribes, and  Tribal  consortia to  help them  develop  the
information  management and technology (EVI/IT) capabilities they need to participate in  the
Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network).  In FY 2007,  EPA, states,
Tribes, and territories will continue to re-engineer data systems so that information previously
not available or not easily available can be exchanged using common data standards. By the end
of 2007 all fifty states and approximately ten Tribes will have established nodes on the Exchange
Network and will be mapping data for sharing with partners and submission to EPA.

Promoting Environmental Stewardship and Innovation

In FY 2007, EPA will promote  environmental  stewardship, an  ethic that  goes  beyond  the
minimum compliance with environmental regulations. The Agency will accomplish this through
education,  and  by providing incentives, tools and  technical  assistance to  states,  tribes,
communities and businesses.  EPA  will accomplish its  goals using the next generation  of
voluntary environmental protection strategies, which emphasize results rather than process, and
promote business practices that are both environmentally and economically sustainable.  EPA
will work to achieve a performance-oriented regulatory system that allows flexible  strategies to
achieve measurable results; environmental stewardship that maintains sustainable development
and places pollution prevention first; and a  culture of creative environmental problem solving
that emphasizes collaboration and results-driven work.  EPA will focus on five areas under its
innovation strategy:

    •   Promote  innovative  environmental leadership in business, one that uses new ideas,
       creative  partnerships,  and  sound analysis  to  grow their business and  protect  the
       environment;
    •   Instill the ethics of environmental stewardship and sustainability in business practices;
    •   Promote  stronger facility-level environmental  management,  including Environmental
       Management Systems (EMSs);
    •   Improve overall environmental performance within high-priority business sectors; and
    •   Improve program efficiency through increased evaluation and measurement.

Innovation  Grant Program: EPA will expand the Innovation Grants program, to  encourage
states and tribes to develop and test innovative protection strategies, such as permit  streamlining
and  environmental management  systems.   These grants  promote the use  of innovative
technologies  for  better  environmental results,  and demonstrate  measurable  efficiencies  in
environmental management.
                                        G/O-56

-------
Performance Track: Performance Track is one of EPA's most successful and fastest growing
voluntary programs.   Successful because it uses  positive incentives to  recognize and  reward
private   and  public  facilities that  demonstrate  environmental  stewardship,  and  strong
environmental performance  beyond  current requirements.   In  FY  2007, EPA will move to
significantly  increase  the  number  of  facilities  participating  in the  program,  with closer
coordination and involvement of states.  EPA will expand activities  to recruit facilities to
participate in  Performance  Track  and provide  assistance  to  those facilities.  In  FY 2007
Performance Track members will collectively achieve an annual reduction of:  1.1 billion  gallons
in water use; 8.4 million MMBTUs in energy use;  20,000 tons in materials use; 360,000  tons of
solid waste; 42,000 tons of air releases; and 10,000 tons in water discharges.

Sector-based Stewardship: In FY  2007  EPA will continue to  work  with twelve industrial
business  sectors:  agribusiness, cement  manufacturing, construction, forest products, iron  and
steel manufacturing, paint and coatings, ports, shipbuilding, metal finishing, die casting and meat
processing.  EPA will work  with national representatives of these business sectors to set
pollution  reduction  goals, measure performance,  provide environmental protection tools  and
technical assistance, remove barriers, develop incentives, reduce unnecessary regulatory  burden
and test innovative strategies.

Small Business Ombudsman: EPA will continue to support the
Small Business  Ombudsman who serves  as  EPA's gateway and
leading advocate for  small  business issues,  partnering with state
Small  Business  Assistance  Programs,  and  hundreds  of  small
business  trade  associations, to reach out to the small  business
community.   These  partnerships provide the  information and serving smaii Businesses and the Environment
perspective EPA needs to help small businesses reduce waste and
materials use, and to achieve their environmental goals.  This is a comprehensive program  that
provides  networks, resources, tools and  forums for education and  advocacy on behalf of small
businesses.

Building Tribal Capacity

Since adoption of the EPA Indian Policy in 1984 EPA has worked with Tribes on a government-
to-government basis, to affirm the Agency's trust  responsibility  to federally recognized  Tribes.
Under Federal environmental statutes, the Agency has responsibility for  assuring human health
and environmental protection  in Indian Country.  EPA  has worked  to establish the  internal
infrastructure and organize its activities  in order to  meet this responsibility.  EPA's American
Indian Environmental program goes a step further in ensuring environmental protection in Indian
Country.  EPA's strategy for achieving this Objective has three major components:

Establish an Environmental Presence in Indian  Country: The Agency will work to create an
environmental presence for each Federally recognized Tribe.  In  FY 2007, using Tribal General
Assistance Program  (GAP) grant resources EPA will provide approximately 517 Federally
recognized Tribes and Inter-Tribal  Consortia access to resources to  hire at least one  person
working  in their community to build a strong, sustainable environment for the future; for these
                                         G/O-57

-------
purposes,  the universe of  eligible  entities  is  572.   Tribal communities can  then assess
environmental conditions on their lands, and  build an environmental program tailored to their
specific needs.  EPA will also continue to develop environmental and public health outcome-
based measures to quantify programmatic success.

Provide Access to Environmental Information:  EPA will provide the information needed by
Tribes to meet EPA and Tribal environmental priorities.  At the same time, we will ensure that
the Agency has the ability to view and analyze the conditions in Indian Country, and the impacts
of EPA and  tribal actions  and programs in  Indian Country.  The  Agency  continues to  take
advantage of new technology to establish direct links to the U.S. Geological Service, Bureau of
Reclamation, Indian Health Service,  and other Federal  agency data systems  to  further  the
development of  an  integrated,  comprehensive,  multi-agency  Tribal  Program Enterprise
Architecture. The Agency continues to formalize interagency  data standards and  protocols to
ensure quality information is collected and reported consistently among the Federal agencies.  To
this end, EPA has adopted Tribal Identifier codes that will  enable data systems to identify Tribal
sources of information.  In FY 2007, EPA will integrate two  additional existing Agency data
systems within the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture and encourage other agencies to adopt
common Tribal codes.

Implementation  of  Environmental Goals:  The Agency will provide opportunities for  the
implementation of Tribal environmental programs by Tribes, or directly by EPA, as necessary.
In addition to assisting in the building of Tribal environmental capacity, another key role of the
environmental presence workforce in Indian Country is to  alert EPA of immediate public health
and ecological threats, so EPA can work with the Tribe to respond quickly and effectively.

Pollution Prevention and Enforcement Research

EPA has developed and evaluated tools and technologies to monitor,  prevent, control, and clean
up pollution throughout its history.  During the  1970s  and  1980s, the  agency  emphasized
controlling or remediating environmental dangers. Since the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990,
the agency has increasingly focused on preventative and  sustainable approaches to health and
environmental problems. Sustainable approaches require:  (1) innovative  design and production
techniques that minimize or eliminate environmental liabilities; (2)  integrated management of
air, water, and land resources;  and (3) changes in  the  traditional methods of creating and
distributing goods and services. EPA remains  committed to helping industry achieve these ideals
while  at  the same  time  adopting  more  effective  and efficient  practices,  materials,  and
technologies.

EPA's pollution prevention work promotes innovative new technology, assessing the interaction
of stressors  threatening human and  environmental  health,  and  developing cost-effective
responses  to those stressors (R&D Criteria: Relevance).  In FY 2007, research will  continue to
explore the principles governing sustainable systems and the integration of social, economic, and
environmental objectives in environmental assessment and management.   In a broader context,
the program  will  focus  not just  on  the industrial sectors,  but  on all decision-makers in areas
critical to  environmental stewardship (e.g.,  municipal sector and ecosystems) such as testing the
effectiveness of a market-based  incentive as a tool to manage storm water run-off in urban
                                        G/O-58

-------
watersheds.  Efforts within environmental economics and decision science research are designed
to improve EPA's decision making, cost-benefit analyses, and implementation strategies (R&D
Criteria: Performance). Research will focus on benefit transfer methods and better understanding
of and design for practical trading programs.  These two  areas are high priorities for EPA's
program offices and have broad applications to the Agency's regulatory work.

Also in FY 2007,  the innovative  student design competition award program known as P3
(People, Prosperity, and Planet) will support up to 50 student design projects from around the
country.  This awards program encourages technological  innovation in a wide range of activities.
This competition promotes  innovative  thinking in sustainable approaches toward  research,
development and design of scientific and technical solutions to environmental problems. In FY
2006 several awards have already moved from the design stage to business plan and may soon be
ready for commercialization (R&D Criteria: Relevance; Performance).

Recognizing that environmental  policy and regulatory  decisions will only be as good as the
science upon which they are based, EPA makes every effort to  ensure that its science is of the
highest quality and relevance, thereby, providing the basis for sound environmental results.  EPA
uses the  Research  and  Development (R&D)  Investment  Criteria  of quality,  relevance, and
performance in its decision-making processes through a)  the use of research strategies and plans,
b) peer review, and c) program  review  and  evaluation  by  the Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) and the Science Advisory Board (SAB). EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), an
independently  chartered Federal Advisory  Committee Act  (FACA)  committee,  annually
conducts  in-depth reviews and analyses of EPA's Science and Technology (S&T) account and
other science activities.   The SAB provides its findings to the House  Science Committee of
Congress and reports them to EPA's Administrator.

Research is guided by research strategies and plans, which are developed with participation from
our major clients (R&D Criteria: Quality; Relevance). The  strategy  outlines the research needs
and priorities.  The Agency also maintains multi-year research plans (MYP) that outline steps for
meeting strategic research needs, and annual performance goals and measures  for evaluating
progress.   Taken together, these  mechanisms serve to ensure that EPA's research and science
remain relevant, of high quality, and contribute to superior environmental performance.

In order to sustain a viable and credible workforce, the Agency approaches its research programs'
workforce planning in a manner consistent with its human capital strategy. Key elements of this
strategy  include working to develop   and  implement a  holistic  approach  to  recruitment,
preserving  a diverse workforce  that reflects a wide spectrum of viewpoints, and  retaining
existing talent.

FY 2005 PARTs

The following programs were assessed by OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for
the FY 2005 PART process:

    •   No programs within Goal 5 were assessed by OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool
       (PART) in FY 2005.
                                        G/O-59

-------
G/O-60

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency

           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                            Goal and Objective Overview

Brownfields	26,38,46
Categorical Grants	22
Chesapeake Bay	15, 38, 44
Clean Air	1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11, 26
Clean Water	13,14,19, 21, 23, 26, 33, 40, 41, 44
Commission for Environmental Cooperation	48
Compliance	2, 4, 32, 33, 34, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56
Compliance Monitoring	53, 54
Corrective Action	26,28
Decontamination	33
Drinking Water	13,15,16,17, 22, 23
Energy Star	9
Enforcement	29, 47, 53, 56, 58
Environmental Information	56, 58
Environmental Justice	38, 47
Exchange Network	56
Great Lakes	15,18, 38, 40, 41
Great Lakes Legacy Act	41
Gulf of Mexico	15, 38, 42, 44, 45
Homeland Security	17, 23, 26, 27, 32, 40, 48
Indoor Air	5, 9
Lead	16,50
Methane to Markets	10
Mexico Border	15, 41
NAAQS	10,11,12,48
Oil	1, 3, 26, 33, 34, 35
Particulate Matter	8,11
Pollution Prevention	40, 51, 54, 55, 58
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)	16
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)	26, 35
Science Advisory Board	10, 24, 35, 49, 59
Small Business Ombudsman	57
Surface Water Protection	22
Tribal General Assistance Program	57
Underground Storage Tanks	1, 3, 26, 52, 54
Water Quality	13,18,19, 20, 41
Water Quality Monitoring	20
Wetlands	38,42
1 http://www.epa.gov/mercuryrule/


                                      G/O-61

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Science and Technology

Resource Summary Table	1
Program Projects in S&T	1
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality	5
   Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs	6
   Federal Support for Air Quality Management	11
   Federal Support for Air Toxics Program	13
   Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification	15
   Radiation: Protection	19
   Radiation: Response Preparedness	21
Program Area: Climate Protection Program	23
   Climate Protection Program	24
Program Area: Enforcement	26
   Forensics Support	27
Program Area: Homeland Security	29
   Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection	30
   Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	34
   Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	38
Program Area: Indoor Air	40
   Indoor Air: Radon Program	41
   Reduce Risks from Indoor Air	43
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security	45
   IT / Data Management	46
Program Area: Operations and Administration	48
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	49
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing	51
   Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides	52
   Pesticides: Review / Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides	55
Program Area: Research: Clean Air	58
   Research:  Air Toxics	59
   Research:  Global Change	61
   Research: NAAQS	64
Program Area: Research: Clean Water	68
   Research:  Drinking Water	69
   Research:  Water Quality	73
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems	77
   Human Health Risk Assessment	78
   Research:  Computational Toxicology	81
   Research:  Endocrine Disrupter	84
   Research:  Fellowships	87
   Research:  Human  Health and Ecosystems	90
Program Area: Research: Land Protection	97

-------
   Research:  Land Protection and Restoration	98
Program Area: Research: Sustainability	101
   Research: Economics and Decision Science(EDS)	102
   Research:  Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)	105
   Research: Sustainability	107
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention	Ill
   Research:  Pesticides and Toxics	112
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection	115
   Drinking Water Programs	116

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                      APPROPRIATION: Science & Technology
                              Resource Summary Table
                                (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations

$785,903.1
2,416.1
FY 2006
Enacted

$729,810.0
2,438.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$788,274.0
2,431.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

$58,464.0
-6.5
                     BILL LANGUAGE: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

For science and technology, including research and development activities, which shall include
research and development activities  under the  Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended; necessary expenses for personnel and
related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,  but at rates for individuals not to
exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for senior level positions under
5 U.S.C. 5376; procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other operating expenses in
support of research  and development; construction,  alteration, repair, rehabilitation,  and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project,  [$741,722,000] $788,274,000,  to
remain available until September 30, [2007] 2008, of which $19,000,000  shall be derived from
the Environmental Services fund.

                              Program Projects in S&T
                                (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Air Toxics and Quality
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification
Energy Policy Act & Related
Authorities Implementation
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards
and Certification (other activities)
Subtotal, Federal Vehicle and Fuels
Standards and Certification
FY 2005
Obligations

$8,476.1
$10,747.8
$3,040.8

$0.0
$60,614.9
$60,614.9
FY 2006
Enacted

$8,527.0
$10,012.0
$2,225.0

$0.0
$58,613.0
$58,613.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$9,259.4
$10,272.9
$2,264.7

$11,400.0
$56,924.5
$68,324.5
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

$732.4
$260.9
$39.7

$11,400.0
($1,688.5)
$9,711.5
                                       S&T-l

-------
Program Project
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
Enforcement
Forensics Support
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Water sentinel and related training
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
Decontamination
Laboratory Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Safe Building
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Indoor Air
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Subtotal, Indoor Air
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,552.0
$2,460.0
$87,891.6

$20,448.0

$13,377.9


$0.0
$17,952.2
$17,952.2

$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$33,417.3
$33,417.3
$2,517.6
$53,887.1

$696.7
$909.5
$1,606.2

$4,141.3

FY 2006
Enacted
$2,086.0
$3,468.0
$84,931.0

$18,648.0

$13,129.0


$8,131.0
$4,262.0
$12,393.0

$16,868.0
$591.0
$3,722.0
$14,571.0
$35,752.0
$2,050.0
$50,195.0

$429.0
$810.0
$1,239.0

$4,173.0

FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,054.3
$3,585.9
$95,761.7

$12,549.6

$13,185.2


$41,735.2
$3,515.8
$45,251.0

$24,666.7
$600.0
$4,000.0
$15,231.4
$44,498.1
$2,079.0
$91,828.1

$442.2
$828.7
$1,270.9

$4,268.0

FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($31.7)
$117.9
$10,830.7

($6,098.4)

$56.2


$33,604.2
($746.2)
$32,858.0

$7,798.7
$9.0
$278.0
$660.4
$8,746.1
$29.0
$41,633.1

$13.2
$18.7
$31.9

$95.0

S&T-2

-------
Program Project
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing
Pesticides
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Research / Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Research: Clean Air
Research: Air Toxics
Research: Global Change
Research: NAAQS
Subtotal, Research: Clean Air
Research: Clean Water
Research: Drinking Water
Research: Water Quality
Subtotal, Research: Clean Water
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Computational Toxicology
Research: Endocrine Disrupter
Research: Fellowships
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Subtotal, Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: Sustainability
Research: Economics and Decision
Science(EDS)
Research: Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV)
Research: Sustainability
Subtotal, Research: Sustainability
FY 2005
Obligations
$8,892.1

$2,473.1
$2,471.1
$4,944.2

$74,485.5

$14,472.5
$19,395.9
$63,156.4
$97,024.8

$46,824.0
$46,243.2
$93,067.2

$33,247.5
$12,002.9
$12,559.5
$14,476.8
$169,805.8
$242,092.5

$10,257.6

$2,465.6
$3,364.9
$36,354.6
$42,185.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$8,511.0

$2,463.0
$2,480.0
$4,943.0

$32,919.0

$16,226.0
$18,619.0
$66,777.0
$101,622.0

$45,170.0
$51,269.0
$96,439.0

$35,637.0
$12,327.0
$10,494.0
$11,691.0
$167,703.0
$237,852.0

$11,606.0

$2,361.0
$2,990.0
$25,803.0
$31,154.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$70,239.5

$2,766.1
$2,820.4
$5,586.5

$0.0

$12,274.2
$17,456.4
$65,455.6
$95,186.2

$49,242.5
$56,988.2
$106,230.7

$34,488.5
$14,983.1
$9,081.2
$8,383.0
$161,312.7
$228,248.5

$10,552.8

$2,494.6
$0.0
$21,404.9
$23,899.5
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$61,728.5

$303.1
$340.4
$643.5

($32,919.0)

($3,951.8)
($1,162.6)
($1,321.4)
($6,435.8)

$4,072.5
$5,719.2
$9,791.7

($1,148.5)
$2,656.1
($1,412.8)
($3,308.0)
($6,390.3)
($9,603.5)

($1,053.2)

$133.6
($2,990.0)
($4,398.1)
($7,254.5)
S&T-3

-------
Program Project
Toxic Research and Prevention
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Water: Human Health Protection
Drinking Water Programs
Subtotal, Drinking Water Programs
FY 2005
Obligations

$28,276.0

$3,326.0
$3,326.0
FY 2006
Enacted

$30,357.0

$3,092.0
$3,092.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$26,223.7

$3,243.1
$3,243.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

($4,133.3)

$151.1
$151.1
S&T-4

-------
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                S&T-5

-------
                                                 Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
                                                     Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                          Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Enhance Science and Research

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$17,513.5
$8,476.1
$25,989.6
89.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$17,708.0
$8,527.0
$26,235.0
86.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$19,126.4
$9,259.4
$28,385.8
92.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,418.4
$732.4
$2,150.8
6.0
Program Project Description:

The Clean  Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May  12, 2005, uses a multi-pollutant
control approach to provide states with a solution to the problem of ozone and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) — pollution that drifts from one state to another.  Using a market-based approach,
CAIR is projected to achieve the deepest cuts in sulfur dioxide  (862) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
emissions in more than  a decade.   Reductions in these emissions will  reduce PM2.5 and lower
ozone. EPA's approach  builds upon the successful Acid Rain cap-and-trade program created in
1990.

CAIR provides a Federal framework requiring 28 states and the District of Columbia to reduce
emissions of SC>2 and/or NOX. These states contribute significantly to  unhealthy levels of fine
particles  and 8-hour ozone  in  downwind states.  CAIR  is an important component of the
Administration's plan to help states in the eastern United States meet the national health-based
air quality  standards.  Under  CAIR, annual emissions are permanently capped, and there is an
additional  seasonal NOX  cap for  states that contribute  significantly to transported  ozone
pollution.

When fully implemented, CAIR is projected to  reduce  SC>2 emissions from  electrical power
generation  sources in the covered states by over 70 percent  and NOX emissions  by over 60
percent from  2003 levels.  CAIR  provides incentives for operators  of power plants to find the
best, fastest, and  most efficient ways to make the required emission  reductions.  It provides
incentives to do more as  well as serious disincentives for those that do less.

The Clean  Air Mercury  Rule  (CAMR), promulgated on May 15, 2005, is the first-ever Federal
rule to permanently cap  and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired  power plants.  Together
CAIR and  CAMR are important,  complementary components of the Administration's plan to
improve air quality. CAMR establishes "standards of performance" limiting mercury emissions
from new and existing  coal-fired  power plants and creates a  market-based allowance trading
program that will reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury in two distinct phases.  In the
first phase  cap, which begins in 2010, emissions will be reduced by taking advantage of "co-
benefit" reductions—that is, mercury reductions achieved by reducing  SC>2 and NOX emissions
                                         S&T-6

-------
under CAIR.  In the  second phase, due in 2018, coal-fired power plants will be subject to a
second cap, which will reduce emissions to 15 tons upon full implementation.

EPA is responsible for managing the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), a dry
deposition monitoring network,  as well as for providing operational support for the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), a wet deposition monitoring network.  CASTNET is
a national long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring network established in 1987 and serves
as the nation's primary source for atmospheric data on the dry deposition component of total acid
deposition, rural  ground-level ozone and other forms  of atmospheric pollution  that enter the
environment as particles and gases.  Used in conjunction with the NADP and other networks,
CASTNET long-term datasets and data products are  used to help  determine the efficacy of
national emission control programs through monitoring geographic patterns and temporal trends
in ambient air quality and atmospheric deposition in rural areas of the country.  Maintaining a
robust long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring network is critical for the accountability of
the Acid Rain Program as well as other programs for controlling transported air pollutants (NOX
Budget Program,  CAIR). These monitoring efforts play a crucial  role in the Agency's ongoing
assessment activities,  including reporting outcomes under the Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and fulfilling assessment
responsibilities under the US-Canada Air Quality Agreement and Title IX of the Clean Air Act.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The activities listed below for implementation
of   CAIR/CAMR   would    also    support
implementation of Clear Skies or a comparable
         • r-i   • i  ,•   •       i                  and  rated  them  as "Adequate."  The  NAAQS
program, if legislation is passed.                           .   .   ,  ,  .  ^t  .,     ,   ,.,  v,
r  ฐ    '    ฐ         r                       program sets standards to protect human health and
          .                               .      the environment from the effects of air pollution.
       Assist  states in  CAIR implementation:   The Regional Haze program, which addresses some
       Provide technical assistance to states  in
                                            Performance Assessment: In 2005 OMB assessed
                                            the Federal NAAQS and Regional Haze programs,
                                               of the same pollutants, improves visibility in areas
                                               of special natural, recreational, scenic, or  historic
                                               value.  The program is working on developing a
                                               broader,   more   integrated   multiple-pollutant
                                               approach in standard-setting and will be working on
                                               developing  an  efficiency  measure  to  show
                                               efficiency improvements over time.
   completing  and  promulgating rules  to
   implement CAIR.  Review  state plans
   for  CAIR;   assist  states  in resolving
   issues  related   to   applicability  and
   monitoring as well as provide technical
   support.   CAIR  is a complex program
   that EPA wants to put in place rapidly at
   the state level to allow sufficient time for industry compliance starting in 2009 (NOX) and
   2010 (802).  Provide outreach, allowance trading education, and orientation for states and
   affected industry.

•  Maximize flexibility for affected sources:  Develop software that will facilitate optimum
   trading and efficient, cost-effective program implementation by building on existing Acid
   Rain electronic allowance trading and emissions reporting systems to support CAIR.

•  Provide litigation program support for CAIR:  Conduct legal, technical, and economic
   analyses to support timely implementation of the rule; continue assessing  regulatory
   impacts  on the  US  economy,  environment,  small business,  and local  communities.
   Harmonize Part 75 (Acid Rain Program) provisions with CAIR requirements.
                                         S&T-7

-------
   •   Develop the operating infrastructure:   Effective and  efficient operation  of the CAIR
       program  depends critically  upon  further development of the e-GOV  infrastructure
       supporting the Acid Rain electronic allowance trading and emissions reporting systems.
       Data collection requirements must be determined and operating software and hardware
       specifications developed.  Initial  software development should also begin to expand
       current tracking systems to accommodate CAIR in addition to the Acid Rain Program.

   •   Develop baselines and prepare to  assess program  benefits:    Establish  an integrated
       assessment program to include enhanced ambient and deposition monitoring, efficiency
       measures that will include the total cost of the program,  and indicators to track health and
       environmental benefits, as called for by the National Academy of Sciences.

   •   Ensure the program's credibility and results:  Successful   trading    programs   require
       accurate  and consistent  monitoring  of emissions  from affected sources.   Propose
       performance  specifications  and  investigate  monitoring alternatives and  methods  to
       improve the  efficiency of monitor certification and  emissions data reporting, especially
       for sources that are new to market-based control programs.

   •   Assist  states considering regional programs for Electric Generating Units  (EGU's)
       outside of the CAIR region:   EPA will work with states to create cap-and-trade programs
       where they potentially could be more cost-effective than application of Best Available
       Retrofit Technology (BART).

   •   Work with states and tribes on implementation of the CAMR:  EPA will work with states
       and tribes on emissions monitoring provisions. Required  mercury monitoring  and
       reporting for CAMR begins in 2009.  EPA will also assist the states and tribes that elect
       to participate in the Federally administered interstate CAMR allowance trading program
       to establish allowance allocations and implement reconciliation procedures.

In FY 2007,  the  program will  continue the refurbishment  project  to  modernize and enhance
CASTNET.  The  program has  made  progress in evaluating  alternative  technologies and  in
procuring new equipment to be deployed at  three CASTNET  sites  in  order to test operational
performance under realistic field conditions. The upgraded site  equipment, reconfigured network
and improved geographic coverage will help to ensure its continued viability and to enhance the
monitoring capacity to support ongoing and future accountability needs, particularly relating to
interstate pollutant transport. The program plans to:

   •   Complete  a  pilot phase  study to evaluate options for  upgrading  CASTNET  with  new
       advanced measurement instrumentation.

   •   Select and procure advanced technology monitoring equipment for additional CASTNET
       sites, extending the pilot technology to a broader representation of field conditions.

   •   Expand a technology assessment program to  compare performance of new and existing
       CASTNET monitoring instrumentation.

   •   Complete  a  data comparability  study to evaluate how data collected by the advanced
       technology instrumentation compares and relates to the  existing CASTNET data,  to
       preserve the integrity of the long-term data record.
                                         S&T-8

-------
   •   Identify and begin  development  of new ecological  indicators of  air  quality and
       atmospheric deposition  to  expand  the  suite of environmental  metrics  available for
       measuring the performance  and efficiency of the operating programs  consistent with the
       PART measures developed in cooperation with OMB.

In addition,  the  program provides   analytical  support  for  the  interagency National Acid
Precipitation  Assessment  Program (NAPAP).  NAPAP  coordinates Federal acid deposition
research and monitoring of emissions, acidic deposition, and their effects, including assessing the
costs  and benefits of Title IV.  In 2007, the program will  continue analyzing the costs and
benefits of the Acid Rain Program for inclusion in NAPAP's Integrated Assessment Report.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome



Percent change in
average sulfur
deposition and mean
ambient sulfate
concentrations
reduced.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target





FY 2007
Target


29


Units


Percentage
Reduction


Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
Percent change in
average nitrogen
deposition and mean
total ambient nitrate
concentrations
reduced.
FY 2005
Actual




FY 2005
Target




FY 2006
Target




FY 2007
Target

10


Units

Percentage
Reduction


Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
Tons of sulfur dioxide
emissions from electric
power generation
sources
FY 2005
Actual

Data Lag

FY 2005
Target

6,900,000

FY 2006
Target

7,000,000

FY 2007
Target

7,500,000

Units

Tons
Reduced

Reducing emissions  of SC>2 remains a  crucial  component of EPA's strategy for cleaner air.
Particulate matter can be formed from direct sources (such as diesel exhaust or smoke), but can
also be formed through chemical reactions. Emissions of SCh can be chemically transformed into
ammonium sulfates, which are very tiny particles that can be carried hundred of miles by winds.
These same  small particles are also a main pollutant that impairs visibility across large areas of
the country, particularly national parks that are  known for their scenic views.  Meeting EPA's
national health-based air quality standards is an important step towards ensuring the air is safe to
breathe. To  meet the standards, EPA, states, tribes, and local governments work as partners to
reduce emissions of SC>2.
                                         S&T-9

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+$732.4) Funding will support modeling and monitoring efforts for CAIR and CAMR
      implementation.

Statutory Authority:

CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661 f).
                                     S&T-10

-------
                                             Federal Support for Air Quality Management
                                                       Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                 Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                         Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$89,350.1
$10,747.8
$100,097.9
721.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$95,949.0
$10,012.0
$105,961.0
715.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$88,065.6
$10,272.9
$98,338.5
709.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($7,883.4)
$260.9
($7,622.5)
-6.9
Program Project Description:

This program supports state development of the clean air plans through developing modeling and
other tools.  EPA works with states and local governments to ensure the technical integrity of the
mobile source controls in the State Implementation Plans (SIPs).  Also, EPA assists states and
local governments that identify the most cost-effective control options available.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
As  part of implementing the  8-hour ozone  and
PM2.5 standards, EPA will continue to provide state
and local governments with substantial assistance
in implementing the conformity  rule  during  this
period.  In FY 2007, EPA will continue to ensure
national   consistency   in    how    conformity
determinations are conducted across the US. EPA
will  continue to ensure consistency in adequacy
findings for motor vehicle emissions budgets in air
quality  plans,  which  are  used  in  conformity
determinations.  EPA also  will continue working
on revising the conformity rule to address changes
made  in  Safe  Accountable  Flexible  Efficient
Transportation Equality Act - A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). In addition, EPA will work with
states   and   local   governments  to  ensure  the
technical integrity of the mobile source controls in the SIPs for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 air
quality  standards which are due in 2007 and 2008, respectively.  EPA will also assist areas in
identifying the most cost-effective control options available and provide guidance, as needed, for
areas that implement conformity.

EPA  will  partner  with  states, tribes, and  local governments  to  create a  comprehensive
compliance program to ensure that vehicles and engines pollute less. EPA will use advanced in-
Performance Assessment:    In  2005 OMB
assessed  the  NAAQS  and  Regional  Haze
Programs  through the PART process, and rated
them as "Adequate."  The NAAQS program sets
standards  to  protect  human  health  and the
environment from the effects of air pollution. The
Regional Haze program, which addresses some of
the same pollutants, improves visibility  in areas
of special  natural, recreational, scenic, or historic
value. The program is working on developing a
broader,   more   integrated   multiple-pollutant
approach in standard-setting.  In promulgating air
quality standards, the program clearly outlines the
expected health  and environmental benefits and
will be working on developing an efficiency
measure to show efficiency  improvements over
time.
                                          S&T-ll

-------
use measurement techniques and other sources of in-use data to monitor the performance of On-
board Diagnostics (OBD) systems on vehicle models to make sure that OBD is a reliable check
on the emissions systems as part of vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. In FY
2005, basic and/or enhanced vehicle I/M testing  was being performed in over 30 states with
technical and programmatic guidance from EPA. In FY 2007, EPA will continue to assist states
in incorporating OBD inspections into their I/M programs.

EPA will continue to assist state, Tribal, and local agencies implement and assess effectiveness
of national clean air programs via a broad suite of analytical tools. (For more information visit:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/).

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient concentration
of ozone in monitored
counties from 2003
baseline.
FY 2005
Actual

Available
in 2006


FY 2005
Target

3


FY 2006
Target

5


FY 2007
Target

6


Units

Percentage


EPA, collaborating with the states, will be implementing federal measures and assisting with the
development of clean air plans to continue to improve air quality as measured by the air quality
index and other measures.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Operating Plan (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$202.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (+$58.9)  This  increase will provide  additional  assistance to  States  for conformity
       implementation.

Statutory Authority:

CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-766If); Motor Vehicle Information Cost Savings Act; Alternative Motor
Fuels Act of 1988; National Highway System Designation Act; NEP Act.
                                        S&T-12

-------
                                                   Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
                                                       Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                  Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                          Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$23,518.7
$3,040.8
$26,559.5
139.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$25,405.0
$2,225.0
$27,630.0
144.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,513.7
$2,264.7
$27,778.4
144.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$108.7
$39.7
$148.4
-0.6
Program Project Description:

Federal support for the  air toxics program includes a variety  of tools to help characterize the
level of risk to the public and measure the Agency's progress in reducing this risk.  The program
will develop and provide information and tools to assist state, local, and Tribal agencies as well
as communities to reduce air toxics emissions and risk specific to their local areas.

Reductions in emissions of mobile source air toxics, such as diesel particulate matter (PM), are
achieved  through innovative and voluntary approaches working with state,  local,  and Tribal
governments as well as  a variety of stakeholder groups.  This program also  includes activities
related to the Stationary Source Residual Risk Program.

FY 2007 Activities and  Performance Plan:
In FY 2007, EPA will  work  with a
broad   range   of  stakeholders   to
develop   incentives  for   different
economic sectors (construction, ports,
freight, and agriculture) to  address
the  emissions   from existing  diesel
engines.   Work is being done across
these  sectors  at  the  national  and
regional level to clean up the existing
fleet. This work addresses  emissions
from diesel engines that both contribute to meeting the Agency's Ambient Air Quality Goals and
reduce the harmful exposure to air toxics from diesel engines. EPA has also developed several
emissions testing protocols  that will provide potential purchasers of emission control technology
a  consistent,  third  party  evaluation  of  emission  control  products.   EPA has developed
partnerships with  state and  local governments, industry, and private companies to create project
teams to help fleet owners create the most cost-effective retrofit programs.
Performance Assessment:   The  Air  Toxics program,  re-
assessed by OMB in 2004, received a rating of "Adequate." The
Program reduces emissions of toxic air pollutants by establishing
and reviewing technology-based regulations for  mobile and
stationary sources. The Program also collects information about
exposure to air  toxics  and provides  tools and compliance
assistance  to state,  Tribal, and  local  air pollution  control
agencies.  The program is working on improving monitoring
systems to fill data  gaps and get a better assessment of actual
population exposure to toxic air pollution.
                                          S&T-13

-------
EPA also will continue to provide technical expertise and support to state, local, and tribal air
toxics programs in assessing and reducing mobile source air toxics.   This support includes
models  and other  assessment tools; guidance on the application of such tools for evaluating
impacts of proposed transportation facilities and the benefits of voluntary mobile source control
programs; and education and outreach materials.

EPA will work with partners to develop improved emission factors and inventories.  This effort
will include gathering  improved activity databases and using geographic information systems
(GIS) and satellite remote sensing, where possible,  for  key point, area, mobile and fugitive
source categories and global emission events.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
cancer risk) emissions
of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target


22


FY 2007
Target


22


Units


Percentage


Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
noncancer risk)
emissions of air toxics
from 1993 baseline.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target


55


FY 2007
Target


56


Units


Percentage


Implementation of the MACT standards is expected to result in the reduction of over 1.7 million
tons of hazardous air pollutants.  These emission reductions, used in conjunction with unit risk
estimates  and reference concentration  information, will be  converted to toxicity-weighted
emission reductions. Changes to the FY 2007 level of funding will not impact the established
targets as they are based on standards already promulgated.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$23.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (+$16.5)  This increase will help develop or revise three toxics  emission factors using
       control strategies.

Statutory Authority:

CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
                                        S&T-14

-------
                                    Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification
                                                      Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                 Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                         Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$60,614.9
$60,614.9
285.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$58,613.0
$58,613.0
283.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$68,324.5
$68,324.5
295.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$9,711.5
$9,711.5
12.0
Of this requested amount, $19 million should be appropriated from the Environmental Services fund from resources collected by
the mobile source compliance fees.

Program Project Description:

The most common mobile sources of air pollution are highway motor vehicles and their fuels.
Other mobile sources, such as airplanes, ships, construction equipment  and lawn mowers also
produce  significant amounts of pollutants. EPA regulates the  air pollution produced by all of
these sources. The Agency also provides emissions and fuel economy information for new cars,
funds grants for the development of cleaner burning fuels and alternative energy sources, and
educates consumers on the ways their actions affect the environment.

Primary  responsibilities include:  developing national  regulatory programs to reduce  mobile
source-related air pollution  from light-duty cars and trucks, heavy-duty  trucks  and buses,
nonroad  engines and vehicles and  their fuels; evaluating emission  control  technology;  and
providing state and local air quality regulators and transportation planners with access to critical
information on transportation programs and  incentive-based programs. Other activities include
testing vehicles, engines  and fuels,  and establishing  test procedures for and  determining
compliance with Federal emissions and fuel economy standards.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2007, EPA will support implementation of
the Tier II light-duty (LD) vehicle program, the
2007-2010 Heavy-Duty (HD) Diesel standards,
and the Non-Road Diesel Tier  4 standards  (and
earlier nonroad standards) in  order to ensure the
successful    delivery    of   cleaner   vehicles,
equipment, and fuel.  In FY  2007,  a number of
regulatory actions will  be under development or
completed. A final rule is planned in FY 2007 to
implement the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS)
required by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005.  This complex rulemaking will set the stage
for several more EPAct provisions required of the Agency over the next few years. A final rule
is also planned in FY 2007 concerning on-board diagnostic (OBD) standards for engines used in
Performance Assessment:   OMB assessed the
Mobile Sources program in 2004 through the
PART process, and rated  it  as "Moderately
Effective."  The Program protects public health
by  limiting harmful  emissions  from mobile
sources of air pollution.  Emissions of key air
pollutants from motor vehicles per vehicle-miles-
traveled  have  decreased  substantially  since
enactment  of  the   1990  Clean  Air  Act
Amendments.  The Program will continue to
monitor efficiency improvements.
                                         S&T-15

-------
heavy-duty trucks.  Because of the recently promulgated 2007 HD truck standards, these vehicles
will become more  complex and dependent on electronic controls and exhaust emission control
technology.  In FY 2007, EPA will finalize a rule that will reduce toxic emissions from mobile
sources by setting  new standards to limit the benzene content of gasoline; reduce hydrocarbon
emissions from passenger vehicles  operating at cold temperatures;  and reduce evaporation and
spillage from  gas  cans.   An  EPA rule will be  issued addressing exhaust and evaporative
emissions from small gasoline engines (under 50 horsepower), including all recreational marine
gasoline  engines, non-handheld engines (such as those used in lawnmowers), and  handheld
engines (such as those used in trimmers and chainsaws). In FY 2007, EPA also plans to issue a
final rule for new test methods for  the fuel economy labeling program. The new test methods
will lower the city and highway MPG estimates for new cars and trucks, and bring them closer to
the fuel economy consumers are getting in the real-world.  This rule was proposed in January
2006 and the new test methods will take effect in model year 2008. EPA is also planning a
rulemaking action  to review and revise, as appropriate, the long-term emission standards for
snowmobiles, consistent with a 2004 court order.  Rulemakings are  also planned in FY 2007 for
more stringent standards for locomotives and marine diesel  engines and for further reducing
emissions from large commercial ships.  Technology reviews for the Nonroad Tier 4 program
and Nonroad Fuel  Implementation  were planned for 2007, but will be delayed due to a high
priority shift for efforts related to the Energy Policy Act (EPAct).

EPA's  National  Vehicle and Fuel  Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL)  will continue to conduct
vehicle emission tests as part of the pre-production tests, certification audits, in-use assessments,
and recall programs to support mobile source clean air programs.  Tests are conducted on  motor
vehicles,  heavy-duty engines, non-road engines, and fuels to:  1) certify that vehicles and engines
meet Federal air emission and fuel economy standards; 2) ensure  engines comply with  in-use
requirements;  and 3)  ensure  fuels,  fuel  additives,  and exhaust compounds meet Federal
standards.  In FY 2007, EPA will continue to conduct testing activities for fuel economy, LD
vehicle and HD engine characterization, Tier II testing, reformulated gasoline, future fleets, OBD
evaluations, certification audits, and recall programs.

EPA will review and  approve approximately 2,400 vehicle and  engine emissions certification
requests,  including light-duty  vehicles,  heavy-duty diesel engines,  nonroad engines, marine
engines, locomotives and others. The  Agency will review the first in-use verification program
(IUVP) data submitted by vehicle manufacturers to determine whether there  are any emissions
compliance issues,  and continue the development of a new, web-based compliance information
system to be used  by manufacturers and EPA staff to house  compliance  data for all regulated
vehicles and engines.

EPA will also test  heavy-duty diesel engines to support implementation of the 2007 HD  diesel
requirements and  non-road diesel engine  rulemaking activities.   In-use compliance  is  an
important element of EPA's regulatory programs ensuring that new engine  standards are actually
met under real-world conditions.  EPA will implement a manufacturer-run in-use compliance
surveillance program for highway heavy-duty diesel engines.  Additionally, EPA is planning to
propose a manufacturer-run in-use testing program for nonroad diesel engines.
                                        S&T-16

-------
EPA also will  continue implementing the Reformulated  Gasoline  (RFG) program,  which is
designed to substantially reduce vehicle emissions of ozone-forming and toxic pollutants. Major
changes in the RFG regulations will be introduced to account for the elimination of the oxygen
mandate in light of the new Energy Policy Act of 2005. Additionally, new opt-in rules covering
newly  eligible areas (under the  Energy Policy  Act)  will  have to be  promulgated and
implemented.  EPA also will continue to address issues associated with the use of oxygenates
(e.g., MTBE and ethanol) and will review the industry's retail station survey plan.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
Limit the increase of
CO emissions (in
millions of tons) from
mobile sources
compared to a 2000
baseline.
FY 2005
Actual

0.84M

FY 2005
Target

0.84M

FY 2006
Target

1.01 M

FY 2007
Target

1.18M

Units

Millions of
Tons

Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of Tons of
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2005
Actual
0.86M
FY 2005
Target
0.86M
FY 2006
Target
1.03 M
FY 2007
Target
1.20M
Units
Millions of
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of Tons of
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOx) Reduced since
2000 Reduced from
Mobile Sources
FY 2005
Actual
1.69M
FY 2005
Target
1.69M
FY 2006
Target
2.03 M
FY 2007
Target
2.37M
Units
Millions of
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Tons of PM- 10
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2005
Actual
62,161
FY 2005
Target
62,161
FY 2006
Target
74,594
FY 2007
Target
87,026
Units
Tons
Funding will allow EPA to continue achieving results in reducing pollution from mobile sources,
especially NOx emissions.  The Tier 2 Vehicle program, which took effect in 2004, will make
new cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks 77 to 95 percent cleaner than 2003 models.  Beginning in
2007, the Clean Trucks and Buses program will make new highway diesel engines as much as 95
percent cleaner than current models.  Under the Non-road Diesel program, new fuel and engine
requirements  will  reduce  sulfur in  off-highway diesel  by more  than 99 percent by 2010.
                                        S&T-17

-------
Combined, these measures will prevent over 22,000 premature deaths each year, reduce millions
of tons of pollution a year, and prevent hundreds of thousands of respiratory illnesses.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$9,000.0) This increase in funding is provided to support implementation of the Energy
       Policy Act's Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).   This complex rulemaking will set the
       stage for several more Energy Act provisions required of the Agency over the next few
       years.

    •   (-$2033.0) This change represents redirections within  this  program project to address
       high priority Energy Policy Act implementation work.

    •   (+20.0 FTE) This increase in FTE is provided to support implementation of the Energy
       Policy Act's Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

    •   (-5.0 FTE) These FTE were reprogrammed to support the Clean Air Interstate Trading
       Rule implementation. These FTE will be used to augment existing work in: modifying
       data systems; establishing allowance accounts; allocating allowances; assisting States in
       developing and promulgating their State Implementation Plans (SIP); assisting affected
       facilities  through  set  up  of certification emissions measurement equipment; and  to
       establish baseline assessments for program accountability.

    •   (-3.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •   (+$101.4) This increased funding will cover increases in  fixed-costs  at the National
       Vehicles and Fuels Emissions Laboratory.

    •   (+$2,643.7) This reflects the net increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE;
       the increase in  number of FTE for Energy Policy Act work; and the reduction in payroll
       associated with the  decreases  in  FTE for the  reprogramming to the CAIR  rule
       implementation and the Agency's workforce management strategy.

Statutory Authority:

CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-766If); Motor Vehicle Information Cost Savings Act; Alternative Motor
Fuels Act of 1988; National Highway System Designation Act; National Environmental Policy
Act; Energy Policy and Conservation Act; and Energy Policy Act of 2005.
                                        S&T-18

-------
                                                                  Radiation:  Protection
                                                     Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                                   Objective(s): Radiation
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$11,694.4
$2,552.0
$1,969.4
$16,215.8
102.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,178.0
$2,086.0
$2,120.0
$15,384.0
103.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,648.6
$2,054.3
$2,323.3
$15,026.2
96.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($529.4)
($31.7)
$203.3
($357.8)
-6.9
Program Project Description:

This program supports the maintenance of an on-going  radiation  protection capability  at the
National Air and Radiation Environmental  Laboratory (NAREL)  located  in  Montgomery,
Alabama and the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) located in
Las Vegas,  Nevada.  These laboratories provide radioanalytical and mixed waste testing and
analysis of environmental samples to support site  assessment, clean-up, and response activities.

Both labs provide technical support for conducting site specific radiological characterizations
and clean-ups, which uses the best available science to develop risk assessment tools. The labs
also develop guidance for cleaning up sites that are contaminated with radioactive materials in
collaboration with the public, industry, states, tribes and other governments.  EPA,  in partnership
with other Federal  agencies, will promote the management of radiation risks in a consistent and
safe manner.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007  EPA, the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), state and
local  governments  and other  Federal  Agencies will:  assist with  site charcterizations  and
providing  analytical support for  site assessment  activities,  remediation technologies,  and
measurement and information systems;  and provide training and direct site assistance including
laboratory, field, and risk assessment support at sites with  actual  or suspected radioactive
contamination.

EPA's laboratories will provide radiological and technical support to EPA Program Managers
and On-Scene Coordinators, the public, industry, tribes and state and local governments.  EPA
will also conduct approximately 1,300  radioanalytical and mixed waste  analyses in support of
Regional site assessments, cleanups and response activities.
                                        S&T-19

-------
Performance Targets:

EPA is developing new outcome-oriented performance measures for this program in preparation
for a 2006 PART assessment. The program will have new performance information to report in
FY 2008.   EPA will  continue  to  track progress  on  routine  program  indicators such  as
preparedness and response capability for radiological incidents.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$8.8) This  decrease  will  affect testing at  the  National  Radiation  and  Indoor
       Environments Laboratory of radiation samples to support rules and guidances.

   •   (-$22.9) This decrease  is the net  effect of  increases for  payroll  and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based  on the recalculation  of base
       workforce costs.

   •   (-1 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

AEA of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011  et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970;
CAA Amendments of 1990; CERCLA, as amended by the SARA of  1986 ; Energy Policy Act of
1992, P.L. 102-486; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National Contingency  Plan, 3
CFR, 1980; NWPA of 1982; PHSA,  as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et  seq.; SOW A; UMTRCA of
1978; Waste WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.
                                       S&T-20

-------
                                                      Radiation: Response Preparedness
                                                     Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                                   Objective(s): Radiation
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,284.4
$2,460.0
$4,744.4
35.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$2,632.0
$3,468.0
$6,100.0
42.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,688.7
$3,585.9
$6,274.6
42.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$56.7
$117.9
$174.6
0.0
Program Project Description:

The National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama
and the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, Nevada
provide field sampling and analyses, laboratory analyses, and direct scientific support to respond
to radiological and  nuclear  incidents.  This  includes  measuring and  monitoring radioactive
materials in the environment and  assessing of radioactive contamination in the environment.
This program comprises direct scientific field and laboratory activities to  support preparedness,
planning, training, and procedures development.  In addition, selected staffs are members of
EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) and are trained to provide direct expert
assistance in the field.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA's  RERT,  a component  of the Agency's emergency response structure,  will
maintain its preparedness in the laboratories for radiological incidents including those for which
EPA is the Coordinating Agency  under the National Response Plan.  The laboratory  RERT
members  will  conduct  training  and  exercises  to  enhance their  ability  to  fulfill  EPA
responsibilities in the field, using mobile analytical systems,  and  in the fixed labs, in order to
provided the necessary mix  of  rapid and accurate  radionuclide analyses in environmental
matrices.1

Also in FY 2007, the research labs will continue to be ready to deploy field teams that provide
scientific data, analyses and updated analytical techniques for radiation emergency response
programs  across  the  Agency; maintain  readiness  for  radiological  emergency  responses,
participate  in mock  emergency response situations; provide  on-site scientific  support to state
radiation, solid waste, and health programs that regulate radiation remediation; participate in the
Protective  Action Guidance (PAG)  workshops;  and respond,  as required,  to radiological
incidents.
 Additional information can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/rert.htm last accessed 1/20/2006.
                                         S&T-21

-------
Performance Targets:

EPA is developing new outcome-oriented performance measures for this program in preparation
for a 2006 PART assessment. The program will have new performance information to report in
FY 2008.   EPA will  continue  to  track progress  on  routine program  indicators such  as
preparedness and response capability for radiological incidents.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget Request (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$9.1)  This  increase  supports costs  associated with  maintaining  field sampling,
       laboratory  analyses, preparedness, planning and training in  the National Air and
       Radiation Environment Laboratory and the Radiation and Indoor Environments National
       Laboratory.

   •   (+$108.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

AEA of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011  et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan  #3 of 1970;
CAA. Amendments of 1990; CERCLA, as  amended by the (SARA); Executive Order 12241 of
September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; Executive Order 12656 of November
1988, Assignment of Emergency  Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR,  1988; Public  Health
Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.;  Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and EAA, as
amended, 42 U.S.C 5121 et seq.;  SOW Act; and Title  XIV of the NDA of 1997, PL 104-201
(Nunn-Lugar II).
                                       S&T-22

-------
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
                  S&T-23

-------
                                                             Climate Protection Program
                                                 Program Area: Climate Protection Program
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                Objective(s): Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity; Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$92,457.2
$20,448.0
$112,905.2
218.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$90,834.0
$18,648.0
$109,482.0
216.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$91,843.3
$12,549. 6
$104,392.9
214.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,009.3
($6,098.4)
($5,089.1)
-2.2
Program Project Description:

EPA  manages  the  Clean Automotive Technology (CAT)  and the Fuel Cell and  Hydrogen
programs to  recognize  and remove barriers in  the marketplace, and  to more rapidly  deploy
technology into the transportation  sector of the economy.  The Agency's  Clean Automotive
Technology program develops advanced clean and fuel-efficient automotive technology to better
protect the environment and  save  energy.   The emphasis  of Clean Automotive Technology
program  work for the next 5-10 years will be research and  collaboration with the automotive,
trucking, and fleet industries. Through  cooperative  research  and development agreements
(CRADA), EPA's unique hydraulic hybrid technology  and advanced clean-engine technologies
will be demonstrated in vehicles, such as large SUVs, pickup trucks, urban delivery  trucks,
school buses, shuttle buses, and refuse trucks. The intent of these real world demonstrations is to
lead to the initial commercial introduction of significant elements of EPA's technologies by
vehicle manufacturers.

Under the Fuel Cell   and Hydrogen  program, EPA  will  continue  working  closely  with
DaimlerChrysler and UPS on the Fuel Cell  Delivery  Vehicle Testing Program based in Ann
Arbor. EPA will also  continue to coordinate with key stakeholders through the public/private
California Fuel Cell Partnership to facilitate the commercialization of innovative technologies.

FY 2007 Activities  and Performance Plan:
In  FY 2007,  the  Clean  Automotive  Technology
Program will:

•   Continue to provide technology transfer to partners
    for clean engine and hydraulic hybrid technologies
    in order to phase down Federal investment in these
    technologies; and

•   Continue to support field tests for hydraulic-hybrid
    and clean engine technologies in an urban delivery
    vehicle  or large  SUV  to  achieve  better  fuel
Performance Assessment:  OMB assessed
the Climate Change Program in 2004, and
gave it a rating of "Adequate."  There are
over 20  climate  change  programs which
work with  the  private  sector to cost
effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and    facilitate     energy    efficiency
improvements.    Each sector  (buildings,
industry, and transportation) has performance
and efficiency measures to track the amount
of greenhouse gas emissions that are reduced
as a result of the programs' efforts.
                                         S&T-24

-------
   economy than the typical baseline vehicle, while meeting or exceeding 2007/2010 Heavy
   Duty or Tier 2 Bin 5 Light Duty standards.

In FY 2007, the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Program will:

•  Continue  to  develop and participate in effective government/industry  partnerships that
   advance fuel cell and hydrogen fueling vehicle technologies;

•  Continue  evaluation of the  new-technology "Sprinter" delivery vehicle as a part of the
   EPA/Daimler  Chrysler/UPS  Fuel  Cell Deliver Vehicle Testing partnership (the first real-
   world demonstration of a medium duty fuel cell vehicle in the US); and

•  Support use of the Motor Vehicles  Emissions  Simulator (MOVES) model for life-cycle
   analyses.

Performance Targets:

EPA will work to develop better performance measures that more clearly link to greenhouse gas
reduction potential in the near term.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   *   (-$6,244.0)  This reduction reflects a phase down in Federal  investment in hydraulic
       hybrid technology development as a result of transfer to private  sector of  hybrid and
       clean diesel technologies.

   •   (+$145.6)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments,  42 U.S.C.  7401  et seq. - Sections  102,  103,  104, and 108; Pollution
Prevention  Act, 42 U.S.C.  13101 et  seq. -  Sections 6602, 6603,  6604,  and 6605;  NEPA, 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq. - Section 102; Global Climate Protection Act,  15 U.S.C. 2901 - Section
1103; Federal Technology Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. - Section 3701a.
                                        S&T-25

-------
Program Area: Enforcement
          S&T-26

-------
                                                                       Forensics Support
                                                               Program Area: Enforcement
                                           Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$13,377.9
$3,599.5
$16,977.4
104.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$13,129.0
$3,643.0
$16,772.0
108.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,185.2
$4,184.2
$17,369.4
107.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$56.2
$541.2
$597.4
-0.8
Program Project Description:

The Forensics  Support program provides specialized  scientific and technical  support for the
nation's most complex civil and criminal enforcement cases, and provides technical expertise for
non-routine Agency compliance efforts.  EPA's National Enforcement Investigations  Center
(NEIC)  is  the only  accredited  environmental  forensics  center  in  the nation.    NEIC's
Accreditation Standard has been customized to cover  the civil, criminal, and special program
work conducted by the program.

NEIC  collaborates  with state, local  and  Tribal  agencies,  providing technical  assistance,
consultation, and on-site investigation and inspection activities in support of the Agency's civil
program.  In addition, the program coordinates with the Department of Justice and other Federal,
state and local  law enforcement organizations  in support of criminal investigations.  For more
information visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
Throughout  FY  2007,  efforts  to  stay  at the  forefront  of
environmental  enforcement  will  include   the  refinement  of
successful multi-media inspection approaches; use of customized
laboratory methods to solve unusual enforcement case problems;
applied research and development for both laboratory and  field
applications.   In response to civil and criminal case needs, the
NEIC conducts applied research and development to identify and
deploy  new  capabilities, and  to test  and/or  enhance  existing
methods and  techniques involving environmental  measurement
and forensic  situations.  As  part of this activity, NEIC evaluates
the scientific basis and/or technical enforceability of select EPA regulations.  The program also
provides technical support for national, regional, state, and Tribal initiatives and priorities, as
well as the Agency's integrated Compliance  Assurance program, using a unique process-based
approach.
Performance Assessment:
The   Civil    Enforcement
Program  was  rated  adequate
in  the  last  PART review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of
a Measures Improvement Plan
(MIP)  to  better characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect    to   hazard   and
exposure.
                                         S&T-27

-------
Also in FY  2007,  the  Forensics program will  continue  to  function under  more  stringent
International  Standards  of  Operation  for  environmental data measurements to maintain its
accreditation.  The program also will continue development of emerging  technologies in field
measurement techniques and laboratory analytical techniques, as well as identifying sources of
pollution at abandoned waste sites.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of pollution
estimated to be
reduced, treated, or
eliminated as a result
of concluded
enforcement actions.
(civil enf)
FY 2005
Actual
1,100
FY 2005
Target
300
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
Units
million
pounds
This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART assessment in 2004, which received
an overall rating of Adequate based on development of a Measures Implementation Plan. One of
the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution
as a result of enforcement actions.  The Agency  is exploring  methodologies to  extend  the
measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of
pollutant hazards and population exposure.

Although the estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown over the past 5 years,  they are projections made  from future pollution reduction
based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year. One or two cases
can have a significant affect on the end-of-year results. A baseline was established in FY 2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-0.8 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce  management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •  (-$312.2)  This reflects a decrease for the National Enforcement Investigations Center
       (NEIC).

    •  (+$368.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CAA, as amended;  CWA;  EPCRA; FIFRA; FTTA; ODA; PPA;  Pollution Prosecution Act;
RLBPHRA; RCRA,  as amended; SOW A; SBIDA; TSCA.
                                        S&T-28

-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
             S&T-29

-------
                                   Homeland Security:  Critical Infrastructure Protection
                                                         Program Area: Homeland Security
                                                               Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                        Objective(s): Protect Human Health

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$6,700.6
$17,952.2
$1,348.2
$26,001.0
47.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$6,787.0
$12,393.0
$1,442.0
$20,622.0
59.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$7,242.7
$45,251.0
$1,571.6
$54,065.3
59.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$455.7
$32,858.0
$129.6
$33,443.3
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program provides resources to coordinate and support protection of the nation's critical
water infrastructure from terrorist threats.  Reducing risk in the water sector requires a multi-step
approach to: determine risk through vulnerability assessments, reduce risk through security
enhancements, and prepare to respond effectively to incidents.  Homeland  Security Presidential
Directives (HSPDs) 7 and 9 direct EPA to help the water sector implement protective measures
and develop comprehensive water  surveillance and monitoring program.   The Public Health
Security  and Bioterrorism Response  and Preparedness Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act)  also
provides that EPA support the water sector in such activities.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will continue to support the WaterSentinel pilot program and water sector-specific agency
responsibilities, including the Water  Alliance for Threat Reduction (WATR), to protect the
nation's critical water infrastructure.  In FY 2007, the Agency and major stakeholders in critical
water infrastructure protection will continue their efforts to develop and implement measures on
the best security practices and policies recommended by the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council in 2005.

WaterSentinel

HSPD-9  directs EPA to develop a "robust, comprehensive, and fully coordinated surveillance
and monitoring system" for drinking water and a water laboratory  network that would support
water surveillance and emergency response activities.  The overall goal of WaterSentinel is to
design and  demonstrate an effective system for timely detection and appropriate response to
drinking  water contamination threats and incidents through a pilot program that would have
broad application  to the  nation's drinking water utilities.   Recent analyses underscore the
importance  of a  contaminant warning system that  integrates  all five components of event
detection, as different contaminants are detected by different sequences of triggers or alarms.
                                         S&T-30

-------
5 Components of a Contamination Warning System:

- Enhanced physical security monitoring
- Water quality monitoring
- Routine and triggered sampling of high priority contaminants
- Public health surveillance
- Consumer complaint surveillance

The WaterSentinel program would demonstrate the  concept of an effective  contamination
warning system, so that  drinking water utilities, ideally  of all sizes and characteristics,  could
adopt such a system.   While a scattering of utilities have deployed elements of a contaminant
warning system, WaterSentinel represents a broader effort to  integrate all five components into
one  monitoring  and  surveillance system.    WaterSentinel would provide  a  comprehensive
protocol that would enable utilities to most effectively  deploy  monitoring stations.  EPA's
Science Advisory  Board is reviewing the  design and implementation  of the Water Sentinel
program.

In FY 2007,  EPA will  establish, in  selected cities,  additional  pilot contamination warning
systems with water utilities through intensive water monitoring  and other surveillance.  The
pilots will integrate information from contaminant-specific sampling and laboratory analysis, on-
line  water quality monitoring, public  health  surveillance, customer complaints, and physical
security to form  a comprehensive contamination warning system.  Through the pilots, EPA will
analyze the design and implementation issues over a range of system types including: different
sized water systems; different types of water delivery systems (open versus closed); and different
types of treatment (chlorinated versus  non-chlorinated).  The addition of water  utilities in FY
2007 will allow for more comprehensive testing of the  contaminant warning system,  as each
utility—due to its unique distribution  networks, treatment regimens, relationship with public
health departments, and  other specific circumstances—will  encounter different challenges in
design and implementation.  Ultimately,  an expansion of the number of utilities will serve to
promote the adoption of WaterSentinel within the water sector, as functioning warning  systems
among several utilities of potentially divergent  configurations will afford a more  compelling
outcome than just one utility.  The pilots will also involve building the analytical capability and
capacity necessary to support the contaminant-specific sampling. This entails leveraging  existing
laboratory  infrastructure through  select expansion  of Federal,  state,  and  utility laboratory
resources  to enhance the  capability  and  capacity for processing high  priority  biological,
chemical,  and radiological threat agents in water.  By the  end  of FY 2007, EPA expects to begin
disseminating information learned from the pilots to other water utilities.

In addition, selection  of these  cities  will  be tailored to  offer opportunities to evaluate  the
operational experience of different types of water  systems.   EPA will provide training and
technical  assistance to water  systems on monitoring  devices, sampling  protocols, analytical
methods  and consequence  management.  The Agency  will  report  monitoring  results to  the
National  Biosurveillance Integration  System run  by the Department of  Homeland Security
(DHS).  The Agency  will  also  continue evaluating  and improving early  warning system and
detection devices, analytical methods, and modeling programs for high priority contaminants as
well as disseminating information and training drinking water utilities in these new surveillance
                                         S&T-31

-------
technologies.  EPA will develop a performance evaluation plan that will describe the specific
criteria against which all of the key monitoring and surveillance elements of WaterSentinel will
be reviewed.  The evaluation plan will enable EPA to identify the most effective, both in terms
of early warning and cost, combination of monitoring and surveillance elements.

    •   For the WaterSentinel program, EPA will fund new pilots in FY 2007. Each pilot entails
       significant efforts in coordinating  with selected utilities, purchasing  monitoring and
       laboratory  equipment, installing  monitoring stations,  ensuring  interfaces between the
       utilities and public  health departments, and establishing data management and analysis
       systems.

    •   EPA will conduct a  program evaluation of the first pilot begun in FY 2006.

    •   In FY 2007, the Agency and major stakeholders in critical water infrastructure protection
       will  continue efforts to develop and  implement performance measures on  the  best
       security practices and policies recommended by the National Drinking  Water Advisory
       Council.

Work will be carried out in collaboration with other Federal agencies, such as DHS, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Defense, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Water Sector-Specific Agency Responsibilities

HSPD-7  designates EPA as the Sector-Specific Agency "responsible for infrastructure protection
activities" for the water sector (drinking water and wastewater utilities).  Under this directive,
EPA is responsible for developing and providing tools and training on improving security to the
54,000 community water systems and 13,000 publicly-owned treatment works.2

EPA will continue to provide special assistance to high-priority drinking water systems under the
Water Alliance for Threat  Reduction (WATR).  In FY 2006,  the Agency will  provide training
and technical assistance to as many as 100 water utilities serving greater than 100,000 people. In
FY 2007, EPA will work to ensure that the remaining  367 large water utilities have tools and
information to prevent,  detect,  and  respond to a terrorist or other intentional  attack.   The
following preventive and preparedness activities will be implemented  for the water sector in
collaboration with DHS and states' homeland security and water officials:

    •   Continue to develop and conduct exercises to  prepare utilities,  emergency responders,
       and decision-makers to evaluate and respond to physical, cyber-, and contamination
       threats and events;

    •   Build on  recommendations made by the National Drinking Water Advisory  Council,
       continue  to provide technical  assistance and training  to high risk water utilities and
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2004.
EPA 816-K-05-001 Washington, D.C. May 2005. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/data factoids 2004.pdf
                                         S&T-32

-------
       relevant state and local officials on implementing active and effective security programs
       and practices to protect against the sector's priority vulnerabilities;

   •   Provide expert technical assistance in preparedness and response  for national  special
       security events and incidents; and

   •   Disseminate (e.g., via the Water Information Sharing and Analysis  Center) tools and
       provide technical assistance to ensure that water utilities and emergency responders react
       rapidly and effectively to intentional contamination.  Tools include  information on high
       priority contaminants, sampling and  detection protocols and methods,  and treatment
       options.

   •   For the Water Alliance for Threat Reduction (WATR), EPA anticipates it will conduct
       approximately 30 training  sessions for drinking water systems serving  over  100,000
       people.

In FY 2007, EPA will develop the foundation, in coordination with key federal and water sector
partners, for a robust critical infrastructure monitoring and surveillance program.  In addition,
EPA will provide the critical tools, training, and exercises that drinking  and wastewater utilities
need to detect, prevent, and respond to a terrorist or other intentional attack while fulfilling its
responsibility  as a  Sector-Specific  Agency under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan
(NIPP).

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports EPA's protect human health objective.  Currently, there are
no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$30,479.5) This increase will support additional WaterSentinel pilot systems.

   •   (+$2,256.7) This increase will  provide training and technical assistance for water utilities
       serving greater than 100,000 people.

   •   (+$121.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

SDWA; CWA; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002;
EPCRA.
                                         S&T-33

-------
                              Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
                                                        Program Area: Homeland Security
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                                  Objective(s): Radiation

                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
         Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks; Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,620.2
$33,417.3
$38,131.8
$74,169.3
143.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$3,252.0
$35,752.0
$37,579.0
$76,583.0
160.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,328.7
$44,498.1
$49,774.9
$97,601.7
165.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$76.7
$8,746.1
$12,195.9
$21,018.7
5.0
Program Project Description:

Through research, development and technical  support activities,  this program continues  to
increase the Agency's preparedness, and its response and recovery capabilities for homeland
security incidents involving chemical, biological or radiological threats,. The Agency continues
to increase the state of its knowledge of potential threats, as well as its response capabilities, by
assembling and evaluating  private sector  tools  and  capabilities  so  that preferred  response
approaches can be identified and evaluated  for future use by first responders, decision makers,
and the public.  EPA also continues to work with Federal institutions and other organizations
through collaborative research efforts to strengthen decontamination capabilities.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency  will  continue  to strengthen its  response capabilities, clarify  its roles and
responsibilities to  ensure an effective  response, and promote improved response capabilities
across government and industry in areas where EPA has unique knowledge and expertise.

EPA 's National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC):

The NHSRC oversees Agency research in preparedness,  risk assessment, detection, containment,
decontamination, and disposal associated with  chemical, biological, and radiological attacks.
The Center will continue work in support of its responsibilities as assigned in Homeland Security
Presidential Directives (HSPDs) (e.g.,  HSPD-7, HSPD-9, and HSPD-10) and Department  of
Homeland Security requirements for EPA expertise in a number of key areas. Activities in FY
2007 will include the following:

•  Water infrastructure protection research will focus  on developing, testing, demonstrating,
   communicating,  and implementing  enhanced  methods  for  detection,  treatment,  and
                                        S&T-34

-------
   containment of biological and chemical warfare agents,  certain radiological contaminants,
   and bulk industrial chemicals intentionally introduced into drinking water and wastewater
   systems. This is consistent with the Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan (CIPP) developed
   for water infrastructure and with the Water Security Research and Technical Support Action
   Plan.

•  Threat and consequence assessment research will focus on conducting risk assessments of
   decontamination  byproducts; refining  toxicity   databases;  developing  fate,  transport,
   dispersion, and exposure parameters;  and developing computer-based tools to aid decision
   makers in  assessing the risks associated with biological and  chemical attacks;  as well as
   determination/revision of cleanup guidance goals.

•  To support the new Homeland  Security requirements under HSPDs 9 and 10, EPA will
   expand its Standardized Analytical Methods (SAM) document for Homeland Security to
   include development, validation,  and testing of non-standard methods and additional methods
   for chemicals, biologicals, and radiologicals in new environmental matrices. EPA will also
   establish an applied measurement science research program to  administer the activities of a
   national laboratory network that will  manage  method  development,  validation,  and
   application for contaminants resulting from terrorist attacks.

•  EPA  will conduct critical research to  improve existing decontamination  systems  and to
   develop and test new decontamination methods and systems for buildings,  large structures,
   and outdoor areas.  In addition, field studies to validate decontamination methods specific to
   anthrax will be conducted, as will research to develop decontamination and disposal methods
   for building materials.

•  Other efforts  will be conducted to begin evaluating toxicity, infectivity,  mechanisms of
   action,  and other risk characterization information of biological contaminants in order to
   develop dose/response relationships and cleanup goal estimates.  Additionally, work will
   begin to evaluate existing technologies that can be applied to  in situ management of crops
   and animal carcasses contaminated  with threat agents.

•  EPA's Homeland  Security research program plans to have several projects and proposals
   reviewed by independent scientific advisory bodies  during FY 2007. EPA has set up a
   special  Science Advisory Board (SAB) committee to review research related to Homeland
   Security.  In addition, EPA's Homeland Security research program has tentatively planned a
   Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) review.

Radiation Monitoring:

In the Nuclear/Radiological  Incident Annex to the National  Response Plan for  Homeland
Security,  EPA's  responsibilities include  maintenance and  enhancement  of  the  RadNet
monitoring network. The network includes deployable  monitors,  conventional monitors,  and
fixed, near-real-time monitors.   (RadNet, until  early 2005, was known as the Environmental
Radiation Monitoring System [ERAMS]).  EPA also is responsible for maintenance  of both fixed
                                        S&T-35

-------
and mobile personnel and asset readiness for radiological emergency responses, which includes
participating in emergency response situations and providing technical expertise and support.

•  The Agency will continue to upgrade and enhance the RadNet air monitoring network.  From
   FY 2005 through  FY 2007, EPA expects to deploy approximately 110 monitors providing
   near real-time radiation monitoring coverage for over 60%  of the U.S. population. As the
   RadNet  air  monitoring network is upgraded  and  enhanced, response  time and  data
   dissemination will be reduced from days to hours and will provide the Agency with greater
   access to near real-time data, enabling officials  to make decisions about protecting public
   health during an incident and improving preparedness for radiological incidents.

•  By FY 2009, approximately  150 fixed radiation air  monitors will have been deployed
   providing  near real-time radiation  monitoring  coverage for close  to  70%  of the  U.S.
   population. Monitors will be put into operation as they are delivered and installed at the sites
   by the manufacturer.  These near-real-time monitors will replace the existing system of 60
   conventional air samplers that comprise the current  air network of RadNet. Fixed  stations
   will operate in conjunction with 40 deployable monitors.

•  In FY 2007, EPA will build upon work begun in FY 2006 to augment EPA's existing applied
   science radiological labs to  meet emerging homeland  security needs and serve  as the
   Agency's  radiological  reference laboratory.  Also,  EPA  will continue to  upgrade the
   Agency's lab response capability to ensure a minimal level of surge capacity for radiological
   terrorism incidents; enhance the  existing capability  to conduct chemical  and radiological
   analysis  simultaneously; and coordinate  the  Radiological  Emergency  Response  Team's
   sample handling protocols with the mobile triage units.  Additionally, EPA will align and
   integrate related radiological  activities with existing National Lab Networks  and initially
   assess capability and capacity often state, Federal, and commercial laboratories.

Biodefense:

EPA will continue work to develop and validate methods to evaluate the efficacy of products
against bioterrorism agents,  expanding this work to address fumigants. EPA will address critical
gaps in efficacy test methodology and knowledge of microbial resistance. In addition to bacteria,
in FY 2007, EPA will begin to address threatening viruses  and other emerging pathogens in
environmental media.   Thus far, decontamination  test methods  for viruses have not  been
addressed.  EPA will propose  the development and evaluation of efficacy test protocols for
products designed to control viruses in the environment during decontamination.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives.  Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY  2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•      (+$196.4) This reflects increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
                                        S&T-36

-------
•      (+$442.3)  This increase will support Homeland Security research activities in the fields
       of threat and consequence assessment and management, and water infrastructure
       protection.

•      (+$7,075.0)  This increase in Homeland Security research includes: (1) development of
       new  or revised  sampling  and analytical methods  for  chemical,  biological,  and
       radiological  contaminants  of  concern;  (2)  testing  and  evaluation   of   outdoor
       decontamination  methods;  (3)  evaluation of  treatment  and disposal   options for
       agricultural biomass; and (4) evaluation of the health risks from  decontamination by-
       products.

•      (+$337.8)    This  increase  will  provide  statistical  contract  support   to   develop
       methodologies for evaluating the efficacy of antimicrobial compounds and fund expenses
       at the environmental chemistry lab related to biodefense activities.

•      (+$545.1)    Increase requested  to acquire updated  mobile radiological monitoring
       equipment to better respond to radiological events.

•      (+$112.6)  This is the result of minor adjustments to IT and telecommunication resources
       to more accurately align with Agency priorities.

•      (+$36.9) This change is the net result of realigning workforce and support costs  to more
       accurately reflect programmatic priorities.

Statutory Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq.  (1970), and Reorganization Plan
#3 of  1970; CAA;  CERCLA, SARA;  Executive  Order 12241 of September  1980, National
Contingency Plan, 3 CFR,  1980; Executive Order 12656 of November 1988,  Assignment of
Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988; Public Health Service Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C 201  et  seq.; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance  Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C  5121 et seq.; SOW A; Title X IV of the National Defense Authorization Act
of 1997, PL  104-201 (Nunn-Lugar II) National Response Plan; Public  Health  Security and
Bioterrorism Emergency  and Response Act  of 2002;  TSCA;  Oil  Pollution  Act;  Pollution
Prevention Act; RCRA; EPCRA; CWA; FIFRA; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; FQPA;
Ocean  Dumping Act; Public Health Service Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C 201 et  seq.; Executive
Order 10831 (1970); Public Law 86-373; PRIA.
                                        S&T-37

-------
                     Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
                                                        Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office  of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$9,102.2
$2,517.6
$12,936.5
$694.2
$25,250.5
4.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$6,199.0
$2,050.0
$11,331.0
$588.0
$20,168.0
3.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,268.9
$2,079.0
$11,385.1
$594.2
$20,327.2
3.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$69.9
$29.0
$54.1
$6.2
$159.2
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and that the Agency is prepared to conduct its essential functions during an emergency or threat
situation. This involves  safeguarding EPA's  staff, ensuring the continuity  of operations  and
protecting the capability of EPA's vital infrastructure assets.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency conducts nationwide vulnerability assessments at EPA's 191 facilities on a regular
basis in accordance with federal mandates.   In FY  2007, the Agency will conduct physical
security vulnerability assessments and mitigation efforts; perform window security vulnerability
assessments, engineering analyses and post  mitigation analyses;  ensure new construction, new
leased, and major modernization projects meet physical security requirements; expand or realign
existing laboratories for homeland  security  support activities.  The  Agency will  also focus on
retrofitting  access control systems in Level  4 Laboratories in order to comply with Homeland
Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12 - Policy for a Common Identification Standard for
Federal Employees and Contractors.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives.  Currently, there  are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
                                        S&T-38

-------
FY 2007 Changes from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•  (+$29.0) This increase will support security at new EPA facilities.

Statutory Authority:

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism  Emergency and  Response Act of 2002;  and Secure
Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629).
                                       S&T-39

-------
Program Area: Indoor Air
          S&T-40

-------
                                                             Indoor Air: Radon Program
                                                                 Program Area: Indoor Air
                                                 Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                          Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$5,986.6
$696.7
$6,683.3
41.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$5,159.0
$429.0
$5,588.0
43.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,519.2
$442.2
$5,961.4
42.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$360.2
$13.2
$373.4
-0.4
Program Project Description:

The Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, Nevada is
the only Federal laboratory that: 1) gives technical support to private, state, and local radon labs;
2) provides the mechanism for private radon measurement firms to obtain testing and evaluation
of new radon measurement devices; 3) provides  consumer protection by assuring accurate and
precise radon measurements; and  4)  is the only  U.S. avenue  to  establish traceability to a
nationally  recognized radon standard.  R&IE supports the radon program by: evaluating new
radon  instruments and  devices;  collecting  samples and  performing analyses for radon;  and
distributing  radon  kits   and   analyzing   follow-up  measurements  for  community-based
environmental justice partners with a focus on tribes.

EPA has established four priority areas to double  radon mitigation in new construction by 2012:
EPA  will build new  national  partnerships  and  increase  national outreach;  through  state
partnerships, increase the number of states, tribes, and localities with active and comprehensive
radon  programs; continue to work with partners  to accelerate  action in the marketplace  to
incorporate radon protection as a normal part of doing business and in conjunction with its
partners, will expand scientific knowledge  and  technologies to  support  and drive  aggressive
action on radon.
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY  2007, EPA's  radon  laboratory will
continue  to  provide  ongoing  measurement
expertise  as  the  only  Federal lab for  radon
devices as well as radon support and technical
tools for community-based  environmental
justice  partners.    EPA  will  continue  to
evaluate new radon instruments and devices
for private radon measurement firms. As part
Performance Assessment: The Indoor Air program,
assessed  by OMB in 2005,  received a rating of
"Adequate." The program does not issue regulations,
so it works toward its goal by conducting research and
promoting appropriate risk reduction actions through
voluntary education and outreach programs.   The
program  will be  focusing on  making efficiency
improvements.
                                         S&T-41

-------
of its environmental justice efforts, EPA will distribute approximately 2,500 radon kits to our
network  of  partner organizations and  community-based  environmental justice  partners and
analyze 100% of returned radon kits.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
Number of additional
homes (new and
existing) with radon
reducing features
FY 2005
Actual

Data
Avail. 06

FY 2005
Target

173,000

FY 2006
Target

180,000

FY 2007
Target

190,000

Units

Homes

 In FY 2007, EPA expects to have  190,000 additional  homes with radon reducing features
 (90,000 mitigations and 100,000 new homes with radon resistant new construction), bringing
 the cumulative number of U.S. homes with radon reducing features to 2.4 million.   EPA
 estimates that this  cumulative number will result in over 700 future premature cancer deaths
 prevented (each year these radon reducing features are in place).

 These program goals are a result of the total funding the program area receives through EPM,
 S&T, and SIRG funding.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

 •     (+$0.8) This increase will help support EPA national radon reinvigoration activities that
       reduce the health risk from radon in homes, schools, and workplaces.

 •     (+$12.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

   CAA Amendments of 1990; (IRAA), Section 306 Radon Gas Indoor Air Quality Research
   Act; Title IV of the  Superfund  Amendments  and Re-authorization Act (SARA) of 1986;
   Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),  section 6,  Titles II, and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and
   2641-2671), and Section 10.
                                        S&T-42

-------
                                                             Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
                                                                   Program Area: Indoor Air
                                                  Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                           Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$21,464.4
$909.5
$22,373.9
75.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$23,137.0
$810.0
$23,947.0
69.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$23,464.3
$828.7
$24,293.0
68.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$327.3
$18.7
$346.0
-0.3
 ' Resources under the program/project were formerly captured under Indoor Air: Asthma (74), Indoor Air: Environmental
Tobacco Smoke Program (75), and Indoor Air: Schools and Workplace Programs (77).

Program Project Description:

The Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) maintains the capacity to
conduct  field  measurements,  assessments  and  technical  support  for indoor  air  quality
remediations.  R&IE also conducts training and provides technical support for development of
Tribal capacity  for  indoor air quality programs,  such as mold remediation, assessment  and
characterization of sources of volatiles and intruding vapors, and monitoring  and measurement
techniques.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2007, EPA will  conduct several Indoor Air
Quality   (IAQ)   intervention  and  remediation
training  courses  which will  continue to support
development  of  tribal  capacity  for  indoor  air
quality programs. EPA will  continue conducting
field measurements and assessments and providing
technical    support   for   indoor  air   quality
remediations.
Performance Assessment:   The Indoor Air
Program, assessed by OMB in 2005 through the
PART process, received a rating of "Adequate."
The program does not  issue regulations, so it
works toward its goal by conducting research
and  promoting  appropriate risk reduction
actions   through  voluntary  education  and
outreach programs.   The  program will  be
focusing on making efficiency improvements.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome

Measure
Estimated annual
number of schools
establishing indoor air
quality programs based
on EPA's Tools for
Schools guidance.
FY 2005
Actual


3,000

FY 2005
Target


2500

FY 2006
Target


1200

FY 2007
Target


1100

Units


Number

                                          S&T-43

-------
Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
Percent of public that
is aware of the asthma
program's media
campaign.
FY 2005
Actual

31

FY 2005
Target

>20

FY 2006
Target

>20

FY 2007
Target

>20

Units

Percentage

Measure
Type



Output



Measure
Additional health care
professionals trained
annually by EPA and
its partner on the
environmental
management of asthma
triggers.
FY 2005
Actual



3,080



FY 2005
Target



2000



FY 2006
Target



2000



FY 2007
Target



2000



Units



Number



The measure included in the performance table is a new measure developed during the process of
completing a 2005 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)  process; the target listed is the
long-term date for reporting out results of the measure.

EPA will  continue to work towards  its long term 2012 goal to have 6.5  million people  with
asthma take the  essential actions to  reduce their exposure to  their environmental triggers of
asthma, including environmental tobacco  smoke.  EPA's goal is to have close to 400,000
additional people with asthma to take these actions in 2007, bringing the total number to  over
4.5 million people with asthma taking these actions.  As part of this goal, EPA will continue to
work to reduce existing disparities between disproportionately impacted  populations  and the
overall population.

EPA will  continue to work towards  its long term 2012 goal of 40,000 schools implementing
effective indoor air quality management plans.  In 2007, EPA aims to have an additional 1,100
schools start implementation of an effective IAQ management plan, bringing the total to  over
35,000 schools implementing these plans nationwide.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$5.9)  This increase will support  testing costs at the  National Radiation and Indoor
       Environments Laboratory.

   •   (+$12.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990; Radon Gas Indoor Air Quality Research Act; Title IV of the SARA
of 1986.
                                       S&T-44

-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
                   S&T-45

-------
                                                                 IT / Data Management
                                           Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$84,371.1
$4,141.3
$108.0
$39.5
$17,734.0
$106,393.9
510.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$94,567.0
$4,173.0
$182.0
$31.0
$17,053.0
$116,006.0
486.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$96,807.2
$4,268.0
$175.9
$32.5
$17,120.4
$118,404.0
488.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,240.2
$95.0
($6.1)
$1.5
$67.4
$2,398.0
1.6
Program Project Description:

The S&T IT/Data Management program supports the development of the Agency's Enterprise
Architecture and  develops  analytical tools  (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound
environmental   decision-making.   The  program  implements  the  Agency's  e-Government
responsibilities  as well as designs, develops and manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet
resources including the Integrated Portal.   In  addition,  the  IT/Data  Management  program
supports  the development,  collection, management, and  analysis  of environmental  data  (to
include both point source and ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the
Agency in strategic planning at the national, program, and regional levels, and provides a secure,
reliable, and capable information  infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which
includes  data  standardization, integration,  and  public access.   The  program manages the
Agency's Quality System ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal
guidelines,  and supports  S&T  information technology  infrastructure, administrative  and
environmental   programs,  and  telecommunications.  These  functions  are  integral  to  the
implementation of Agency  information technology programs and  systems like the Exchange
Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX, http://www.epa.gov/cdx) and Permit Compliance
System  (PCS,  http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html) Agency Offices  rely  on the
IT/Data Management program and its capabilities to  develop  and implement  tools for ready
access to accurate and timely data.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to provide methods to manage the quality of its environmental
data collection,  generation, and use.  The primary goal of the EPA Quality System is to ensure
                                        S&T-46

-------
that its environmental data are of sufficient quantity and quality to support the data's intended
use. As part of the Agency's Quality System, policies and procedures have been developed to
assist individual data collectors, data users, and decision makers in defining their needs for data
and assessing  data against these needs,  and to provide EPA management with methods for
overseeing the quality-related activities of their programs. Like the larger IT/Data Management
efforts, the Quality System is closely coordinated with the Exchange Network and Information
Security programs.  This relationship ensures  quality data are available and accessible to promote
sound environmental decision-making.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from  FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$85.0)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •  (+$10.0)  This   resource  adjustment  reflects additional use  of  Agency's information
       technology infrastructure components.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
CAA and amendments; CWA and amendments; Environmental  Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act; TSCA; FIFRA; Food Quality Protection Act;  Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments; Federal Food,  Drug  and Cosmetic Act; Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act;
FOIA; Computer Security Act; Privacy  Act; EFOIA; EPAct.
                                       S&T-47

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
                   S&T-48

-------
                                                 Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
                                              Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$317,744.7
$8,892.1
$32,244.5
$982.9
$552.1
$65,156.8
$425,573.1
364.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$343,908.0
$8,511.0
$28,295.0
$894.0
$500.0
$69,667.0
$451,775.0
437.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$294,760.1
$70,239.5
$28,430.9
$916.8
$499.3
$73,944.7
$468,791.3
438.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($49,147.9)
$61,728.5
$135.9
$22.8
($0.7)
$4,277.7
$17,016.3
1.4
Program Project Description:

S&T resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Project are used to fund
rent, utilities, and  security,  and also to manage  activities and  support  services in many
centralized  administrative  areas such as  health  and  safety,  environmental  compliance,
occupational  health,  medical monitoring, fitness/wellness and  safety,  and  environmental
management functions at EPA. Resources  for this program also support a full range of ongoing
facilities management services including:  facilities maintenance and operations; Headquarters
security;  space  planning;   shipping  and receiving;  property  management;  printing  and
reproduction; mail management; and transportation services.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with GSA and other private landlords
by  conducting rent reviews and verifying that monthly  billing statements are correct.   The
Agency also reviews space needs on  a regular basis.

These  resources also help  to improve operating efficiency and  encourage the use of new,
advanced  technologies and energy  sources.   EPA will continue  to direct resources towards
acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger cars and light trucks to meet
the goals set by Executive Orders (EO) 131493, Greening the Government through Federal Fleet
 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3149.htm
                                        S&T-49

-------
and Transportation Efficiency and EO  131234,  Greening the Government  through Efficient
Energy Management.

As a result of an ongoing review of indirect cost charging in FY 2007, the Agency is reviewing
the allocation of rent, security and utilities  costs among EPA's various appropriations. The
largest  shift is to the  Science  and Technology  appropriation,  but  other  appropriations'
proportions have been adjusted. These changes do not result in any overall funding difference. In
the past, only direct laboratory rent, security, and utilities have been included  under the S&T
appropriation. This methodology change will  better reflect actual costs for personnel with S&T
funds. Funds were moved from EPM; no S&T programs were reduced in this effort.

Lastly, EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants  as directed by Executive Order
(EO)  13ISO5 "Federal Workforce  Transportation."  EPA will  continue the implementation of
the Safety and Health Management Systems to ensure a safe working environment.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives. Performance information is  included in
the Program Performance and Assessment section.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$60,993.1)  This is not an increase to the overall program, but a shift to  the Science and
       Technology (S&T)  appropriation from the Environmental Programs  and Management
       (EPM) appropriation for rent,  security,  and  utilities costs.   This change reflects  the
       restructuring of cost allocation methodologies.  Overall  funding is not affected, and no
       S&T programs were reduced in this effort. In the past, direct laboratory rent, security,
       and utilities have been included under the EPM appropriation. This methodology change
       will better reflect actual costs for personnel with S&T funds.

    •   (+$41.6) This increase will support Agency environmental management systems projects.

    •   (+$2.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living  for existing  FTE.

    •   (+$691.2) Provides  additional resources to cover basic facilities management services in
       EPA's laboratories.

Statutory Authority:

FPASA; PBA; annual Appropriations Acts; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act; Executive Orders
10577 and 12598; United States Marshals Service,  Vulnerability Assessment  of Federal
Facilities Report; Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure
Protection).
4 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3123.htm
5 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
                                         S&T-50

-------
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
               S&T-51

-------
                                                Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
                                                        Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                       Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$39,321.6
$2,473.1
$41,794.7
401.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$41,604.0
$2,463.0
$44,067.0
327.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$39,767.6
$2,766.1
$42,533.7
327.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,836.4)
$303.1
($1,533.3)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The  Agency has three  laboratories  supporting registration activities including an Analytical
Chemistry Laboratory and a microbiology laboratory at the Environmental Science Center (ESC)
at Fort Meade, MD and an Environmental Chemistry Laboratory (ECL) at Stennis Space Center,
Bay  St.  Louis,  MS.   The Analytical Chemistry and Environmental Chemistry  laboratories
validate  environmental  and analytical chemistry  methods to ensure  that the Food  and Drug
Administration (FDA),  United  States Department of Agriculture (USDA),  and  states have
reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food and in the environment. The
laboratories provide support to EPA's enforcement programs with highly specialized pesticide
chemistry services to support enforcement cases  including the  more  difficult to analyze older
pesticides.  State pesticide laboratories receive technical and quality assurance support through
workshops and training in pesticide analytical chemistry.  Analytical methods are evaluated for:

   •   Potential use in detecting pesticide residues in the environment to ensure these methods
       are  suitable for monitoring residues in soil and water;

   •   Enforcement for product chemistry to ensure that the labels are accurate; and

   •   Detecting residues in food and feed to ensure that they are suitable for monitoring and to
       enforce legal residue limits (tolerances).

Analytical  Chemistry laboratory resources are used to operate the National Pesticide Standard
Repository for pesticide analytical reference standards and to distribute the standards to Federal
and state enforcement laboratories. EPA laboratories, in cooperation with industry and state and
regional laboratories, develop multi-residue analytical methods to allow enforcement agencies to
test for several different chemicals using one test.

The  microbiology laboratory conducts post-market product performance testing of hospital
disinfectants  and  tuberculocides, evaluates new efficacy test  methods  for antimicrobials,
investigates new technologies and screening techniques for evaluating the product performance
of antimicrobials, and provides technical support and training on testing methods and procedures.
                                         S&T-52

-------
The microbiology laboratory also validates methods used for the detection of DNA and proteins
associated with plant incorporated protectants, or "PIPs" (genetically modified plants).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA's laboratories will continue to provide quality assurance  and technical support and training
to EPA  regions,  state laboratories,  and other Federal  agencies  that implement the Federal
Insecticide,  Fungicide and Rodenticide  Act
(FIFRA).    The  laboratories  will   evaluate
registered products  that  are most crucial  to
infection  control  (sterilants,  tuberculocides,
and hospital-level disinfectants).
Performance  Assessment:     The  Pesticides
Registration  program underwent PART review in
calendar year  2002 and  received  a rating  of
"adequate."  Using the logic model process, the
Agency  is   developing   new,  output-oriented
performance  measures.  EPA has consulted with
State   and  Tribal   partners   throughout   the
development process, and  the Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee, the program's federal advisory
committee,  is  currently  reviewing the  proposed
measures.
Under the  PIP  method validation  program,
work will continue on evaluating several novel
molecular-based   methods.  The  Microarray
Research Laboratory  efforts  will  continue
research to better understand how antimicrobial
pesticides work at the genetic level in hopes this will provide a faster and better way to test
antimicrobials for efficacy, thus increasing efficiencies in the Antimicrobial Testing Program.

Additionally, as discussed in the program/project Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response
and Recovery,  the laboratories will continue to support Homeland Security activities  such  as
anthrax surrogate studies and ensure the ability to provide surge capacity to respond to incidents.
In addition,  the laboratory will  continue research on sporicidal test methods in order to formulate
registration  requirements for products used to remediate areas contaminated with bioterrorism
agents, most notably Bacillus anthracis. The Homeland Security  activities associated with these
laboratories  are   discussed  in more  detail  in   the  program   project  Homeland Security:
Preparedness, Response and Recovery.

Performance Targets:

Some of the PART measures for this program are program outputs, which,  when finalized,
represent the program's statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace
are safe for  human health and the environment.  Evaluating chemistry and efficacy claims allows
the Agency to take regulatory or enforcement action on products which do not comply with the
conditions of registration.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•      (+$47.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.

•      (+$11.7) This increase  will support activities including contracts, grants, and expenses to
       support our environmental laboratories.
                                          S&T-53

-------
•      (+$243.9)  This increase will  fund laboratory  support for pesticide registration and
       reregi strati on activities, including quality assurance technical support and training to state
       FIFRA laboratories.

Statutory Authority:

PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA.
                                         S&T-54

-------
                                 Pesticides:  Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides
                                                        Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                      Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$49,074.7
$2,471.1
$51,545.8
460.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$57,458.0
$2,480.0
$59,938.0
462.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$51,814.6
$2,820.4
$54,635.0
458.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($5,643.4)
$340.4
($5,303.0)
-4.0
Program Project Description:

Pesticide review and reregi strati on is supported by  an Analytical Chemistry Laboratory and a
microbiology laboratory at the Environmental Science Center (ESC) at Fort Meade, MD and an
Environmental Chemistry Laboratory (ECL) at Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS.  These
laboratories support  Reregistration  activities  by  validating  environmental and analytical
chemistry methods to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States
Department of Agriculture  (USDA), Regional offices, and  states have  reliable  methods to
measure  and monitor pesticide  residues in food and in the environment.  The laboratories, in
cooperation with industry and state and regional laboratories, develop multi-residue analytical
methods to allow enforcement agencies to test for several different chemicals using one test.

Activities of the microbiology laboratory include:

   •   Conducting product performance testing of antimicrobials related to public health;

   •   Investigating  new  efficacy test methods for antimicrobials,  including those used for
       Homeland Security purposes;

   •   Providing technical support and training on testing methods and procedures; and

   •   Providing  method validation services  for   genetically  modified organisms (GMO)
       products (plant incorporated protectants).

Additionally, the  laboratories provide EPA's enforcement programs with highly specialized
pesticide chemistry services to support enforcement cases, including the more difficult to analyze
older pesticides, and dioxin  assessments and screenings.  Support is provided for screening for
method development, biotechnology,  and homeland security activities.
                                         S&T-55

-------
The laboratories support the following functions:

    •   Provide the  state pesticide  laboratories with technical  and quality assurance support
       through workshops and training in pesticide analytical chemistry;

    •   Evaluate analytical methods for detecting pesticide residues in the environment to ensure
       that they are  suitable for monitoring residues in soil and water;

    •   Evaluate enforcement analytical  methods for product chemistry and product efficacy to
       ensure that the labels are accurate;

    •   Evaluate analytical methods for detecting residues in food and feed to ensure that they are
       suitable for monitoring, and to enforce legal residue limits (tolerances);  and

    •   Operate the  National  Pesticide  Standard Repository for pesticide analytical  reference
       standards, distributing the standards to Federal and state enforcement laboratories.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The  Agency  will   continue supporting  the
„     • ,   ,•              ,• •,•        ,•   ,,     Performance  Assessment:    The  Pesticides
Reregistrati on program activities,  operating the   n  •  t  t-             A     t T>*T>T
    &        f  o             5  f     &       Registration program underwent PART review in
National  Pesticide  Standard Repository,  and
conducting  chemistry and efficacy testing for
antimicrobials.   Additionally, as discussed in
the   program/project   Homeland  Security:
Preparedness,  Response  and  Recovery,  the    ,   ,      ,           ,  ,,   „  .. .,   „
   r         '     r                  •"        development process, and  the  Pesticide Program
                                                calendar year 2004  and received a  rating  of
                                                "adequate."   Using the logic model process, the
                                                Agency   is  developing  new,   output-oriented
                                                performance measures.  EPA has  consulted with
                                                State   and   Tribal  partners  throug
                                                Dialogue Committee, the program's federal advisory
                                                committee, is currently  reviewing  the proposed
                                                measures.
laboratories will continue to support Homeland
Security activities  such  as anthrax surrogate
studies  and ensure  the ability to provide surge
capacity  to  respond   to   incidents.     The
Homeland Security activities associated with these laboratories are discussed in more detail in
the program/project Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response and Recovery.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance  objectives.   Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

Some of this program's PART performance measures  are  program  outputs  which represent
statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human
health and the environment and when used in accordance with the packaging label present a
reasonable certainty  of  no harm.  While program  outputs are not  the best measures  of risk
reduction, they do provide a means for reducing risk in that the program's safety review prevents
dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace.
                                          S&T-56

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•      (+$51.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.

•      (+$288.9) This increase will support activities including contracts, grants, and the
       purchase of equipment and repairs at our pesticides laboratories.

Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA.
                                       S&T-57

-------
Program Area: Research: Clean Air
              S&T-58

-------
                                                                     Research:  Air Toxics
                                                         Program Area: Research: Clean Air
                                                 Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                 Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$14,472.5
$14,472.5
58.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$16,226.0
$16,226.0
55.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,274.2
$12,274.2
52.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($3,951.8)
($3,951.8)
-2.9
Program Project Description:

Air Toxics (AT) research provides the scientific foundation that enables the Agency to fulfill
responsibilities mandated by the Clean Air Act. This research seeks to increase understanding of
the exposure and health risks posed by hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and reduce uncertainty in
national- and community-scale assessments as well as residual risk.  Research also provides the
tools (i.e., methods, models,  and health hazard, exposure, and emission data) needed to identify
and implement cost-effective approaches to reduce  AT risks.   This program addresses both
indoor and outdoor environments and source categories regulated by the Agency's AT rules.

The Agency's AT research strategy and multi-year plan outline steps for meeting research needs
and  annual performance goals and measures  for evaluating  progress.6   (R&D Investment
Criteria: Relevance, Performance)  EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), an independently
chartered Federal Advisory  Committee Act (FACA)  committee, annually conducts in-depth
reviews and analyses of EPA's  S&T account.7 (R&D Investment Criteria:  Relevance, Quality,
Performance)   The SAB reports its findings to the House Committee on  Science and EPA's
Administrator.  In addition, these documents have been peer reviewed by the Science  Advisory
Board  (SAB),  a  distinguished body of scientists and  engineers  who are recognized  non-
government  experts  from  academia  and industry.    (R&D   Investment Criteria:  Quality,
Relevance)

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY  2007,  AT research will continue  support for the Health  Effects  Institute (HEI),  an
independent, nonprofit corporation chartered in 1980 that partners with EPA to investigate topics
including the health effects  of air pollution from  mobile sources and threats  such as  carbon
monoxide, methanol and aldehydes, nitrogen oxides, diesel exhaust, ozone, and paniculate air
pollution.   The  program will  complete selected  ongoing research efforts  in  FY 2007 and
6 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Air Toxics Multi-Year Plan (Washington: EPA, 2003). Available at:

7 The latest SAB review is: EPA, SAB, Science and Research Budgets for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
Fiscal Year 2006; An Advisory Report by the EPA Science Advisory Board (Washington: EPA, 2005). Available at:

                                         S&T-59

-------
transition toward  the  Multiple Air  Pollutant Program  (MAPP)  recommended by  external
reviews.8

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program  supports  cleaner air.   Research milestones are identified in the
program's multi-year planning  documents, but  there  are  currently no annual  performance
measures that meet the requirements of the PART guidance  (i.e., that can demonstrate progress
toward established long-term outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$3,946.4) EPA is transitioning toward a multiple air pollutant program recommended
       by the National Research Council. As part of this shift, some extramural research in this
       program project  will be discontinued, while other projects, including work on the next
       National Air Toxics  Assessment research  to support residual risk evaluations, and field
       studies to improve techniques used to measure organic air toxics and human exposure
       factors from stationary and mobile sources will be delayed.  In addition, identification of
       options  to reduce exposures and to analyze fuel and additive emissions, exposures, and
       health effects will be reduced.

    •   (-2.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •   (-$5.4)  This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living increases
       for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
       costs.

Statutory Authority:

CAA, Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act; Title IV of the Superfund Amendments
and Re-authorization Act (SARA) of 1986.
8 National Research Council, Research Priorities for Airborne P articulate Matter: IV. Continuing Research Progress
(Washington: National Academies Press, 2004). Available at: 
                                         S&T-60

-------
                                                                Research: Global Change
                                                        Program Area: Research: Clean Air
                                                 Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                 Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$19,395.9
$19,395.9
39.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$18,619.0
$18,619.0
37.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$17,456.4
$17,456.4
35.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,162.6)
($1,162.6)
-1.8
Program Project Description:

EPA's global change research focuses on understanding the potential consequences of global
change (particularly climate variability and change) on air and water quality, ecosystems, and
human health in  the United States.  The goal of the program is to produce timely and useful
information and decision support tools for resource managers and policymakers that enable  them
to formulate adaptation strategies to respond effectively to the risks and opportunities presented
by global change. For example, the program has worked with communities and decision makers
in the Great Lakes and Northeast regions to investigate the potential impact of climate change on
the frequency of combined sewer overflow events, and to help them develop effective long-term
control plans that will reduce the number of overflow events in future years.

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a distinguished body of scientists and engineers
who  are  recognized  non-government experts from academia  and  industry,  evaluates the
Agency's research programs, national  laboratories,  centers,  and offices,  and management
practices, and provides peer review, including evaluation of the program's peer review policies
and research plans and products. The BOSC evaluated the global change program in September,
2005, and will release a draft report to the public in early 2006.

The program's activities are closely coordinated with the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) to  ensure  complete consistency with CCSP's  strategic  plan.9  CCSP integrates the
planning and  implementation of EPA's program with other participating Federal agencies to
reduce overlap, identify and fill programmatic gaps, and add integrative value to products and
deliverables produced under the CCSP's auspices.  The Agency also maintains a global change
research multi-year plan10 that outlines steps for meeting research needs and annual performance
goals  and  measures   for  evaluating progress.   (R&D  Investment  Criteria:  Relevance,
Performance)
9 Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program. Available at: 
10 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Global Change Research Program Multi-Year Plan, (Washington: EPA, 2003).
Available at: 
                                         S&T-61

-------
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the program will concentrate primarily on the potential effects of global change on
air quality and aquatic ecosystems.  The program's  top  priorities include producing the three
CCSP Synthesis and Assessment (S&A) reports for which EPA is the lead Federal agency (sea
level rise, ecosystem adaptation,  and analyses of the effects of global change on human health
and welfare and human systems), and contributing to  seven others. CCSP is producing 21 S&A
reports by 2007-2008 on the highest priority research, observation, and decision support needs.
The S&A documents EPA is responsible for must be finalized and published in 2007; one by the
third quarter and the remaining two by the end of the fourth quarter.  The CCSP effort responds
to the President's  direction that climate change research activities be  accelerated to provide the
best possible scientific information to support public discussion and decision making on climate-
related issues. Many of the S&A reports (including two of the  reports being produced by EPA)
are necessary to comply with Section 106 of the Global Change  Research Act of  1990.

The program will continue to make significant contributions to high-level  interagency bilateral
climate  initiatives with China, Italy, Canada,  and  India.   For  example, EPA and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  (NOAA)  recently  organized conferences with the
governments of China and India to discuss the potential impacts of and responses to  climate
change. The Department  of State (DOS) is coordinating Federal agencies' participation in these
activities.

CCSP  is  increasingly  emphasizing  improved  decision making and  adaptive management
("decision support"). In step with these priorities, EPA's global change research program will
work in collaboration with the National Research Council (NRC) and NOAA's Office of Global
Programs to better understand the factors that determine the extent to which outcomes of given
resource management decisions are climate sensitive, the extent to which  altering the decision
may facilitate adaptation  to climate change, and the  likelihood that decision support strategies
could improve associated environmental outcomes.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program  supports cleaner air.  Research milestones are identified in the
program's multi-year  planning documents, but there are  currently no  annual performance
measures that meet the requirements of the PART  guidance (i.e., that can demonstrate progress
toward established long-term outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change  from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$457.4)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (-$1,620.0, -1.7 FTE) This reduces computer modeling efforts related to climate change
       impacts on watersheds, sewer systems and coral reefs.

    •   (-0.1 FTE)  This  decrease reflects  a change in EPA's  workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
                                        S&T-62

-------
Statutory Authority:




USGCRA; NCPA.
                                   S&T-63

-------
                                                                         Research: NAAQS
                                                          Program Area: Research:  Clean Air
                                                  Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                  Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$63,156.4
$63,156.4
186.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$66,777.0
$66,777.0
190.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$65,455.6
$65,455.6
191.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,321.4)
($1,321.4)
1.0
In FY 2006, Program/Project Research: Particulate Matter (B4) and Program/Project Research: Tropospheric Ozone (B9) were
eliminated and Program/Project H6 (Research: NAAQS) established.

Program Project Description:

This research provides the scientific foundation for implementation and review of the National
Ambient  Air Quality  Standards  (NAAQS)  for  particulate  matter (PM),  tropospheric  ozone,
carbon  monoxide, sulfur  dioxide, nitrogen oxides,  and  lead.11  Research focuses on  PM in
          1 0
particular,  but also considers  ozone (63) and other important co-pollutants.

The NAAQS research program  develops and  transfers to clients new  data in atmospheric,
exposure, biological, engineering, and environmental sciences.  This research informs the setting
of standards to protect air quality by  providing insights into human susceptibility to air pollution
and into specific  sources and  attributes of PM associated with a growing number of potential
health outcomes.   The program develops, among other things, products  that can help  inform
environmental decision-making, such as tools to predict, measure, and model concentrations and
emissions of air  pollutants, which  are  directly used  by states to develop  and successfully
implement the most cost-effective  control strategies to  comply with existing  NAAQS.  The
program includes research that addresses scientific uncertainties and  refines knowledge of the
health risks associated with sources of PM exposure.

Air Quality Criteria  Documents (AQCDs), which are prepared under the Human Health  Risk
Assessment Program, incorporate the improved  scientific understanding gained by the NAAQS
research program as part of the standard-setting process.

The research on PM conducted through the NAAQS research program is  guided by a series of
National Academy of Sciences reports that identify research priorities for airborne particulate
matter.13   (R&D  Investment  Criteria: Relevance,  Quality)   The  program  incorporates the
National Academy's recommendations into its multi-year plan, which  outlines  steps for meeting
1' For more information about NAAQS, visit: 
12 For more information about EPA's PM research, visit: 
13 National Research Council, Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter: IV. Continuing Research Progress
(Washington: National Academies Press, 2004). Available at: 
                                          S&T-64

-------
the needs of the program clients and the annual performance goals and measures for evaluating
         14
progress.   (R&D Investment Criteria: Relevance, Performance)

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC),  a body of  scientists  and engineers who  are
recognized non-government  experts from  academia and industry,  evaluates  the Agency's
research programs,  national laboratories, centers, and offices, and management practices, and
provides peer  review, including evaluation of the program's peer review policies and research
plans and product.  The BOSC evaluated the NAAQS research program in 2005 and reports that
"the PM & 63 Program directly addresses NRC  (and OMB)  concerns in terms of the Agency's
long-term  goals, the plans to meet these goals, and the ways to measure progress toward these
goals. The ...  PM  & Os  Research  Program has resulted in  significant reductions in scientific
uncertainty in  critical areas... [T]he outputs produced by research to support these reductions in
uncertainty have provided  a  sound  basis  for  subsequent improvements  in  public  health
(outcomes)."15 (R&D Investment Criteria: Relevance, Quality, Performance)

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
The  Agency's  NAAQS  research,  which  is
organized  according  to  a  source-to-health-
outcome paradigm, is strongly tied to the high-
priority PM research topics  identified by  the
National  Academy.  EPA's NAAQS  research
focuses on the following key areas:

    •  Identifying  profile  constituents  and
       downstream  products  (e.g.,   sulfates,
       nitrates, organic  and elemental carbon,
       and metals) that link to health effects;
    •  Determining the hazardous components
       and associated biological  mechanisms
       as linked to PM size;
    •  Differentiating the health effects of PM
       from those of other air pollutants;
    •  Understanding      the     quantitative
       relationship  between   exposure   to
       different particles  and  various  health
       effects;
    •  Understanding        attributes        of
       susceptibility, e.g., exposure, dose, and
       biological  differences, that factor into
       response;
The NAAQS research program was reviewed
as a rePART in 2005, as it received a "results
not demonstrated" rating in its initial PART in
2003. The NAAQS research program received
an "Adequate" rating on  the  2005  PART
assessment.  The purpose  of  the NAAQS
research program is to  support  the  EPA's
mandated responsibilities under the Clean Air
Act to review and  set national  air quality
standards.      This   includes   performing
investigations and research concerning specific
problems  of air pollution and  to  provide to
regions,  States, and  Tribes  (as well  as
appropriate air pollution control agencies) the
information  they need to develop appropriate
and effective air pollution control strategies.
OMB  has accepted  the program's proposed
measures  in the 2005  PART.    OMB  is
recommending  the   following  actions  to
improve the performance of the program: (1)
improve  multi-year  plans, financial   data
tracking, and other systems to better integrate
grantee  and  program  performance   with
financial  information;   (2)  develop   and
implement   adequate,   easily   understood
methods  for   calculating  progress   on
performance  measures;  and  (3) develop
efficiency  measures that  assess program
14 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Draft Particulate Matter Research Program Multi-Year Plan (Washington: EPA,
2003).
15 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors, P articulate Matter and Ozone Research Program
(Washington: EPA, 2005). Available at: 
                                           S&T-65

-------
   •   Improving methods to measure and estimate source emissions, including understanding
       chemical composition;
   •   Developing air quality models and associated atmospheric chemistry and meteorology
       inputs,  e.g.,   Community  Multiscale  Air  Quality   (CMAQ),  to  predict  NAAQS
       concentrations;
   •   Developing and field testing ambient monitoring methods, including Federal Reference
       Methods; and
   •   Evaluating  the performance  of technologies  that can be  used to control  multiple
       pollutants from the same source category.

The most recently awarded PM research centers, which will begin work in FY 2006, will support
research in  the  first  six areas  identified  above.   A long-term epidemiological study of the
relationship  of PM exposure to cardiovascular disease will be supported as well as health effects,
exposure,  and atmospheric science research related to important PM sources and components.
Research will also be  initiated to support emerging needs such as developing new approaches to
evaluate the effectiveness of Agency  regulatory  actions and  interventions, e.g., diesel  bus
retrofits.

EPA  is  transit!oning its air  research  to  begin  to  incorporate  the  National  Academy's
recommended Multiple Air Pollutant Program (MAPP)  approach.  The Agency will  carefully
integrate its  air research programs to provide science that  optimizes the cost-effectiveness  and
health-effectiveness of future air quality management strategies.  In FY 2006, the Research:
Particulate Matter and Research: Tropospheric Ozone Programs merged to form the Research:
NAAQS Program.  In  FY 2007, efforts will be made to improve integration between the NAAQS
and air toxics research programs.  A more  integrated program will support select aspects of
research formerly conducted in separate programs. This approach aligns with emerging Agency
needs and a  multi-pollutant research focus to improve the Agency's efficiency and effectiveness
in reducing risks.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type

Output

Measure
Percentage of NAAQS
program publications
rated as highly cited
papers
FY 2005
Actual



FY 2005
Target



FY 2006
Target



FY 2007
Target

35.7

Units

Percent

Measure
Type


Output


Measure
Percent progress
toward completion of a
hierarchy of air
pollutant sources based
on the risk they pose to
human health.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target





FY 2007
Target


30


Units


Percent


                                        S&T-66

-------
Measure
Type




Output




Measure
Percent planned
actions accomplished
toward the long-term
goal of reducing
uncertainty in the
science that support
standard setting and air
quality management
decisions.
FY 2005
Actual









FY 2005
Target









FY 2006
Target









FY 2007
Target




100




Units




Percent




FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$918.0 \ +1 FTE) This reduction impacts PM monitoring methods and emission source
       testing. This reduction will also impact tropospheric ozone research.

   •   (-$403.4)  This  decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

Statutory Authority:

CAA.
                                       S&T-67

-------
Program Area: Research: Clean Water
               S&T-68

-------
                                                                  Research:  Drinking Water
                                                        Program Area: Research: Clean Water
                                                                   Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                   Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$46,824.0
$46,824.0
199.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$45,170.0
$45,170.0
209.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$49,242.5
$49,242.5
208.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$4,072.5
$4,072.5
-1.0
Program Project Description:

The goal of the program's Drinking Water research is to develop leading-edge research products
that the Water program and other clients use in implementing the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) Amendments16.  In pursuit of this goal, the research program directly supports several
key elements of EPA's "Strategic Plan for Clean  and Safe Water,17" including developing or
revising standards for contaminants of concern,  effectively implementing these standards, and
protecting drinking water sources.

To meet the requirements  of SDWA,  EPA conducts an integrated, multi-disciplinary research
program that is closely linked to the agency's regulatory activities and timelines. Research in the
Drinking Water research program: provides new scientific data  and analytical  methods for
identifying and evaluating the health effects of  waterborne  pathogens (e.g., Cryptosporidium,
Norwalk virus) and chemicals (e.g., arsenic, disinfection byproducts) that may contaminate
drinking water (assessments and  methods  for estimating risk to waterborne pathogens  and
chemicals  are  conducted under the Human Health Risk Assessment Program-project);  and
develops improved technologies for cost-effective control of these risks.

Research   is    guided   by   several   research   strategy   documents   (e.g.,    Microbial
Pathogens/Disinfection Byproducts (M/DBPs) in Drinking Water18 and  Arsenic in Drinking
Water19) that were developed with participation from major clients  and that outline the research
needs and priorities.  The  Agency  also maintains  a Drinking Water Research Program Multi-
Year Plan20 (MYP) that outlines steps for meeting these needs and annual performance goals and
measures for evaluating progress.  These plans were subjected to  rigorous  peer review and
16 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-182. Available through the internet:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/sdwa.html
17 U.S. EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer.  "2003 - 2008 EPA Strategic Plan: Direction for the Future. " Date of Access:
January 14,2004. Available through the internet: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf
18 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Research Plan for Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-Products in
Drinking Water. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. EPA 600-R-97-122. (1997).
19 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Research Plan for Arsenic in Drinking Water. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office. EPA 600-R-98-042. (1998).
20 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Drinking Water Research Program Multi-Year Plan, Washington, D.C.
Available through the internet: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm
                                           S&T-69

-------
address those problems deemed  most pressing in the area of drinking water quality  (R&D
Criteria: Quality, Relevance, Performance).

The Board of Scientific Counselors  (BOSC), a distinguished body of scientists and engineers
who  are  recognized  non-government  experts from academia  and  industry, evaluates the
Agency's research  programs,  national  laboratories,  centers, and offices,  and management
practices, and provides peer review,  including evaluation of the Agency's peer review policies
and research plans and products.  In 2005, the Drinking  Water research program underwent a
program-wide review by the BOSC, who concluded that the program is "quite relevant and is
focused on  high quality research of national  importance" and that  the program's "research
outputs are  leading to important outcomes with respect to EPA's Water program and other
clients" (R&D Criteria: Quality, Relevance, Performance).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the Drinking Water research program will focus on the science needed to implement
SDWA's  requirements for the Contaminant Candidate  List  (CCL),  safety of drinking water
quality in distribution systems, and the protection of drinking water sources, while continuing to
support the SDWA-mandated 6-year review of regulated contaminants.
Key products planned include:

•   Report on  the feasibility  of surveillance  methods
    associated illness;
•   Syntheses   of  Arsenic   Treatment   Technology
    Demonstration Program results;
•   A DNA microarray test for pathogen virulence and
    infectivity   to   aid   discovery    of  previously
    unidentified microbes for classification and potential
    listing on future CCLs;
•   Reports  on   the  characterization  and  real-time
    monitoring of water quality in distribution systems;
•   A  Treatability Database - a web-enabled, secure
    database  of treatability information for chemicals
    and pathogens providing information to the Agency
    for prioritization of contaminants and for Homeland
    Security efforts;
•   Large  and  small  system  treatment  technology
    evaluations of CCL pathogens and chemicals;
•   Results  from  acute toxicity, carcinogenicity,  and
    population-based   health  effects   studies  on  the
    cyanobacterial toxins; and
•   Report on  public health benefits associated  with
    improvements in drinking water treatment to reduce
    microbial exposures.
to measure endemic  drinking water
 Performance  Assessment:   The   drinking
 water  research   Program   received  an
 "Ineffective" rating on its first PART review
 in 2005.  The purpose of the  drinking water
 research program is to provide timely, leading-
 edge  research  products  to  support  sound
 scientific decisions by EPA's Water program.
 The   drinking  water  research  program's
 secondary  purpose  is to  provide  research
 products to state and local water authorities
 and to the drinking water research community.
 EPA and OMB came to  an agreement on
 program long-term goals and measures during
 the 2005 PART process.  OMB suggested that
 EPA take the following actions to improve the
 performance  of the  program: (1)  develop
 baselines  and  targets for  all  long-term and
 annual performance  measures; (2) develop a
 performance measure to track how efficiently
 the program delivers its services to its primary
 client,  the EPA  Water  program;  and  (3)
 improve oversight on non-grant partners and
 requiring non-grant partners to work towards
 the annual and long-term goals of the program.
                                          S&T-70

-------
A new investment in FY 2007 will support research and development of innovative approaches
and technologies aimed at the growing gap in the nation's water infrastructure requirements.
Deteriorated potable water infrastructure makes it difficult to meet Safe Drinking Water Act
requirements, and increases  the potential for waterborne disease outbreaks.  The reliable and
efficient  functioning of America's  potable water infrastructure provides massive benefits to
public health, the environment, industry, homeland security, and the  economy.  The purpose of
this initiative will be to conduct research to generate the science and engineering to evaluate
promising innovative technologies and techniques to reduce the cost  of operation, maintenance,
and replacement of aging and failing potable water conveyance systems  and move toward
sustainable water infrastructure. Planned activities to be conducted in FY 2007 include:

•  Research and evaluation of innovative approaches to detect, locate, characterize, and  repair
   leakage in distribution systems;

•  Research and evaluation of innovative approaches to inspect and assess the condition of high
   risk water mains; and

•  Selected full-scale demonstration of the most promising technologies and techniques.

By conducting research in support of SDWA  this research program will assist the Agency in
pursuing its objective of providing, by 2008,  drinking water that meets all applicable health-
based drinking water standards to 95% of the population served by community water systems.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type

Output

Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of Six Year
Review decisions.
FY 2005
Actual



FY 2005
Target



FY 2006
Target



FY 2007
Target

100

Units

Percent

Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of
Contaminant Candidate
List Decisions.
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target
100
Units
Percent
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$2,047.4)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (+$2,000.0)  This increase will support innovative approaches and technologies aimed at
       the growing gap in the  nation's water infrastructure requirements.  This research will
       generate the science and engineering to evaluate promising innovative technologies and
                                        S&T-71

-------
       techniques to reduce the cost of operation, maintenance,  and replacement of aging and
       failing potable water  conveyance  systems.   This  reflects part of the total  Water
       Infrastructure initiative funding of $7M.   The  remaining $5M  resides in the Water
       Quality research program.

   •   (+$993.7) This increase will support key research products for the EPA's Water program
       including: a report on the public health benefits associated with drinking water treatment
       changes to reduce microbial exposures; reports on the  characterization and real-time
       monitoring of water quality in distribution systems, as well as other products to support
       implementation of the source water protection provisions in SDWA.

   •   (-$968.6)  This is a reduction to lower priority research to fund higher priorities within
       the Drinking Water Research Program.

   •   (-1 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

SDWA; CWA; MPRSA.
                                         S&T-72

-------
                                                                  Research: Water Quality
                                                       Program Area: Research: Clean Water
                                                                  Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                  Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$46,243.2
$46,243.2
229.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$51,269.0
$51,269.0
247.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$56,988.2
$56,988.2
245.4
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$5,719.2
$5,719.2
-1.9
Program Project Description:

Although the quality of the Nation's waters has shown improvement, threats to water quality
remain and new threats continue to be identified. The adoption and implementation of watershed
management  approaches  by  states and tribes  require  strong  standards,  monitoring, Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) determinations, and implementation programs, including best-
management practices, restoration, and TMDL watershed plans. Water quality research provides
the  sound  science needed to  implement effective watershed  management  approaches  by
developing methods to: apply criteria that support designated uses of water bodies; monitor and
assess water body  conditions;  diagnose causes and sources of water body impairments; protect
and restore water bodies; and forecast the effectiveness of protection/restoration alternatives.

Research is  guided by the several research strategy  documents (e.g.,  Landscape ecology,21
Aquatic  stressors22) which were developed with participation from major clients.  The strategies
outline the research needs and priorities. The Agency also maintains a Water Quality Research
Program  multi-year  plan23  (MYP)  that outlines steps for  meeting these  needs  and annual
performance  goals  and  measures  for  evaluating progress.    (R&D  Criteria:   Relevance,
Performance)

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), evaluates the Agency's research programs,  national
laboratories, centers, and offices, and management practices, and provides peer review, including
evaluation of the  Agency's  peer review policies and research plans and products.   The Water
Quality research program will undergo review by the BOSC in January 2006.
  U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, A National Assessment of Landscape Change and Impacts to Aquatic
Resources: A 10-year Research Strategy for the Landscape Sciences Program', EPA/600/R-00/001, Washington, D.C. 20460,
January 2000. Available on the internet at: http://www.epa.gov/nerlesdl/land-sci/pdf/1571ebOO.pdf
22 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Aquatic Stressors: A Framework and Implementation Plan for Effects
Research, 2002. EPA 600/R-02-074.
23 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Water Qualify Research Program Multi-Year Plan, Washington, D.C.
Available on the internet at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm
                                          S&T-73

-------
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
T  rv onm m\        i     j-     ฑ-     ^  j    MI     ฑ-      Performance Assessment: The
In FY 2007, EPA research on diagnostic methods will continue   Water Quality research program
                                                               has been proposed for a PART
                                                               review in  FY  2006.    The
                                                               program has begun developing
integrated  305(b)/ 303(d) process  for assessing, listing,  and   outcome-based    performance
   & .        v '   ..   '   ,. .      •  ,   ,-       ,   -,?  •      measures    in   order   to
reporting  water quality conditions,  including  a classification
to focus  on  the  causes  and  sources  of  aquatic  ecosystem
impairment. Specifically, this research will provide the scientific
foundation  and   information   management  scheme  for  an
framework for surface waters, watersheds,  and  regions to  guide problem  formulation.   In
addition, the program will develop field-oriented approaches to establish biocriteria for a range
of designated uses, including determination of ecological needs for water availability and quality
("fishability," "ecological integrity") and potential for preserving or restoring waterbody uses.

As EPA directs and informs the efforts of the states to adopt nutrient criteria for individual
waterbodies,  research  is required to identify nutrient responses based on geographic region,
waterbody type, and designated use.  Research on responses of coastal receiving waters will  be
emphasized in  2007,  generating and refining models that address the  ecological responses  to
nutrient loads for a range of estuary types.

Studies will  be conducted on the transport  and control  of contaminants  from land-based
practices, including agricultural operations and land-use conversions, that reach the environment
through surface runoff or leaching to ground water, and the effectiveness of best-management
practices in mitigating  such transfers.

Research on wetlands will develop a hierarchical assessment approach to address the objectives
of the President's initiative to preserve and restore wetlands, and to augment the current no-net-
loss policy by incorporating wetlands functions and impacts on water quality.  Comparison  of
natural  and constructed  wetlands to determine how seasonal changes in hydrologic  regime,
stressor load,  and upland  land use affect the  functioning of these systems will inform the
protection and restoration of wetlands.

To provide more efficient monitoring and diagnostic tools, research will continue to  develop
methods of using  landscape assessments for monitoring and assessing watershed conditions.
Models to determine  likelihood  of impairment will be integrated with  monitoring to assess
condition to  develop  optimal  monitoring strategies that  support  integrated  assessment and
reporting (305(b)/303(d)). Research on the integration of economic data and ecosystem  services
will lead to better understanding of both the costs and benefits of alternative ways to  achieve
water quality.

To minimize the public health risks from  swimming  and  other  recreational water  activities,
research will specifically focus on both developing techniques  to reduce wet weather flow
(WWF) impacts and providing data to support the development of scientifically sound criteria
for protecting  recreational waters.  Guided by  the  "EPA Action  Plan for Beaches and
                                         S&T-74

-------
Recreational Waters"24  and  the Beaches  Act  of 2000,  EPA is performing  a  suite  of
epidemiological studies  to establish  a  strong, defensible link between rapid water  quality
indicators and  swimming-associated health effects.  Research will address the need to  predict
water quality indicators and health risks associated with short-term (meteorological) and  longer-
term (storm-water infrastructure and land-use management)  determinants of recreational and
coastal  water  quality, and the effectiveness  of  mitigation  measures,  with  an  emphasis  on
concurrent mitigation of multiple stressors.

A new investment in FY 2007 will support research and development of innovative approaches
and technologies aimed  at the growing  gap in the  nation's water infrastructure requirements.
Deteriorated wastewater infrastructure makes it difficult to meet Clean Water Act requirements,
and increases the potential for waterborne disease outbreaks, fish kills, loss of biodiversity and
habitat, sewer  backups  and overflows.  The  reliable and efficient  functioning of America's
wastewater infrastructure provides massive benefits  to public health,  the environment, industry,
and the economy.   The purpose of this initiative  is  to generate the science and engineering to
evaluate promising  innovative technologies and  techniques  to  reduce  the  cost  of operation,
maintenance, and replacement of aging and failing  wastewater conveyance  systems and move
toward sustainable water infrastructure. Additional work on this initiative is supported under the
Research: Drinking Water program.

Planned activities to be conducted in FY 2007 include:

   •   Research and evaluation of inspection, condition  assessment,  and  cost estimating tools
       for existing collection systems;

   •   Investigation of advanced design  concepts  for wastewater collection systems that reduce
       construction costs and increase carrying capacity and storage capabilities;

   •   Research and evaluation of performance and  cost of innovative repair, rehabilitation, and
       replacement technologies and procedures for wastewater collection systems; and

   •   Evaluation of novel  techniques  to improve performance and  extend service  life of
       existing wastewater systems by  addressing  problems  associated with factors such as:
       sediments; fats, oils, and grease; pH; corrosion, etc.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports cleaner and safer water. Research milestones are identified in
the program's multi-year planning  documents, but there  are  currently no annual  performance
measures that meet the requirements of the PART guidance (i.e., that can demonstrate progress
toward established long-term outcome goals).
24 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water. EPA Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational
Waters.Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. EPA 600-R-98-079. (1999). Available through the internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/ordAVebPubs/beaches/600r98079.pdf S&T - 68
                                         S&T-75

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$5,000.0)   This  increase will  support the research and development of innovative
       approaches and technologies aimed  at the  growing gap  in  the nation's wastewater
       infrastructure requirements.  This will generate the science and engineering to evaluate
       promising innovative  technologies and  techniques  to  reduce the  cost of operation,
       maintenance, and replacement of aging and failing wastewater conveyance systems and
       move towards sustainable water infrastructure.   This reflects part  of the  total Water
       Infrastructure initiative funding of $7M.  The remaining $2M resides in the Drinking
       Water research program.

    •   (+$2,788.5 / +0.2 FTE) These resources will focus on the effects of multiple stressors on
       wildlife populations in spatially diverse landscapes and research on  the associations
       between  land  characteristics  and  water quality  conditions used   to  target  more
       comprehensive monitoring of the causes of water quality degradation.   This work will
       also address concerns regarding the risk posed by the  levels of pathogens, hormones, and
       chemical  toxics in  livestock  manure  released  from concentrated  animal  feeding
       operations (CAFOs).

    •   (+$228.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living increases for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$2,297.9) This is a reduction to lower priority research to fund higher priorities within
       the Water Quality Research Program.

    •   (-2.1 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

CWA; ODBA;  SPA;  CVA;  WRDA;  WWWQA;  MPPRCA; NISA;  CZARA; CWPPRA;
NAWCA; FIFRA; TSCA; ESA.
                                        S&T-76

-------
Program Area: Research: Human Health and
              Ecosystems
                 S&T-77

-------
                                                        Human Health Risk Assessment
                                   Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                               Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$33,247.5
$3,848.8
$37,096.3
177.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$35,637.0
$3,755.0
$39,392.0
184.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$34,488.5
$3,847.2
$38,335.7
183.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,148.5)
$92.2
($1,056.3)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

Human  health risk assessment is a process where information is analyzed to determine if an
environmental hazard might cause harm to exposed persons (National Research Council,  1983).
Risk assessment is extensively used by EPA programs, regions, and other parties to determine
the threshold levels of environmental contaminants  that are unlikely  to  pose a  human  health
hazard, to develop regulatory standards, and to manage environmental cleanups.

Three complementary areas comprise the risk assessment program:

    Integrated  Risk Information System  (IRIS)  and other health hazard assessments: Peer
    reviewed,  qualitative,  and  quantitative  health hazard  assessments are  prepared  on
    environmental  pollutants  of major relevance   to EPA's  regulatory  mandates.    These
    assessments are used by  EPA's  program and regional offices to support their decision-
    making,  and also disseminated to the  public, principally on the IRIS  internet database.25
    IRIS is widely used throughout EPA and the risk assessment/risk management  community as
    the premier source  of hazard and dose-response information for environmental  pollutants.
    As of FY 2005, there are over 500 health hazard assessments available through IRIS.  (R&D
    Criteria:  Quality, Relevance)

    Risk assessment guidance, methods and model  development:   Improved risk assessment
    guidance, methods, and models are developed to enhance the quality and  objectivity of
    assessments through  the  incorporation of contemporary  scientific  advances  for use in
    decision-making by EPA programs and regional offices.  These scientific products are
    externally peer reviewed and disseminated through the published literature, EPA web-sites,
    and incorporation in IRIS assessments.  (R&D Criteria: Quality, Relevance)

    Air Quality Criteria Documents (AQCDs): Congress requires that EPA regularly summarize
    the state-of-the-science on the criteria air pollutants - ozone, paniculate matter,  sulfur and
    nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide,  and lead - to assist EPA's air and radiation programs in
 ' Available at: 
                                        S&T-78

-------
   determining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  These  summaries,
   AQCDs, are major risk assessments that undergo rigorous external peer review by the Clean
   Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). (R&D Criteria: Quality, Relevance)

This research program is guided by  the Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan26
(MYP), which provides detail on the assessment and methods development products planned
under  this program/project.   The MYP  also  outlines the  research  needs  and priorities.
Performance  outputs and  outcomes are documented in the  MYP through annual performance
goals and annual performance measures structure.  The MYP also coordinates with a number of
EPA research strategies  and plans27  (e.g., Human Health Research  Plan, Asthma  Research
Strategy, Particulate Matter and Ozone MYPs) to obtain the information necessary to inform risk
assessment outputs, and hence programmatic decision-making needs.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Principal activities of relevance to the assessment of human health risks  in FY 2007 will include:

   •   Completing 16 health hazard  assessments  of high  priority  chemicals  for  interagency
       review or external peer review, including (but not  limited to) acrylonitrile, methanol,
       methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; (R&D Criteria:
       Quality, Relevance, Performance)

   •   Delivering a final AQCD for Lead (Pb) which serves  as the basis for the EPA Air Quality
       Program paper for the NAAQS; (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance) and,

   •   Delivering  external review draft AQCDs for Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides for
       CASAC peer review. (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance)

Risk assessment methods development in 2007 will:

   •   Deliver an  external review draft report on central estimates  and uncertainty bounds in
       dose-response  analysis -  current techniques, alternatives,  and  decision  parameters for
       application to risk assessment, thereby advancing risk-based decision-making through the
       incorporation  of  data-informed uncertainty  parameters;  (R&D  Criteria:  Relevance,
       Performance)

   •   Provide approaches to harmonization of uncertainty factors  for cancer and non-cancer
       risk assessment; (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance) and,

   •   Provide guidance  on how to  interpret human  bladder tumor  results and  immuno-
       suppression information in the context of human health risk assessment of environmental
       pollutants. (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance)
26 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan (2005).
27 Available at: 


                                        S&T-79

-------
In FY  2007,  the Agency is proposing  to  enhance the risk assessment process  through
incorporating  additional  peer review  and consultation for high  impact and  scientifically
controversial risk assessments.  In particular,  very difficult and complex assessments may be
provided to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for consultation or review.  Expansion of
peer review to the NAS will directly improve the quality, objectivity, and utility of information
disseminated by EPA. (R&D Criteria: Quality, Relevance)

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports community and ecosystem protection. Research milestones
are identified in the program's multi-year planning documents, but there are currently no annual
performance measures that meet the  requirements  of  the  PART guidance (i.e.,  that can
demonstrate progress toward established long-term outcome goals).

 FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$500.0) This increase to the human  health risk assessment program will support the
       development and use of high-impact EPA health hazard assessments by providing peer
       review  and consultation by the NAS, and by increasing opportunities for review by other
       federal  agencies  and the public.  Chemicals likely to be sent to the NAS  for review
       include   very  difficult   and  complex   assessments   such  as  formaldehyde  and
       trichl oroethy 1 ene.

   •   (-$736.5) The NCS is  being realigned to the Human Health  research program to better
       reflect the nature of the research which focuses on health effects to infants and children.
       There will be no change in purpose.

   •   (-$676.3) Reduces funding to Agency-wide risk assessment guidance and involvement in
       interpreting risks associated with children's risk assessment and with biotechnology.

   •   (-$235.7) This decrease  is the net effect of increases  for payroll and cost  of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

   •   (-1.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

CAA; SOW A;  CWA; TSCA; FIFRA; CERCLA; SARA; FQPA.
                                        S&T-80

-------
                                                   Research:  Computational Toxicology
                                   Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                               Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$12,002.9
$12,002.9
19.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$12,327.0
$12,327.0
36.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$14,983.1
$14,983.1
34.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,656.1
$2,656.1
-2.5
Program Project Description:

EPA's Computational Toxicology Research Program (CTRP) has three objectives:  1) improving
the linkages in the source-outcome paradigm; 2) providing tools for screening and  prioritization
of chemicals under regulatory  review; and  3)  enhancing quantitative risk assessment.   The
National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT) was specifically created to play a critical
coordination and implementation role in these activities across the agency.

A peer reviewed Framework for a  Computational Toxicology Research  Program28 has been
developed.  The framework identifies the research  needs  and  unique capabilities  of EPA and
provides the basis for a more focused and integrated research program  in the future.

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a  distinguished body of scientists and engineers
who  are recognized  non-government  experts  from  academia  and industry, evaluates the
Agency's  research programs, national  laboratories,  centers, and offices, and  management
practices, and provides peer review,  including evaluation of the program's peer review policies
and research plans and products.  A standing subcommittee of the BOSC has been established to
provide guidance to the newly formed NCCT. In April 2005, this subcommittee met to review
the proposed  directions for the NCCT.    Their  report is available on  the BOSC website
(http://epa.gov/osp/bosc/subcomm-ctox.htm).   The report was highly favorable  of the  early
efforts of the NCCT, and encouraged its further development.  A formal response was prepared
and submitted to EPA and the BOSC.  The NCCT is currently drafting an implementation plan
for its research program, which will be submitted to the BOSC for review and comment in 2006.
(R&D Criteria: Quality)

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Research programs funded for a three-year period through a competitive process in FY 2004 will
be completed, and allow for expansion  of the NCCT and CTRP in four key focal areas in FY
2007:  1) Information technology; 2) chemical prioritization and categorization tools; 3) systems
biology models; and 4) cumulative risk assessment. (R&D Criteria: Relevance)
28 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. A Framework for a Computational Toxicology Research Program.
Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed August 4, 2005. Available on the Internet:
http://www.epa. go v/comptox/publications/comptoxframework06_02_04.pdf
                                        S&T-81

-------
Information Technology:  New technologies are needed to mine existing data for patterns to
place new chemicals of unknown hazards  appropriately in the context of existing data.   In
addition,  new  technologies will allow  the integration of data from different  domains  of
toxicology and newer "omics" experiments to look beyond traditional means for classifying
chemicals. (R&D Criteria: Relevance) As a result, more chemically annotated, publicly available
datasets will be posted on the internet through the Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity
Database project (DSSTox). (R&D Criteria: Performance)

Chemical  Prioritization  and  Categorization Tools:  Having the capability to predict which
chemicals are in  greatest need of toxicology testing, and what endpoints would be the most
important to examine, is a pressing problem for multiple regulatory offices in EPA.  Knowledge
of key  steps in the potential mechanisms  of  action of a  chemical  provides a template  for
developing models for these predictions. Moreover, the ToxCast program which was initiated in
FY 2006  will  be obtaining high throughput screening data on 200-400 chemicals of know
toxicological profiles.  Fingerprints of biological activity associated with differing toxicological
profiles will be developed from this database, which is being developing in conjunction with the
NIH Molecular Libraries Initiative (R&D Criteria: Relevance).  Examples of outputs in this area
include:

   •   Constructing in silico models for identifying chemicals that can interact with  steroid
       hormone (e.g., estrogen and androgen) receptors; (R&D Criteria: Performance)

   •   Providing alternative assays for the  Endocrine Disrupter Screening  Program that will
       reduce the numbers of animals required for screening; (R&D Criteria: Performance) and

   •   Integrating information from a variety of data sources that can provide indications of the
       similarity  of  chemicals  to   interact with biological  systems  being   developed  and
       implemented to support the needs of the Program Offices. (R&D Criteria: Performance)

Systems Biology Models:  Modeling now plays a crucial role in practically all areas of biological
research.  Systems models integrate information at all levels of organization and aid in bridging
the source-to-outcome paradigm and in conducting quantitative risk assessments (R&D Criteria:
Relevance). In FY 2007 the CTRP will:

   •   Provide standards for developing, documenting, archiving,  and accessing  quantitative
       mathematical models that will  foster both the development and linkages  of these models,
       and their regulatory acceptance; (R&D Criteria: Performance)

   •   Utilize systems modeling  approaches for the latest biological,  chemical, and exposure
       data for quantitative risk assessment; (R&D Criteria: Performance) and

   •   Developing  guidance  on  best practices  for the construction, analysis and reporting of
       toxicological models that link pharmacokinetic information with the dynamic responses
       of target organs.
                                         S&T-82

-------
Cumulative Risk Assessment:  Computational tools offer the potential to reducing uncertainties
in cumulative risk by focusing on aspects of data compilation, integration, and analysis (R&D
Criteria: Relevance).

The  CTRP will explore mathematical approaches  to  the analysis of the effects of dietary
exposure throughout the day to pesticides that act via  the same mechanism (e.g., the methyl
carbamates and pyrethroids). (R&D Criteria: Performance) Research will also build conceptual
frameworks that consider how biomonitoring data can be used to characterize cumulative risk
and how psychosocial factors can be incorporated into cumulative risk assessments using tools of
the new field of visual analytics.    These new tools offer the promise  of integrating different
types of data representing physical, chemical, and psycho-social aspects and that are proposed to
be collected in the National Children's Study. (R&D Criteria: Performance)  The CTRP will also
be working with the Center for Environmental Bioinformatics, established through the Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) program, to enhance predictive  linkages between the components of the
source-outcome paradigm.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports community and ecosystem protection.  Research milestones
are identified in the program's multi-year planning documents, but there  are currently  no annual
performance measures  that meet the  requirements of the  PART  guidance (i.e.,  that can
demonstrate progress toward established long-term outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$2,178.2) This increase will support research to implement a biologically-based system
       to reduce the uncertainty in the prioritization and  categorization of chemicals for classical
       toxicological  testing, add a  number of new toxicological databases to the distributed
       structure-searchable toxicity (DSSTox) system,  and develop computational models  of
       biological processes relevant to the induction of  toxicity for high priority environmental
       contaminants.  As a result of this increase, the  Agency will be less reliant on default
       assumptions for risk assessments and able to  accurately characterize the true uncertainty
       associated with risk predictions for various chemical classes (e.g.,  EDCs, HPVs).

   •   (+$477.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (-2.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; SDWA.
                                        S&T-83

-------
                                                          Research: Endocrine Disruptor
                                     Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
                                                 Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                 Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                           Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                 Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$12,559.5
$12,559.5
58.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$10,494.0
$10,494.0
54.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,081.2
$9,081.2
54.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,412.8)
($1,412.8)
0.0
Program Project Description:

Research in direct support of EPA's screening and testing programs (mandated under the Food
Quality Protection  Act  (FQPA) of 1996 and the Safe Drinking  Water  Act Amendments29
(SDWAA) of 1996) will  evaluate current testing protocols and develop new protocols to evaluate
potential endocrine effects of environmental  agents.  Research will assist decision  makers in
working toward  reducing and preventing exposure  of humans  and ecosystems to  endocrine
disrupters that pose an unreasonable risk.

Research is guided by the Research Plan for Endocrine Disrupters, which was developed with
participation from major clients and outlines research needs and priorities.30  The Agency also
maintains a multi-year plan (MYP)31 for Endocrine Disrupters that outlines  steps for meeting
these needs, as well as annual performance goals and measures for evaluating progress.  (R&D
Criteria: Quality, Performance)

The Board of Scientific  Counselors (BOSC), a distinguished body of scientists and engineers
who  are  recognized non-government experts from  academia  and  industry, evaluates  the
Agency's research programs,  national  laboratories,  centers, and offices,  and management
practices, and provides peer review, including  evaluation of the program's peer review policies
and research  plans  and  products.  In December  2004,  the  Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
(EDCs) research program underwent a program-wide review by a subcommittee of the BOSC,
who commended the  progress and direction of the research and provided recommendations for
further partnerships.32
29 SDWA Section 1457
30 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Research Plan for Endocrine Disrupters (Washington, DC. 1998). .
Available at: 
31 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Multi-Year Plan for Endocrine Disruptors (Washington, DC. 2003).
Available at: 
32 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, EDC Research Program Review, (Washington, DC, 2004).
Available at: 
                                         S&T-84

-------
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to develop and evaluate
innovative  DNA microarray and other state-of-the-art
analytical  methods   for  EDCs.     EPA's   endocrine
disrupters research program has  developed  and refined
assays,   and  improved  other   screening  tools  using
genomics and high-speed computing capabilities so that
the Agency has the necessary protocols to validate for use
in the Endocrine Disrupters Screening Program.  Using
genomics and   related approaches   in  the  continued
development  of  improved molecular  and  computational
tools  that  can  be  used to  prioritize  chemicals  for
screening and testing  is within the "Understanding  Complex Biological  Systems" category
highlighted as a priority for Federal investment by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)33. Other important areas of research to be
conducted in FY 2007 include:
Performance Assessment: In FY 2003,
the EDC research program received an
overall  rating   of  "adequate"  from
OMB's  PART review.  Supporting the
Office  of Prevention,  Pesticides and
Toxic    Substances   by   providing
screening and testing tools for EDCs is
one   of   several    outcome-based
performance  measures  developed and
accepted by OMB.
   •   Applying computational and molecular approaches to develop models that  predict a
       chemical's ability to cause endocrine disruption;

   •   Compiling a report on the development of high throughput screens for EDCs;

   •   Continuing to study the ability of conventional wastewater treatment and drinking water
       treatment processes to remove EDCs;

   •   Increasing emphasis on studying concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as
       possible sources of EDCs to the environment;

   •   Developing tools for examining environmental and human exposures to EDCs through a
       variety of pilot programs; and,

   •   Determining the degree to which effects of EDCs with defined mechanisms of action can
       be extrapolated across classes of vertebrates leading to reduced animal testing.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Improved protocols for
screening and testing
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target
6
Units
Reports
33 FY 2007 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities memo by J.Marburger and J. Bolten; July
8, 2005.
                                        S&T-85

-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Effects and exposure
milestones met
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target
4
Units
Reports
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Assessment milestones
met
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target

Units
Reports
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Risk management
milestones met
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target
3
Units
Reports
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+$10.3)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •  (-$1,423.1)  This reflects a reduction of extramural support for research focusing on the
      effects of multiple EDCs, major sources of EDC exposure, and approaches for managing
      risks from EDCs.

Statutory Authority:

CAA; ERDDA; FIFRA; TSCA; FQPA; SOW A; CWA; RCRA; CERCLA; PPA.
                                     S&T-86

-------
                                                                    Research: Fellowships
                                     Program Area: Research:  Human Health and Ecosystems
                                                 Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                 Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                           Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                 Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$14,476.8
$14,476.8
2.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,691.0
$11,691.0
2.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$8,383.0
$8,383.0
2.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($3,308.0)
($3,308.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

To ensure an educated and trained scientific workforce for the future, EPA offers five fellowship
programs that encourage promising students to obtain advanced degrees and pursue careers in
environmentally related fields.

   Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship Program:34 EPA provides stipends, tuition
   assistance, and research support to graduate students in environmentally-related fields for up
   to three years.  In addition to providing quality research to EPA, fellows agree to maintain
   contact with the Agency for at least five years after graduation.

   Greater Research Opportunities  (GRO)  Fellowship Program:1   EPA  provides  stipends,
   tuition  assistance,  and  research  support to  undergraduate  and  graduate  students  in
   environmentally-related fields for up to two (undergraduate) or three (graduate) years.  The
   GRO program serves higher education institutions that receive less than $35 million annually
   in Federal science and engineering funds35 to create opportunities for minorities and  less-
   privileged students.   In  addition  to providing  quality research to EPA, fellows agree to
   maintain contact with the Agency for at least five years after graduation.

   Environmental Science and Technology (EST) Fellowship Program:36  In conjunction with
   the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), EPA  hosts post-doctoral
   students for up to two years  at EPA headquarters.  Fellows work independently with support
   from Agency mentors on projects of their own design that advance the use  of science in
   decision making.
34 For more information, visit: 
35 As determined by the National Science Foundation. NSF, Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges,
and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2002 (Arlington: NSF, 2005). Available on the Internet at:

36 For more information, visit: 
                                          S&T-87

-------
   Environmental Public Health  (EPH) Fellowship Program:37   In  conjunction  with the
   Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH), EPA places graduates from public health
   programs in its research laboratories and centers for up to two years to conduct projects that
   relate to EPA's public health mission.

   EPA Marshall Scholarship Program:38 In conjunction with the British Marshall Scholarship
   program,  EPA  will  offer three  scholarships for U.S.  students to  undertake  graduate
   environmental studies.  The program  will give priority to students whose work focuses  on
   environmental problems of a  global  or  international nature.   Supported by the British
   government,  scholars will  spend  two years at a British university.  Students may then
   continue their graduate work for up to three years to obtain  a doctoral  degree, either  in the
   United Kingdom or U.S., with EPA support.

EPA  is  the  only  Federal  agency that provides  higher  education  assistance  and  career
development in the environmental sciences. (R&D Investment Criteria: Relevance) The Agency
encourages applicants  to choose research projects that align with  EPA's research priorities.
(R&D Investment Criteria: Relevance) Fellowships are awarded through a competitive, merit-
based process that incorporates external peer review  of candidates. (R&D Investment Criteria:
Quality)

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will award new STAR, GRO, EST, and EPH fellowships and support the second and third
years of fellows  initially  funded in Fiscal Years 2005  and 2006.   The first EPA  Marshall
Scholars will begin British-supported studies  in 2005  and continue with  EPA support  in
FY 2007.  Fellowship recipients will complete progress and exit reports, and the Agency will
maintain contact information and follow-up data on former fellows.  (R&D Investment Criteria:
Performance)

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports community and ecosystem protection.  Research milestones
are identified in the program's multi-year  planning documents, but there are currently no annual
performance  measures that meet  the requirements  of  the  PART guidance (i.e.,  that can
demonstrate progress toward established long-term outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$47.3)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing  FTE.

   •   (-$3,355.3)  This reduction reflects the discontinuation of directed FY 2006 funding for
       the STAR fellowships program.  This reduction will affect approximately 37 graduate
       students pursuing environmentally-related degrees.
37 For more information, visit: 
38 For more information, visit: 
                                        S&T-88

-------
Statutory Authority:




CAA; CWA; FIFRA; NCA; RCRA; SOW A; TSCA.
                                    S&T-89

-------
                                                Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
                                     Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
                                                 Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                 Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$169,805.8
$169,805.8
520.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$167,703.0
$167,703.0
509.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$161,312.7
$161,312.7
509.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($6,390.3)
($6,390.3)
-0.5
Program Project Description:

The Agency conducts human health and ecosystems research to: 1) identify and characterize
environment-related human health problems and determine exposures to and sources of agents
responsible for these health  concerns;  and 2)  understand the condition of ecosystems,  the
stressors  changing  that  condition,  the consequences of those changes, and how to prevent,
mitigate, or adapt to those changes.  The Human Health and Ecosystems Program also supports
mercury research, research on indicators to support the Agency's Report on the Environment
(ROE), advanced monitoring research, nanotechnology research, and exploratory research.

Research is guided by the Human Health Research Strategy39,  Ecological Research Strategy*0
and the Environmental  Monitoring and Assessment Program  (EMAP) Research Strategy41,
which were developed with participation from major clients (e.g., program offices and regions).
These strategies outline the programs' research needs and priorities.  Under this program project,
several multi-year plans (MYPs)42  (e.g., human health, ecological  research, mercury) convey
research priorities and approaches for achieving goals and objectives. MYPs outline the steps for
meeting client research needs, as well as annual performance goals and measures for evaluating
progress.  The Human  Health research program  and the Ecological research program both
underwent successful Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) reviews in March of 2005.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Human Health Research

In FY 2007, EPA will support research to derive a commonly accepted set of principles defining
how mode of action information can be used in chemical risk assessments, particularly as it
relates to extrapolation between animals and humans and from high to low dose. Such research
will inform the re-evaluation of acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water, as  well as the risk
  U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Human Health Research Strategy. Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed August
8,2005.  Available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/humanhealth/HHRS_fmal_web.pdf
40 For additional information, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/eco.pdf
41 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, EMAP Research Strategy (Washington: EPA). For additional information,
please go to http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/EMAP_Research_Strategv.pdf
42For additional information, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/osp/mvp
                                          S&T-90

-------
assessments of cancer and non-cancer effects
of conazole fungicides.  Additional research
efforts will be initiated to develop emerging
molecular   methods  and  approaches   and
identify   critical   toxicity   pathways   for
characterizing effects of  chemicals (such as
particulate matter and brominated disinfection
by-products) on human health.
                                               review.
                                               Performance  Assessment:  The  human  health
                                               research program received an "Adequate" rating on its
                                               first PART assessment in 2005. The PART found that
                                               the program's research results  are being used to
                                               reduce uncertainty in risk assessment, but the program
                                               needs more data and clearer long-term targets to show
                                               that it is making continued progress. EPA is taking the
                                               following actions  to:  (1)  improve the program's
                                               ability to link budget resources to performance; (2)
                                               develop ambitious long-term performance targets that
n      1       •  ^             j        A-      clearly define a  successful program  and promote
Research  on  intervention   and  prevention   Conti4ed improvement; and (3) implement follow-up
strategies will ultimately  reduce human risk   recommendations  from  a recent independent  expert
associated  with  exposures  to  single and
multiple  environmental  stressors,  including
chemical exposure in schools.   Other research related to children's  health includes efforts to
identify the key factors influencing children's exposures to environmental toxicants by lifestage,
and to produce high  quality children's exposure data to reduce current uncertainties  in  risk
assessment.   EPA will  continue  to  collaborate  with the  Children's Centers,  which are
establishing long-term birth and school age cohorts  that follow participants over many years to
consider the full range of developmental consequences of exposure to environmental chemicals.
Additionally,  the  Children's Centers are tracking  the  wide range of exposure concentration  at
multiple stages  of development to evaluate the relationships between distribution of exposure
and observed effects.

Cumulative  risk  research will  develop  approaches for  using  exposure,  biomarker,  and
pharmacokinetic data in cumulative risk assessments. (R&D Criteria: Performance) Other human
health research  will  focus on physiological and  biochemical changes  that result from aging,
which will be  used  as  a basis for understanding potential susceptibility to environmental
stressors. This research will  also  determine if older  individuals are exposed differentially to
environmental stressors. (R&D Criteria: Performance)

Public health outcomes research will report on the  results of proof-of-concept studies undertaken
with Regional offices to develop approaches to evaluate actual public health outcomes for risk
management decisions. (R&D Criteria: Performance)

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a distinguished body of scientists and engineers
who  are recognized  non-government experts from  academia and industry,  evaluates the
Agency's  research programs,  national  laboratories,  centers,  and  offices,  and  management
practices, and provides peer review,  including evaluation of the program's peer review policies
and research plans and products. In the 2005 BOSC review, the review panel  stated "the research
of the human health research  program is  of high  quality  and appropriately focused,  it  is
multidisciplinary,  yet coherent  and coordinated,  and the  research benefits  from  managerial
excellence across all aspects of the program."43
43 Report of the Subcommittee on Health, revised July 27, 2005, Board of Scientific Counselors, pg 9. For additional information
please go to: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/hh0507rpt.pdf


                                          S&T-91

-------
Ecological Research

The Ecological Research Program is comprised of three primary elements: (1) Condition
assessment  and  accountability  research  including  EMAP,  (2)  Tool  and  methodology
development (primarily for causal diagnostics and environmental forecasting), including ReVA,
and (3) Ecological Services and Restoration research, including RePLUS.

A component of the EMAP Research Strategy^ is the National Coastal Assessment (NCA) and
its  contributions to the third  National  Coastal  Conditions Report (NCCR3), which will be
released  in FY 2007.  In addition to  an  assessment of the current biological condition of the
nation's coastline, NCCR3 will include an analysis of the trends of condition of the mid-Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico coastline for the period 1993-2004.

A number of major efforts in EMAP will be completed in 2006, including the estuarine portion
of the National Coastal Assessment (NCA) and wadeable streams portion of the Western EMAP
(WEMAP).  Resources for these efforts will be refocused into other EMAP continuing research
efforts, including  condition  assessment  research in the Central Basin Integrated Assessment,
coastal wetlands, and programs to develop and refine environmental indicators (R&D Criteria:
Relevance). Other efforts include diagnostic research relating measured ecological condition and
landscape models to estimate condition in locations without direct measurements. One EMAP
research area that will be expanded is  the use of assessments in environmental decision-making
in concert with non-environmental information (e.g., socioeconomic issues, demographic issues,
etc.). Results from WEMAP, NCA, and  the National Streams Survey reporting efforts will be
used to guide the development of monitoring frameworks for other aquatic ecosystems (R&D
Criteria:  Relevance).
The  Regional  Vulnerability   Assessment
(ReVA)   program  extends   environmental
assessments  at  the  regional  scale  by using
integrative  technologies  to   predict  future
environmental   risk  in   order   to   support
decision-making.  In  FY  2007  EPA  will
continue research to evaluate the effectiveness
of restoration options for aquatic  ecosystems,
with particular  emphasis  on  options for the
Mid-Atlantic Region and the western United
States (R&D Criteria: Performance).

In an effort to prepare for the recent FY 2005
PART review  and respond to OMB's three
R&D Investment Criteria (Quality, Relevance,  and  Performance)  the  Ecological  Research
program was reviewed in FY 2005 by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). The review
panel stated "the potential  benefits of the Ecological Research Program's research to the public
are evident and clearly articulated". The panel also stated that the "results of Ecological research
program are relevant and of direct use to states and tribes in protecting and restoring ecological
Performance Assessment: The ecological research
program was reviewed as a  rePART in 2005  and
received an "ineffective" rating.  The PART found
that the  program collaborates and coordinates with
related programs, but that it lacks ambitious targets
for some of its long-term and annual performance
measures. The program is taking the following actions
to: (1)  refine  the  questions used in  independent
scientific reviews; (2)  develop a program specific
customer survey; and  (3) improve ability to  link
budget resources to annual and long-term performance
targets by requesting  and reporting human  health
research and ecosystem research funding as separate
program projects (beginning in the FY 2008 budget
request).
  For additional information please go to: http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/resstrat02.html
                                          S&T-92

-------
resources."45 During the next program review, the BOSC will re-evaluate the program using the
newly developed long-term measures developed through the PART process, which will provide a
more specific assessment of program progress.

Indicators Research to support the Report on the Environment (ROE)

In FY 2007, the Agency will continue its research in support of the triennial ROE. The ROE is
working to shift beyond EPA's historic reliance on indicators of reduction in exposure to more
direct outcome measures, while maintaining emphasis on the identification, development, and
application of existing and future indicators that extend EPA's ability to  assess environmental
condition and progress.

Nanotechnology and Exploratory Research

In FY 2007, the Agency will continue its exploratory grants program, which funds investigator-
initiated projects  that address emerging  environmental issues.   Exploratory grants will be
awarded to address the implications of manufactured nanoparticles on human health and the
environment, including toxicity, fate and transport, and  life  cycle impacts.  The Agency will
conduct new intramural nanotechnology research consistent with the findings of the President's
Council  of  Advisors  on  Science and  Technology  (PCAST)   review  of  the  National
Nanotechnology  Initiative (NNI)  at five years,46 which recommended  further study  of the
environmental  and  health  implications  of  nanotechnology.    (R&D  Investment  Criteria:
Relevance, Performance).  Additional research will  include nanoparticles' reactivity with other
elements  and their byproducts, bio-persistence, and transport and  fate.   Research  will  also
investigate nanotechnology's potential to improve environmental measurement and monitoring
and its potential to enhance control and remediation technologies.

Advanced Monitoring (AMI) Effort

In 2007, the Advanced Monitoring Initiative (AMI) will continue to  bring together information
technology advancements with advances in remote sensing and in situ monitoring. EPA and its
partners will continue to integrate socioeconomic, human health, and ecosystem  databases and
models, to monitor the health of humans and the environment over greater expanses, in less time,
and more cost-effectively than ever before, supporting decision-making processes that provide
clear  societal benefits in the near  term.  This effort is linked with the interagency U.S. Global
Earth Observations (US  GEO) initiative  and with  the  international community through  the
Global Earth Observation  System of Systems (GEOSS) program.
45 Report of the Subcommittee on Ecological Research, April 1, 2005 - revised August 19, 2005, Board of Scientific Counselors,
pg 7. For additional information please go to: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/eco0508rpt.pdf
46 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology, The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (OSTP: Washington, 2005). Available at:
http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/PCASTreportFrNAL.pdf
                                          S&T-93

-------
Mercury Research
In FY 2007, mercury research  will focus on supporting effective implementation  of the new
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)47 and on evaluating the rule's effectiveness.  Research will
seek to improve understanding of the effectiveness of the "cap and trade"  strategy contained in
the CAMR.  This will be accomplished by analyzing  power plant emissions of mercury and  the
species of mercury using source continuous emission monitors.  The program will also seek to
reduce uncertainties  about the  cost and performance of various alternative emission control
devices that could be installed by utility companies as they  consider how  to implement  the
CAMR provisions.

The mercury research program will  also aim to  better understand the relationship between
emissions reductions  resulting  from  CAMR and  changes in mercury concentrations in  the
environment. The program will include collaborative research with interested stakeholders to
jointly  design approaches to site mercury monitors  optimally so they produce data that will
address the scientific questions of greatest interest to federal and state policy officials.  The
mercury research program's activities are guided by a multi-year research plan

Performance Targets:
                                                                          48
Measure
Type



Outcome


Measure
Number of states using
a common monitoring
design and appropriate
indicators to determine
the status and trends of
ecological resources
and the effectiveness of
national programs and
policies.
FY 2005
Actual






FY 2005
Target






FY 2006
Target






FY 2007
Target



30


Units



States


Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of public
health outcomes long-
term goal.
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target
100
Units
Percent
 7 For more information, visit: 
47

48 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Mercury Research Multi-Year Plan (Washington: EPA, 2003). Available at:

                                          S&T-94

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
support of mechanistic
data long-term goal.
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target

Units

Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of aggregate
and cumulative risk
long-term goal.
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type


Output


Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the
susceptible
subpopulations long-
term goal.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target





FY 2007
Target


100


Units


Percent


Measure
Type




Efficiency




Measure
Average time (in days)
to process research
grant proposals from
RFA closure to
submittal to EPA's
GAD, while
maintaining a credible
and efficient
competitive merit
review system
FY 2005
Actual









FY 2005
Target









FY 2006
Target









FY 2007
Target




292




Units




Average
Days




FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$3,000.0) This increase supports expansion of the Agency's nanotechnology research.
       This research  aims to generate the underlying science needed to better understand and
       predict the potential  implications of nanoparticle releases to the environment and their
       fate and  transport, which may potentially  result in exposure to human health and
       ecosystems. It also seeks to identify how nano-scale science can be responsibly used for
       beneficial  environmental   applications  (e.g.,  improved  sensors,  control/remediation
       options).  Research will also study how releases of nanoparticles are measured, protocols
       for waste handling and disposal that take nanoparticles into consideration, and how
       nanoparticles  used for environmental remediation may affect  human health.  This
       research will directly support activities in the Agency's program and regional offices.
                                        S&T-95

-------
   •   (-$5,000.0) This decrease is due to the program's lack of progress in developing adequate
       performance measures as assessed in the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). This
       decrease will reduce support for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
       (EMAP).

   •   (-$1,625.2) This reduction will impact research on the use of mechanistic information in
       risk assessment, aggregate and cumulative risk, and public health outcomes that was
       determined to be of relatively lower importance.

   •   (-$1,344.1) This reflects a net reduction of directed FY 2006 STAR funding.

   •   (-$931.3, +3.8 FTE) This change is the net result of technical adjustments of workyears,
       and associated workforce and support resources to more accurately align with Agency
       research  priorities,  including realignment  of  resources  for  library  subscriptions
       management from the Facilities, Infrastructure and Operations program directly into the
       research program.

   •   (-$489.7)  This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

   •   (-4.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. Although fewer
       FTE will be  available  to provide  human health research, the program  is using data
       collected from its recent assessment of resource skills needs to ensure that there will not
       be a negative impact to the program.

Statutory Authority:

CAA; SOW A; ERDDA; CWA; FIFRA; FFDCA; RCRA; FQPA; TSCA.
                                        S&T-96

-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
                 S&T-97

-------
                                                Research: Land Protection and Restoration
                                                    Program Area: Research: Land Protection
                                                      Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                  Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$10,257.6
$699.3
$841.0
$23,322.6
$35,120.5
138.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,606.0
$634.0
$838.0
$22,927.0
$36,005.0
135.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,552.8
$651.3
$903.1
$21,963.9
$34,071.1
142.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,053.2)
$17.3
$65.1
($963.1)
($1,933.9)
7.4
Program Project Description:

Research performed  under  this  program supports  scientifically  defensible  and  consistent
decision-making for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste management and
corrective action by  providing a tested multimedia modeling system and technical  support to
those who use the model to  make environmental decisions.  Research and support within this
program  addresses  resource  conservation,  corrective  action,  hazardous  waste  treatment,
multimedia modeling, landfills, leaching, containment systems, and landfill bioreactors.

Research is guided by the long term Waste  Research Strategy49, which  was  developed with
participation from major clients and outlines research needs and priorities. These research efforts
are guided by multi-year plans (MYPs)50, developed with input from across the Agency, which
outline steps for meeting the  needs of the Research and Development program's clients and for
evaluating progress through annual performance goals and measures. Specific human  health risk
and exposure assessments and methods are discussed  and conducted under the Human Health
Risk Assessment Program.

EPA  requested  an independent  review of a major component of this program by the Science
Advisory Board (SAB).  The SAB  evaluated the Multimedia,  Multi-pathway,  Multi-receptor
  EPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Research Strategy (Washington: EPA). For additional information please go
to: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/wastepub.pdf
50 For additional information, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/osp/mvp
The Waste Research Strategy outlines the research needs and priorities at the time it was prepared. To guide these research
efforts as progress is made and new needs emerge, EPA develops multi-year research plans that are revised periodically. EPA is
currently merging the Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans (MYPs) into one cohesive Land  Research MYP, with
input from across the Agency, to ensure research conducted continues to support the Agency's mission to  protect human health
and the environment.
                                           S&T-98

-------
Exposure and Risk Assessment (3MRA) modeling system51 and in its report of November 2004,
concluded that:

    •   3MRA is ready to be used for national exit level analyses;

    •   By including additional exposure pathways (e.g. vapor intrusion, dermal exposure), and
       additional treatment options, 3MRA can be used for site-specific assessments; and

    •   3MRA can be upgraded easily as technology advances because the Framework for Risk
       Analysis in Multimedia Environmental Systems (FRAMES) architecture makes it very
       adaptable.

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC),  a  distinguished body of scientists and engineers
who  are  recognized   non-government  experts  from  academia  and  industry,  evaluates the
Agency's research programs,  national  laboratories, centers,  and offices,  and management
practices, and provides peer review, including evaluation of the program's peer review policies
and research plans  and products.  The Land Protection and Restoration research program was
reviewed by the  BOSC in  FY 2006 (December, 2005) and findings will be  reported to the
Agency in the 2nd quarter of 2006.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In  support  of EPA's Resource   Conservation Challenge
(RCC), a major national effort to reduce waste and conserve
natural resources  by promoting the use of recycled products,
EPA  will  continue   to   develop  effective  options  for
minimizing  waste,  and for assessing  the  performance of
waste  minimization   programs through  multimedia  risk
assessments  (R&D Criteria:  Performance).  In FY 2007,
utilizing  its  multimedia   modeling   risk  assessment
methodologies, EPA's research and development program
will provide an estimate of the benefits realized  (i.e., reduction  in risk to human and ecological
receptors)  in  reducing  priority   chemicals   waste   streams  (R&D  Criteria:   Relevance,
Performance). EPA also will  continue to collaborate with the private  sector to conduct field
sampling, and with  the  states to  optimize  operations  and  monitoring  of several landfill
bioreactors and determine their potential to provide alternative energy in the form of landfill gas
while increasing  the nation's landfill capacity (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance). The
Association of State and Tribal Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) helps transfer
research results on  landfill bioreactors to the  states (R&D Criteria: Relevance), who  issue the
permits under the recent Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) rule.
Performance  Assessment: The
Land Research and Restoration
program is scheduled for PART
review in FY 2006. The program
has   begun  developing  and
refining         outcome-based
performance measures in order to
demonstrate results.
  EPA's Multimedia, Multipatkway, and Multireceptor Risk Assessment (3MRA) Modeling System; A Review by the 3MRA
Review Panel of the EPA Science Advisory Board EPA-SAB-05-003. For more information please go
to: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/sab 05 003.pdf
                                         S&T-99

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports restoring land.  Research milestones are identified in the
program's multi-year planning  documents,  but there  are  currently no annual  performance
measures that meet the requirements of the PART guidance  (i.e., that can demonstrate progress
toward established long-term outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$179.6)  This  decrease is the  net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

    •   (-$873.6)  This reflects a decrease to work in the RCRA  research  program, including
       performance evaluation of landfill liners and covers.

    •   (-0.8 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the agency better align resources, skills, and  Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
                                       S&T-100

-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
                S&T-101

-------
                                            Research: Economics and Decision Science(EDS)
                                                       Program Area: Research:  Sustainability
                                             Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                   Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,465.6
$2,465.6
2.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$2,361.0
$2,361.0
3.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,494.6
$2,494.6
3.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$133.6
$133.6
0.0
In FY 2006, Program/Project Research: Pollution Prevention (B6) was eliminated and Program/Projects Research: Economics
and Decision Sciences (EDS) (H7) and Research: Sustainability (H8) established.

Program Project Description:

Economics and Decision  Sciences (EDS) research  is  designed  to  improve EPA's  decision
making, cost-benefit analyses, and implementation strategies.
such as:
52
   EDS research focuses on areas
       How people value their health and the environment;
       Corporate and consumer environmental behavior;
       Market mechanisms and  incentives; and
       Information disclosures, e.g.,  how  the  public  and markets  respond  to publicizing
       institutional environmental behavior.
Protecting the environment depends not only on understanding the health and ecological effects
of environmental change, but also human and organizational  environmental behavior.  EDS is
designed to meet this critical need.  Since its inception, the EDS program has produced dozens of
published, peer-reviewed articles that have contributed to  the field of environmental decision
making  and been used in crafting state and Federal  environmental policies.     For example,
EPA's agency-wide guidelines for cost-benefit analyses cite 10 peer-reviewed, academic articles
sponsored by the EDS program.53 (R&D Criteria: Quality)
                                                                                   54
Research is guided by the  Environmental Economics Research Strategy (EERS),   research
strategy, which was developed with participation from our major clients and was reviewed by
independent experts.55 The strategy outlines the research needs and priorities. The Agency also
52 For more information, visit: 
  EPA, Office of the Administrator, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, (Washington: EPA, 2000). Available on the
Internet at: 
54 EPA, Environmental Economic Research Strategy, (Washington: EPA, 2005). Available on the Internet at:

55 EPA, Science Advisory Board, Advisory Panel on the Environmental Economics Research Strategy, Review of the
Environmental Economics Research Strategy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington: EPA, 2004). Available
on the Internet at: 
                                           S&T-102

-------
maintains a Multi-Year  Plan (MYP) 56 that reflects the priorities identified in the recently-
released EERS and outlines steps for meeting these needs, as well as annual performance goals
and measures for evaluating progress. (R&D Criteria: Quality, Relevance, Performance)

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, Economics  and Decision Science  research will  focus on benefit transfer methods
and  better understanding  and designing practical trading programs.   These  two  areas are
important to EPA's program offices and have broad application to the Agency's regulatory work.

Economic valuation is a high priority in the EERS (and the draft Ecological Benefits Assessment
Strategic Plan) and improving benefit transfer methods is a related high priority research need.
Benefit transfer methods are the techniques used to transfer benefit numbers from an existing
study to a policy analysis.  The techniques are used in virtually all economic analyses performed
by the Agency.  In FY 2007, research  efforts will seek to develop methodological advances in
benefit transfer  relying primarily on existing datasets, which would enable  faster delivery of
research results.  These  results would  fill a critical need for the Agency to  conduct accurate
benefit transfers.

Another focus in FY 2007  will be the design of trading programs. Programs such as the sulfur
dioxide trading  program have been remarkably  successful, but that success has  not  always
transferred to other trading  programs, especially those that are local or are in new areas. There is
a need across many offices to better understand how to design practical trading programs for
local and new markets.  For example, there are  numerous water quality trading programs in the
context of Total Maximum Daily Loads, but actual trades in these programs tend to be rare.
Other  similar areas are  pesticide trading  and  local  air pollution trading.   Research will  be
conducted on a series of case studies to identify the causes for success or failure for the trading
programs.  These  results could be  used to immediately  inform the  ongoing design of similar
trading programs and bring about a more effective and innovative way to solve environmental
pollution problems.

EPA's  most frequent use  of economic research  is  as a basis for economic analyses for
environmental  regulations  and  other  policies.   Economic  principles  are  also  playing  an
increasingly important role in the design  of  implementation strategies, such  as marketable
pollution permit trading as an alternative to traditional regulation. EPA has  also begun to use
economic research to  explain and  predict individual or corporate environmental behavior in
response to voluntary programs, incentives, regulations or sanctions.
56 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Draft Economic, Social, and Behavioral Science Research Program Multi-Year
Plan (Washington: EPA, 2001).

                                        S&T-103

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under  this program  supports compliance  and environmental  stewardship.  Research
milestones are identified in the program's multi-year planning documents, but there are currently
no annual performance measures that meet the requirements of the PART guidance (i.e., that can
demonstrate progress toward established long-term outcome goals).
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$182.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (-$49.3) This is a technical  adjustment of program support resources to more accurately
       align with Agency research priorities, and to cover increases in fixed costs.

Statutory Authority:

CAA; CWA; PPA; RCRA;  SOW A; SARA; TSCA.
                                       S&T-104

-------
                                Research: Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
                                                    Program Area: Research: Sustainability
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$3,364.9
$3,364.9
6.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$2,990.0
$2,990.0
4.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($2,990.0)
($2,990.0)
-4.7
Program Project Description:
                                                           57
The  Environmental  Technology  Verification (ETV) program   verifies  the  performance  of
environmental technologies that address high-priority, high-risk environmental issues.  The ETV
Program operates as a public-private partnership through agreements between EPA and private
nonprofit testing and evaluation organizations. These organizations work with EPA technology
experts to create efficient and quality-assured testing procedures that verify the performance of
innovative  technologies.  These  technologies are submitted voluntarily  by private industry,
which cite ETV's findings to support claims about a product's capabilities.  ETV only verifies
the performance of commercial-ready technologies, allowing the program to respond  to  the
immediate needs of the  environmental technology market. ETV operates using centers and one
pilot program covering  a broad range of environmental technology categories, and has verified
over 300  environmental technologies since  1995.  An  active community  of nearly  800
collaborating stakeholders assist the centers in developing protocols for testing, prioritizing the
types of technologies to be verified,  and designing and implementing outreach activities to the
customer groups they represent.

Through this program, EPA  supports  the  stakeholder process that identifies technology
categories and vendors for verification, conducts outreach to vendors via trade conferences and
industry publications, provides program oversight, and provides technical and QA support to the
centers, thus ensuring that the data obtained meet EPA's data quality standards. The vendor pays
for the remainder of the program's costs, including test plan development, testing, data analysis,
reporting, and any vendor- or product-specific verification expenses. In some cases, a third party
such as a state or another Federal  agency contributes towards vendors' shares of the costs. EPA
and its partner centers work to facilitate these arrangements as they arise.

ETV also supports state, national, and international efforts to address  environmental issues with
technological solutions.  States use ETV data and protocols to shorten site-specific pilot testing
of technologies, and some  require verification of technologies used  to  comply with state and
Federal  pollution laws.  The ETV program's operating procedures and the testing protocols it
37 For more information, visit: 
                                        S&T-105

-------
produces serve as peer-reviewed  standards for the international  and business communities on
how to verify different types of environmental technologies.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA funding for the verification centers will be discontinued.  Workforce and
associated resources will be shifted  to the sustainability  research program where  they  will
continue to provide in-kind programmatic and technical oversight, and quality assurance/quality
control of the partner centers' verifications.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program supports  compliance and  environmental stewardship.   Research
milestones are identified in the program's multi-year planning documents, but there are currently
no annual performance measures that meet the requirements  of the PART guidance (i.e., that can
demonstrate progress toward established long-term outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$2,170.1) ETV will move to a fully vendor-and other collaborator-paid program with
       an EPA commitment to provide 'in-kind" technical and QA  oversight.  In addition to
       shifting a larger  portion of the cost of verification to  vendors (as appropriate), the
       program, largely through the efforts of its centers, will obtain funding and in-kind support
       from organizations interested in collaborating with ETV.  This will  allow EPA ETV to
       leverage  its technical  expertise against the technical, monetary, and capital  resources
       provided by these collaborators and its center partners.  Ultimately, this shift will enable
       the program to verify technologies in an increasingly cost-effective and relevant manner,
       allowing the program to build strategic relationships that support common environmental
       goals.

    •   (-$689.7)   This decrease  represents a shift in payroll resources to the sustainability
       program project to support to support redirected workyears.

    •   (-$130.2, - 4.7 FTE) ETV  staff moved to the sustainability program project will continue
       to provide in-kind programmatic and technical oversight, and quality assurance/quality
       control  of the  program's  verification  activities.   This  redirection  of  work  years is
       consistent with  EPA's Research and Development program's long term human capital
       priorities.

Statutory Authority:

CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SARA; TSCA.
                                        S&T-106

-------
                                                                    Research: Sustainability
                                                      Program Area: Research:  Sustainability
                                            Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                  Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$36,354.6
$501.0
$36,855.6
111.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$25,803.0
$292.0
$26,095.0
76.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$21,404.9
$0.0
$21,404.9
77.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($4,398.1)
($292.0)
($4,690.1)
1.1
In FY 2006, Program/Project Research: Pollution Prevention (B6) was eliminated and Program/Projects Research: Economics
and Decision Sciences (EDS) (H7) and Research: Sustainability (H8) established.

Program Project Description:

Sustainable and preventive approaches to health and environmental problems have increasingly
become the agency's focus since the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.  Sustainable approaches
require innovative design and production techniques that minimize or eliminate environmental
liabilities; integrated management of air, water, and land resources; and changes in the traditional
methods of creating and distributing goods and  services.   In addition  to conducting research
related to  human health  and  environmental  threats, EPA  is  committed  to  promoting
Sustainability—achieving economic  prosperity while protecting natural  systems and quality of
life. Specific Sustainability research areas include:

       .    Pollution Prevention Tools:5S This research creates tools that the public and private
           sectors  use to improve environmental decision making. For  example, the P2  Tools
           program will  develop  new  Life Cycle  Impact  Assessment  (LCIA)  analytical
           techniques that  are cost effective, take less time to complete, and provide high
           priority life cycle benchmark data.

       .    Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program:59 As required by the  Small
           Business Act as amended,60 EPA  sets aside 2.5%  of its extramural research budget
           for contracts to  small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental
           technologies.

       .    National Environmental Technology Competition (NETC):61 The People, Prosperity,
           and  the  Planet (P )  Award
           Sustainability challenges.
                                       62
                                          is a  student  competition  to develop  solutions to
  For more information, visit: 
58
59 For more information, visit: 
60 U.S. Public Law 219. 79th Congress, 2nd session, 22 July 1982. Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. More
information is available on the Internet at: 
61 For more information, visit: 
62 For more information, visit: 
                                          S&T-107

-------
       .   Sustainable   Environmental  Systems  (SES):63  The   SES   program  develops
           methodologies  for understanding  and managing large, complex  environmental
           systems such as metropolitan areas and watersheds.

EPA is drafting a new sustainability research strategy  and Multi-Year Plan.  In the interim,
research will be guided by the agency's Pollution Prevention Research Strategy64  and draft
Multi-Year Plan.65

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
Sustainability is a priority for water infrastructure if the
Nation   is   to  meet  the   challenges   of  an  aging
infrastructure.     The   Shepherd  Creek   Watershed
Management Project in Cincinnati, Ohio is an  effort to
test the  effectiveness of a market-based incentive  as  a
tool to manage storm water run-off in urban watersheds.    ^Ont1inue   *ป  work  with  OMB  ฐn
TT1    A       A        ,,,,.      ,,,           .       A ,    finalizing the appropnate  measures for
Urban storm water run-off is a well known environmental
                                                          Performance Assessment: In 2003, the
                                                          Pollution Prevention research program
                                                          underwent  a PART  assessment  and
                                                          received an  overall rating of "Results
                                                          Not Demonstrated".  The program will
                                                          the  program  as  we  proceed with
                                                          collecting the  data  needed  to  show
                                                          program results.
problem because it mobilizes pollutants, causes combined
sewer  overflows,  and  scourers  streams  resulting  in
ecological damage.  The incentive will take the form of a
voluntary auction  where individual land owners will bid
on a lease to establish on-site,  on-property  run-off control best management practices such as
rain barrels and rain gardens.  The project plan calls for the auction to be held during 2006 and
the establishment  of the best management  practices by the start  of 2007.   The management
system  will be fully  operational in  2007 including an  extensive  network for  ecological,
hydrological,  and water  quality monitoring to  quantitatively  assess  the effectiveness of the
process.

In FY 2007, the Pollution Prevention Tools research area will begin developing the foundation
for an  indicator model, GREENSCOPE that will be used to evaluate a particular reaction or
process for its sustainability  value with  respect to the environment,  energy, efficiency, and
economics.  This direct evaluation will allow for variant comparisons of industrial processes by
normalizing the results and will allow one to choose the most sustainable process.  This "what-
if' approach will  help to guide research efforts, save  resources, and eliminate chemical waste
from exploratory  research.  As bench processes are scaled up, these  same  effects should be
realized as green industrial processes.

In FY 2007, the People, Prosperity, and Planet (P3) Award will  support up to 50 student design
projects  from  around the  country,  focusing on  challenges in areas such  as materials and
chemicals, energy, resources,  and water. In the spring,  teams will be  invited to  bring their
designs to  Washington, D.C., to compete for the P3 Award. Winners of the P3  Award will be
63 For more information, visit: 
64 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Pollution Prevention Research Strategy (Washington: EPA, 1998). Available on
the Internet at: 
65 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Draft Pollution Prevention and New Technologies for Environmental Protection
Multi-Year Plan (Washington: EPA, 2003).


                                          S&T-108

-------
eligible for  additional  funds  from  EPA to  match  contributions from  industry  or  non-
governmental organizations to help further develop the design, implement the project in the field,
and move the design to the marketplace.

Performance Targets:

Work  under this program supports compliance  and environmental  stewardship.   Research
milestones are identified in the program's multi-year planning documents, but there are currently
no annual performance measures that meet the requirements of the PART guidance (i.e., that can
demonstrate progress toward established long-term outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$130.2, +4.7 FTE) This reflects the redirection of workforce and associated costs  from
       the ETV program to support research on sustainability. Resources will provide technical
       oversight and quality assurance activities related to technology verifications conducted in
       FY 2006 as well as program evaluation efforts. EPA's commitment to provide  "in-kind"
       technical and QA support for vendor paid verifications supporting sustainability research
       will  continue in 2007 with  sustainability  evaluation  criteria incorporated  into the
       technology verifications.

    •   (-$2,668.6, -3.0  FTE)   This  reflects  an  adjustment for Small Business Innovation
       Research (SBIR).  Enacted funding levels for this program project include the amount
       EPA  is required  to  set  aside  for  contracts  to  small  businesses to  develop   and
       commercialize new environmental technologies.  This adjustment is necessary because
       the SBIR  set aside, at this point in the budget cycle, is redistributed to other research
       programs in the President's Budget request. After the budget is enacted, when  the exact
       amount of the mandated requirement is known, the funds will be transferred to  the SBIR
       program in this program project.

    •   (-$1,000.0)  This reduction  reflects discontinuation of the Collaborative  Science and
       Technology Network for Sustainability (CNS) grants program. CNS projects use science
       at a regional  scale to inform decision-making related  to long-term  sustainability of
       resources, including water, air,  land, materials, energy, and ecosystems.

    •   (-$560.4)  This reduction to CC&T research will discontinue research funding for efforts
       such as the development of less toxic chemicals for use in the metal finishing industry
       and cost effective environmental improvements to mine waste run-off.

    •   (-$299.3)  This decrease is  the net effect of increases  for payroll  and cost  of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with  a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

    •   (-0.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's management strategy that will help
       the Agency better align resources,  skills, and Agency priorities.
                                        S&T-109

-------
Statutory Authority:




CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SBA; SARA; TSCA.
                                   S&T-110

-------
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention
                   S&T-lll

-------
                                                          Research: Pesticides and Toxics
                                               Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention
                                                 Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                 Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$28,276.0
$28,276.0
133.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$30,357.0
$30,357.0
123.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$26,223. 7
$26,223.7
122.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($4,133.3)
($4,133.3)
-1.2
Program Project Description:

The Pesticides and Toxics research program is a multidisciplinary program that examines risks
resulting from exposure to pesticides and toxic chemicals.  The research is designed to support
the Agency's efforts to reduce current and future risks to the environment and to humans by
preventing and/or controlling the production of new chemicals that pose unreasonable risk, as
well as assessing and reducing the risks of chemicals already in commerce.  This  research
complements work conducted under the Human Health and Ecosystem Research, the Human
Health  Risk Assessment, and  the Endocrine  Disrupter  programs.    The  development and
validation of methods and assessments for predicting risks to human health are conducted under
the Human  Health  Research  and  the  Human Health Risk  Assessment  programs.  The
development and validation of methods and assessments for predicting risks from pesticides and
toxic substances to human health and ecosystems are conducted under the Pesticides and Toxics
research program. (R&D Criteria: Relevance)

Research  is  guided  by  the  Biotechnology Research Strategy66 and  the  Wildlife  Research
Strategy,67 both of which were developed with participation from major clients  (e.g., EPA's
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances program and the Regional Offices).  The strategies
outline  the research needs and priorities.  The Agency also maintains  a Safe Pesticides/Safe
Products (SP2) multi-year plan (MYP)68 that outlines steps for meeting these needs, as well as,
annual performance goals and measures for evaluating progress.
  U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Biotechnology Research Strategy.  Washington, DC: EPA.
Accessed August 8, 2005. Available at:

 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Wildlife Research Strategy (Washington: EPA). Available at:

68U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Multi-Year Plan (Washington:
EPA, 2003). Available at: 
                                         S&T-112

-------
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, research will continue to focus on the following four major goals of the pesticides
and toxics research program:

Providing predictive  tools for prioritization and enhanced interpretation of exposure,  hazard
identification,  and dose-response information: This research will develop/validate:  1) predictive
biomarkers of neurotoxic effects for major classes of pesticides, 2)  alternative test methods for
the hazard identification of developmental neurotoxicants, 3) virtual chemical screening methods
for risk-based  prioritization and ranking needs for chronic non-cancer effects, and 4) quantitative
structure activity relationships (QSARs) to relate various structural descriptions of molecules to
toxicity endpoints. EPA will use  the results of this  research to make decisions about which
chemicals should undergo more definitive toxicological testing by industry and, subsequently, to
help interpret the industry-submitted data for use in risk assessments.  The  two extramural
Environmental Bioinformatic Research Centers that were awarded in FY 2006 will continue to
be supported and will work collaboratively with EPA to develop and apply novel computational
approaches to  integrate data from genomics, proteomics, and metabonomics studies.  Integrating
data from genomics  and related approaches is consistent with the "Understanding  Complex
Biological Systems" category highlighted as a  priority for Federal investment by the  Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)69. (R&D
Criteria: Relevance, Quality, Performance)

Creating the scientific foundation  for probabilistic risk assessment methods to protect  natural
populations of birds,  fish, and other wildlife: This research directly supports Agency  efforts to
assure that endangered species  are protected from pesticides while making sure  farmers and
communities have the pest control tools they need. Four key components of this research are:
1) extrapolation among wildlife  species  and  exposure scenarios  of concern, 2) population
biology to improve population dynamics in spatially-explicit habitats, 3) models for assessing the
relative risk of chemical and non-chemical stressors,  and  4) models  to define geographical
regional/spatial scales for risk assessment.  Methods for characterization of population-level risks
of toxic substances to aquatic life  and wildlife will also be developed. Results of this research
will  help the Agency meet the long term  goal of developing scientifically valid approaches for
assessing spatially-explicit, population-level risks to wildlife populations from multiple stressors.
(R&D Criteria: Relevance, Quality, Performance)

Providing the scientific underpinnings  for  guidance to prevent or  reduce risks  of human
environments  within  communities, homes,  and workplaces:  Research in biotechnology will
improve the  capability  to assess the ecologic risks associated  with genetically  modified
organisms (GMOs) and will provide preliminary tools for risk management.  Development of
methods to assess the potential  allergenicity of genetically engineered foods will continue to be
supported.   Tools for characterizing community and  meso-scale exposures associated with the
use of agricultural pesticides will  be developed (Spray Drift).  Research will examine human
risks resulting from the  transport  of pesticides and associated degradants from source waters
through conventional drinking water treatment  plants  and then through the distribution systems
69 FY 2007 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities memo by J. Marburger and J. Bolten: July
8, 2005.
                                         S&T-113

-------
to the end users. Research designed to provide updated tools for asbestos risk assessments will
be completed in 2007. (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Quality, Performance)

Providing strategic scientific information and advice concerning novel or newly  discovered
hazards: The  mechanisms by which perfluoroctane sulfonate (PFOS) causes developmental
toxicity in a laboratory animal model will be characterized. Research examining the potential for
selected  perfluorinated chemicals  to degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid  (PFOA)  and/or  it's
precursors in the environment will continue.  New protocols to assess risk to non-target plant
species from high  potency herbicides will  be developed. (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Quality,
Performance)

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports community and ecosystem protection.  Research milestones
are identified in the program's multi-year planning documents, but there are currently no annual
performance  measures that  meet the requirements of the  PART  guidance  (i.e., that can
demonstrate progress toward  established long-term outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$26.1)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (-$4,159.4, -1.2 FTE)  This reflects a decrease to various lower priority research projects
       as defined  by the program's aforementioned multi-year research  plans  and  research
       strategies.    The decrease  will impact  biotechnology, collaborative and risk-related
       research efforts while the program continues to demonstrate progress toward its research
       goals.

Statutory Authority:

FQPA; FIFRA; TSCA; CWA; CAA.
                                        S&T-114

-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
                    S&T-115

-------
                                                              Drinking Water Programs
                                           Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
                                                              Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                       Objective(s): Protect Human Health
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$94,559.1
$3,326.0
$97,885.1
582.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$95,656.0
$3,092.0
$98,748.0
588.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$99,121.0
$3,243.1
$102,364.1
583.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
$3,465.0
$151.1
$3,616.1
-4.7
Program Project Description:

These resources provide technical  support to drinking water programs  through the Technical
Support Center (TSC), which evaluates engineering and scientific data, collects and evaluates
contaminant  occurrence  data,  evaluates  treatment technologies,  develops and  evaluates
monitoring approaches and analytical methods, and develops and disseminates treatment plant
performance improvement mechanisms to affect development and implementation of National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations that ensure the safety of drinking water. The Center also
provides external technical assistance in  support  of EPA Regional and state drinking water
programs. (See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ for more information.)

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the drinking water technical support program will:

    •   Provide technical and scientific support for the development and implementation of
       drinking water regulations;

    •   Continue to implement EPA's Drinking Water Laboratory Certification Program.  This
       program sets standards and  establishes methods for Agency, state, and privately-owned
       labs that are analyzing drinking water samples.  Through this program, EPA will also
       conduct three regional program/laboratory reviews;

    •   Support small systems' efforts to optimize their treatment technology under the drinking
       water  treatment Area Wide  Optimization  Program  (AWOP).   AWOP  is a highly
       successful technical assistance  and training program that enhances the ability of small
       systems to meet existing and future microbial, disinfectant, and disinfection byproducts
       standards. By the end of 2007, EPA expects that 30  states will be working with the
       Agency to establish,  strengthen,  and enhance  AWOPs.   EPA will complete  the
       disinfection byproduct distribution system performance based training pilot;

    •   Manage the implementation  of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule(s) (UCMR2);
                                       S&T-116

-------
   •   Support the Partnership for Safe Water, a national voluntary collaborative effort between
       the  water industry and EPA to  pursue  optimization of the drinking  water treatment
       infrastructure to maximize public health protection; and

   •   Provide analytical method development/validation  to  enable  implementation of the
       Nation's compliance-monitoring and occurrence data gathering.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type






Outcome







Measure
Percent population
served by community
water systems in
compliance with health
based drinking water
standards.*
*This measure is a long-
term PART measure for
the Drinking Water
programs under the STAG
appropriation. This
program is scheduled for
an initial PART review in
FY 2006.
FY 2005
Actual






ss ^
OO.J







FY 2005
Target






93







FY 2006
Target






93







FY 2007
Target






94







Units






% population







The  Technical  Support Center (TSC) will  provide  technical and scientific  support  for the
development and implementation of drinking water regulations.  In FY 2007, the TSC will assist
in the development of tools for states and water utilities to use in implementing Stage 2 of the
Disinfection Byproducts and Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water treatment rules;

The  vast majority of the nation's community water systems will  provide drinking water that
meets all health-based standards, progress in line with EPA's 2008 target of 95%.

EPA continues  to work to achieve this target and to accurately reflect the many public health
benefits such as reducing acute illnesses linked to microbiological  contaminants or longer-term
health problems related to exposure from  contaminants that are achieved through safe drinking
water.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$5.4)  This  increase will enhance technical  and scientific  support  of the National
       Primary Drinking Water Regulations.

   •   (+$145.7)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

 Statutory Authority:

SOW A; CWA.

                                        S&T-117

-------
S&T-118

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency

           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                              Science and Technology
Air Toxics	1, 2, 7, 8,13,15,18, 22, 24, 64, 65
Air Toxics and Quality	1, 2, 8,13,15,18, 22, 24
Civil Enforcement	31
Clean Air	1, 8, 9,13,15,18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 38, 45, 47, 63, 64, 69, 84,101
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs	1, 8
Clean Water	2,73,80
Climate Protection Program	1, 2, 26, 27
Compliance	30, 51, 91, 94,110,113,115
Computational Toxicology	87
Congressionally Mandated Projects	4
Decontamination	3
Drinking Water	2, 6, 34, 36, 52, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 91,124,125
Drinking Water Programs	2, 6,124
Endocrine Disrupter	88,91,92,120
Endocrine Disrupters	91, 92
Enforcement	1, 2, 29, 30, 31, 58
Environmental Information	42, 51, 54
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)	113
Exchange Network	51, 52
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	1, 4, 54
Federal Support for Air Quality Management	1,13
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program	1,15
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification	1, 2,18
Fellowships	95
Forensics Support	1, 2, 30
Global Change	66,67
Great Lakes	66
Gulf of Mexico	99
Homeland Security	1, 2, 3, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 56, 59, 61, 62, 75
  Critical Infrastructure Protection	1, 2, 34
  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	1, 3, 38
  Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	1, 3, 42
Human Health and Ecosystems	97
Human Health Risk Assessment	2, 5, 69, 74, 83, 84,106,120
Indoor Air	1, 3, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 65
  Radon Program	1, 3, 45
Information Security	52
IT / Data Management	1, 3, 4, 50, 51
IT / Data Management / Security	1, 3, 50, 51

-------
Laboratory Security
  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	3
Land Protection	2,105,107
Land Protection and Restoration	107
Lead	84
NAAQS	69,70,71,84
Oil	41,51,54,106
Operations and Administration	1, 4, 53, 54
Particulate Matter	65, 69, 70, 71, 84
Pesticides
  Registration of New Pesticides	1, 4, 58
  Review / Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides	1, 4, 61
Pesticides and Toxics	120
Pesticides Licensing	1, 4, 57, 58, 61
Pollution Prevention	28, 41,110,115,116
Radiation
  Protection	1,2,22
  Response Preparedness	1, 2, 24
Radon	46,49,65
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air	1, 3, 47
Research
  Air Toxics	1, 4, 64
  Clean Air	4,64,66,69
  Clean Water	4,5,74,78
  Computational Toxicology	2, 5, 87
  Drinking Water	2,4, 74
  Economics and Decision Science(EDS)	2, 5, 110
  Endocrine Disrupter	2, 5, 91
  Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)	2, 5, 113
  Fellowships	2, 5, 94
  Global  Change	2,4,66
  Human Health and Ecosystems	2, 5, 83, 87, 91, 94, 97
  Land Protection	2, 5, 106
  Land Protection and Restoration	2, 5, 106
  NAAQS	2,4,69,71
  Pesticides and Toxics	2, 6, 120
  Sustainability	5,6, 110, 113, 115
  Sustainability	2, 5, 109, 110, 115
  Water Quality	2, 5,78
Research /Congressional Priorities	4
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)	106
Safe Building	3
Science Advisory Board	35, 39, 64,106,107, 111
Sustainability	116,117
Toxic Research and Prevention	2, 6,119,120
Underground Storage Tanks	51, 54,106

-------
Waste Management	107
Water
  Human Health Protection	2, 123
Water Quality	77,78,81
Water sentinel and related training	2

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Environmental Program and Management

Resource Summary Table	1
Program Projects in EPM	1
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality	7
   Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs	8
   Federal Stationary Source Regulations	12
   Federal Support for Air Quality Management	15
   Federal Support for Air Toxics Program	19
   Radiation: Protection	22
   Radiation: Response Preparedness	25
   Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs	27
   Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund	30
Program Area: Brownfields	32
   Brownfields	33
Program Area: Climate Protection Program	35
   Climate Protection Program	36
Program Area: Compliance	41
   Compliance Assistance and Centers	42
   Compliance Incentives	46
   Compliance Monitoring	49
Program Area: Enforcement	54
   Civil Enforcement	55
   Criminal Enforcement	58
   Enforcement Training	61
   Environmental Justice	63
   NEPA Implementation	66
Program Area: Geographic Programs	68
   Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay	69
   Geographic Program: Great Lakes	73
   Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico	77
   Geographic Program: Lake Champlain	80
   Geographic Program: Long Island Sound	82
   Geographic Program: Other	85
   Regional Geographic Initiatives	89
Program Area: Homeland Security	91
   Homeland Security:  Communication and Information	92
   Homeland Security:  Critical Infrastructure Protection	94
   Homeland Security:  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	97
   Homeland Security:  Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	99
Program Area: Indoor Air	101
   Indoor Air: Radon Program	102
   Reduce Risks from Indoor Air	104

-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach	107
   Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination	108
   Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations	Ill
   Exchange Network	116
   Small Business Ombudsman	119
   Small Minority Business Assistance	122
   State and Local Prevention and Preparedness	125
   TRI / Right to Know	127
   Tribal - Capacity Building	129
Program Area: International Programs	132
   Commission for Environmental Cooperation	133
   Environment and Trade	135
   International Capacity Building	137
   POPs Implementation	140
   US Mexico Border	142
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security	145
   Information Security	146
   IT / Data Management	148
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review	152
   Administrative Law	153
   Alternative Dispute Resolution	155
   Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance	157
   Legal Advice: Environmental Program	160
   Legal Advice: Support Program	162
   Regional Science and Technology	164
   Regulatory Innovation	166
   Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis	170
   Science Advisory Board	172
Program Area: Operations and Administration	174
   Acquisition Management	175
   Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	177
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	179
   Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management	182
   Human Resources Management	184
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing	187
   Pesticides: Field Programs	188
   Pesticides: Registration  of New Pesticides	192
   Pesticides: Review / Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides	195
   Science Policy and Biotechnology	199
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)	201
   RCRA:  Corrective Action	202
   RCRA:  Waste Management	205
   RCRA:  Waste Minimization & Recycling	209
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention	214
   Toxic Substances:  Chemical Risk Management	215
   Toxic Substances:  Chemical Risk Review and Reduction	218

-------
   Endocrine Disrupters	223
   Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program	225
   Pollution Prevention Program	228
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)	233
   LUST/UST	234
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems	237
   Great Lakes Legacy Act	238
   National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways	241
   Wetlands	244
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection	247
   Beach / Fish Programs	248
   Drinking Water Programs	252
Program Area: Water Quality Protection	257
   Marine Pollution	258
   Surface Water Protection	261

-------

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
              APPROPRIATION: Environmental Program & Management
                               Resource Summary Table

                                (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations

$2,309,238.0
10,904.2
FY 2006
Enacted

$2,344,711.0
11,048.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$2,306,617.0
11,007.5
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

($38,094.0)
-40.6
            BILL LANGUAGE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

For environmental programs and management, including necessary expenses,  not otherwise
provided for, for personnel and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms,  or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the  maximum rate
payable for senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor  vehicles; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; library memberships in societies
or associations which issue publications to members only or at a price to members lower than to
subscribers  who are  not  members; construction,  alteration,  repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project; and not to exceed [$19,000] $9,000
for official reception and representation expenses, [$2,381,752,000] $2,306,617,000, to remain
available until September 30, [2007] 2008,  including administrative costs of the brownfields
program under the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.

                               Program Projects in EPM

                                (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Air Toxics and Quality
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Energy Policy Act Implementation
Clean Diesel Initiative
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management (other activities)
Subtotal, Federal Support for Air Quality
Management
FY 2005
Obligations

$17,513.5
$20,555.3

$0.0
$0.0
$89,350.1
$89,350.1
FY 2006
Enacted

$17,708.0
$23,215.0

$0.0
$5,867.0
$90,082.0
$95,949.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$19,126.4
$25,678.3

$2,800.0
$0.0
$85,265.6
$88,065.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

$1,418.4
$2,463.3

$2,800.0
($5,867.0)
($4,816.4)
($7,883.4)
                                       EPM- 1

-------
Program Project
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality
Brownfields
Brownfields
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
Energy Star
Methane to Markets
Climate Protection Program (other
activities)
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Energy Policy Act Implementation
Compliance Assistance and Centers
(other activities)
Subtotal, Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Energy Policy Act Implementation
Compliance Monitoring (other
activities)
Subtotal, Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Energy Policy Act Implementation
Civil Enforcement (other activities)
Subtotal, Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
FY 2005
Obligations
$23,518.7
$11,694.4
$2,284.4
$4,478.1
$9,920.0
$179,314.5

$27,248.4


$0.0
$0.0
$92,457.2
$92,457.2
$92,457.2


$0.0
$27,207.0
$27,207.0
$10,135.7

$0.0
$85,297.9
$85,297.9
$122,640.6


$0.0
$113,719.7
$113,719.7
$35,109.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$25,405.0
$11,178.0
$2,632.0
$4,938.0
$8,600.0
$189,625.0

$24,534.0


$49,536.0
$1,971.0
$39,327.0
$90,834.0
$90,834.0


$0.0
$27,935.0
$27,935.0
$9,412.0

$0.0
$85,463.0
$85,463.0
$122,810.0


$0.0
$117,807.0
$117,807.0
$37,565.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,513.7
$10,648.6
$2,688.7
$5,221.4
$13,365.0
$190,307.7

$24,637.3


$45,722.8
$4,420.5
$41,700.0
$91,843.3
$91,843.3


$111.2
$28,779.5
$28,890.7
$9,702.2

$986.9
$92,031.9
$93,018.8
$131,611.7


$753.2
$120,024.5
$120,777.7
$37,793.5
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$108.7
($529.4)
$56.7
$283.4
$4,765.0
$682.7

$103.3


($3,813.2)
$2,449.5
$2,373.0
$1,009.3
$1,009.3


$111.2
$844.5
$955.7
$290.2

$986.9
$6,568.9
$7,555.8
$8,801.7


$753.2
$2,217.5
$2,970.7
$228.5
EPM-2

-------
Program Project
Enforcement Training
Environmental Justice
NEPA Implementation
Subtotal, Enforcement
Environmental Protection / Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Geographic Programs
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Geographic Program: Other
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE)
Geographic Program: Other (other
activities)
Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Subtotal, Geographic Programs
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Laboratory Preparedness and Response
Homeland Security: Communication
and Information (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security:
Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Decontamination
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
Decontamination
FY 2005
Obligations
$3,766.2
$4,853.2
$13,016.8
$170,465.2

$89,868.8

$22,886.6
$21,098.8
$3,739.8
$686.3
$2,132.7

$0.0
$0.0
$6,786.1
$6,786.1
$8,057.0
$65,387.3


$0.0
$5,432.4
$5,432.4

$0.0
$6,700.6
$6,700.6

$2,620.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$2,945.0
$5,569.0
$12,640.0
$176,526.0

$49,799.0

$22,118.0
$21,164.0
$4,809.0
$1,926.0
$470.0

$1,971.0
$2,862.0
$5,124.0
$9,957.0
$8,060.0
$68,504.0


$1,212.0
$5,263.0
$6,475.0

$98.0
$6,689.0
$6,787.0

$3,252.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,503.7
$3,859.0
$13,787.5
$178,721.4

$0.0

$26,397.7
$20,577.1
$4,310.7
$933.8
$466.9

$0.0
$4,448.4
$4,601.6
$9,050.0
$9,137.3
$70,873.5


$1,200.0
$5,599.7
$6,799.7

$99.0
$7,143.7
$7,242.7

$3,328.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($441.3)
($1,710.0)
$1,147.5
$2,195.4

($49,799.0)

$4,279.7
($586.9)
($498.3)
($992.2)
($3.1)

($1,971.0)
$1,586.4
($522.4)
($907.0)
$1,077.3
$2,369.5


($12.0)
$336.7
$324.7

$1.0
$454.7
$455.7

$76.7
EPM-3

-------
Program Project
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Indoor Air
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Subtotal, Indoor Air
Information Exchange / Outreach
Children and Other Sensitive Populations:
Agency Coordination
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Environmental Education
Exchange Network
Small Business Ombudsman
Small Minority Business Assistance
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
TRI / Right to Know
Tribal - Capacity Building
Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach
International Programs
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Environment and Trade
International Capacity Building
POPs Implementation
US Mexico Border
Subtotal, International Programs
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,620.2
$9,102.2
$23,855.4

$5,986.6
$21,464.4
$27,451.0

$7,135.8
$48,407.3
$8,648.1
$16,723.0
$3,691.3
$2,245.7
$11,327.5
$15,380.7
$10,937.7
$124,497.1

$3,370.5
$2,211.7
$10,548.5
$3,196.5
$5,951.5
$25,278.7

$4,745.6
$84,371.1
$89,116.7

FY 2006
Enacted
$3,252.0
$6,199.0
$22,713.0

$5,159.0
$23,137.0
$28,296.0

$5,633.0
$50,291.0
$8,889.0
$17,700.0
$3,343.0
$2,503.0
$11,377.0
$14,289.0
$11,049.0
$125,074.0

$4,116.0
$1,766.0
$6,138.0
$1,697.0
$5,749.0
$19,466.0

$3,751.0
$94,567.0
$98,318.0

FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,328.7
$6,268.9
$23,640.0

$5,519.2
$23,464.3
$28,983.5

$6,063.8
$52,142.7
$0.0
$16,048.5
$3,501.7
$2,646.6
$12,508.4
$15,243.4
$11,435.7
$119,590.8

$4,137.0
$1,861.2
$6,390.3
$1,808.7
$6,061.0
$20,258.2

$5,562.1
$96,807.2
$102,369.3

FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$76.7
$69.9
$927.0

$360.2
$327.3
$687.5

$430.8
$1,851.7
($8,889.0)
($1,651.5)
$158.7
$143.6
$1,131.4
$954.4
$386.7
($5,483.2)

$21.0
$95.2
$252.3
$111.7
$312.0
$792.2

$1,811.1
$2,240.2
$4,051.3

EPM-4

-------
Program Project
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Regional Science and Technology
Regulatory Innovation
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Science Advisory Board
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic
Review
Operations and Administration
Acquisition Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Human Resources Management
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Field Programs
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing
Pesticides
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA: Corrective Action
RCRA: Waste Management
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Subtotal, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
FY 2005
Obligations
$4,784.2
$1,531.0
$10,905.7
$32,764.8
$13,864.0
$3,424.8
$21,215.1
$13,875.1
$4,660.8
$107,025.5

$21,830.4
$68,045.9
$317,744.7
$22,223.9
$46,795.7
$476,640.6

$25,649.5
$39,321.6
$49,074.7
$1,961.5
$116,007.3

$36,575.0
$67,842.9
$10,878.7
$115,296.6

$8,462.3
$45,781.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$4,607.0
$1,048.0
$10,575.0
$35,931.0
$13,206.0
$3,522.0
$21,511.0
$16,551.0
$4,402.0
$111,353.0

$23,265.0
$73,680.0
$343,908.0
$23,168.0
$41,275.0
$505,296.0

$24,516.0
$41,604.0
$57,458.0
$1,694.0
$125,272.0

$39,396.0
$65,793.0
$11,825.0
$117,014.0

$9,008.0
$46,542.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,860.9
$1,229.8
$11,053.7
$37,525.5
$13,465.9
$3,520.7
$25,853.6
$17,554.8
$4,615.7
$119,680.6

$25,418.3
$83,548.1
$294,760.1
$21,847.0
$40,202.5
$465,776.0

$24,926.3
$39,767.6
$51,814.6
$1,754.0
$118,262.5

$40,372.3
$67,887.3
$12,235.1
$120,494.7

$7,736.5
$44,637.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$253.9
$181.8
$478.7
$1,594.5
$259.9
($1.3)
$4,342.6
$1,003.8
$213.7
$8,327.6

$2,153.3
$9,868.1
($49,147.9)
($1,321.0)
($1,072.5)
($39,520.0)

$410.3
($1,836.4)
($5,643.4)
$60.0
($7,009.5)

$976.3
$2,094.3
$410.1
$3,480.7

($1,271.5)
($1,905.0)
EPM-5

-------
Program Project
Endocrine Disrupters
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction
Program
Pollution Prevention Program
Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
Water: Ecosystems
Great Lakes Legacy Act
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Wetlands
Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems
Water: Human Health Protection
Beach / Fish Programs
Drinking Water Programs
Subtotal, Water: Human Health Protection
Water Quality Protection
Marine Pollution
Surface Water Protection
Water Quality Monitoring
Surface Water Protection (other
activities)
Subtotal, Surface Water Protection
Subtotal, Water Quality Protection
FY 2005
Obligations
$8,696.4
$13,280.9
$15,889.3
$92,110.0

$6,459.2

$13,946.6
$25,902.3
$20,126.7
$59,975.6

$3,723.7
$94,559.1
$98,282.8

$13,114.0

$0.0
$186,745.5
$186,745.5
$199,859.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$8,767.0
$10,162.0
$16,621.0
$91,100.0

$7,763.0

$28,989.0
$23,773.0
$19,416.0
$72,178.0

$3,156.0
$95,656.0
$98,812.0

$12,212.0

$7,193.0
$182,019.0
$189,212.0
$201,424.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$7,985.4
$11,367.6
$21,292.4
$93,018.9

$11,713.7

$49,600.0
$18,417.2
$20,992.2
$89,009.4

$2,653.9
$99,121.0
$101,774.9

$12,462.4

$7,120.7
$184,466.5
$191,587.2
$204,049.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($781.6)
$1,205.6
$4,671.4
$1,918.9

$3,950.7

$20,611.0
($5,355.8)
$1,576.2
$16,831.4

($502.1)
$3,465.0
$2,962.9

$250.4

($72.3)
$2,447.5
$2,375.2
$2,625.6
EPM-6

-------
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
               EPM-7

-------
                                                  Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
                                                      Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                        Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
577,573.5
$8,476.1
$25,989.6
89.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$17,708.0
$8,527.0
$26,235.0
86.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$19,126.4
$9,259.4
$28,385.8
92.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,418.4
$732.4
$2,150.8
6.0
Program Project Description:

The Acid Rain Program, established under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
requires  major reductions in 862 and NOX  emissions from electric utilities.  The authorizing
legislation  specifies two phases and numerous deadlines for both the SO2 and NOX program
components.  The U.S. is also committed under the US-Canada Air Quality Agreement of 1991
to making reductions in 862 and NOX emissions.  EPA's Acid Rain Program provides affected
sources flexibility to select their own methods of compliance so the required emission reductions
are achieved at the lowest cost (both to industry and government).  The SC>2 program component
uses a market-based approach with tradable units called "allowances" (one allowance authorizes
the emission of one ton of 862) and  sets a permanent cap in 2010 on the total amount of 862 that
may be emitted by affected sources at approximately one-half the  amount these sources emitted
in  1980.   Both the SO2  and NOX program  components require  accurate and  verifiable
measurement of emissions.  The Acid Rain Program continues to  be recognized as a model for
flexible and effective air pollution regulation, both in the U.S. and abroad.

At the request of the states, EPA administers the  NOX Budget Program (NBP), a market-based
cap and trade program for reducing NOX emissions  and transported ozone in the eastern U.S.
The initial program under the Ozone Transport  Commission  (OTC) went into effect in  the
summer  of 1999.  By 2001, this voluntary regional control program  for  the Ozone  Transport
Region (OTR) had expanded to  include 9 states plus the District  of Columbia (D.C.).  Ozone-
season NOX emissions from approximately 970 affected sources were reduced by over 250,000
tons (60%) from the 1990 baseline and  12% below allowance allocations.1  In 2003,  the OTC
program  ended as  a separate entity, integrating fully with the  broader regional NBP  under the
NOX SIP Call.  Implementation  of the NOX  SIP Call rule began in 2003 for the affected OTC
states and in 2004 for other states. Based on data reported to EPA,  there are approximately 2,540
affected and operating units in the 19 NBP states and D.C.2

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
1 U.S. EPA., Clean Air Market Programs, NOX Budget Program: 1999-2002 Progress Report (March 2003). (EPA 430-R-03-
900).  Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/otc/otcreport.pdf (last accessed January 2006).
2 U.S. EPA., Evaluating Ozone Control Programs in the Eastern United States: Focus on the NOX Budget Trading Program, 2004.
(August 2005). (EPA 454-K-05-001). Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2005/ozonebp.pdf (last accessed
January 2006).
                                        EPM-8

-------
In FY 2007; through the Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs, EPA will continue to measure,
quality  assure  and track emissions for 862 (Acid
Rain) and NOX (Acid Rain and NOX Budget),-from
Continuous  Emissions   Monitors   (CEMs)  or
equivalent monitoring methods at approximately
4,000 electric utility units and 340 industrial units.
In addition, the  program  will conduct audits and
certify emissions monitors. Through the Acid Rain
SC>2 Allowance  Tracking System (ATS)  and the
NOX   Allowance   Tracking   System   (NATS),
allowance  transfers are  recorded and reconciled
against emissions for all affected sources to ensure
compliance.      Separate  activities  determine
compliance for over 1,000 coal-fired utility boilers
with the Acid Rain NOX emission rate reduction
program.
In FY 2007, EPA will include an additional state in
the NOX Budget Program  and will  continue to
assist   all  the  states   in   this   program   with
implementation,  especially   activities  related  to
allowance trading,  emissions monitoring, and end-
of-season   reconciliation   of  emissions   with
allowances.    Affected   sources  under the  NOX
Budget  Program include  boilers,  turbines,  and
combined   cycle  units   from  a  diverse set  of
industries as well as electric utility  units.  In 2004,
the volume  of emissions data processed by EPA increased 2 /^ times over the volume under the
OTC program.  This surge in emissions reporting and allowance reconciliation activity  is one
factor that  has required the program to  increase  and accelerate investment  in  software re-
engineering for the Clean Air Markets Division Business System.  EPA will also assist states in
transitioning their sources and allowances from the NOx Budget Program into the Clean Air
Interstate Rule seasonal NOX trading program.  Required NOX monitoring for CAIR begins  in
2008, or earlier  for states and sources interested in qualifying  for early emissions reduction
credits.
Performance  Assessment:   In 2003,  OMB
assessed the  Acid Rain program through the
PART  process,   and  gave  it  a  rating  of
"Moderately  Effective."    The  Program  is
designed to reduce the  harmful  effects of acid
rain through  reductions in emissions of sulfur
dioxide and  nitrogen  oxides and  employs  a
market-based   emissions  trading  system  to
minimize costs and maximize compliance. The
Program is working to develop an efficiency
measure.

Performance  Assessment:   In  2005  OMB
assessed  the  NAAQS  and Regional Haze
programs through the PART process, and rated
them as "Adequate." The NAAQS program sets
standards  to  protect  human health  and  the
environment from the effects of air pollution. The
Regional Haze program, which addresses some of
the same pollutants, improves visibility in areas
of special natural, recreational, scenic, or historic
value. The program is  working on developing a
broader,   more   integrated   multiple-pollutant
approach in standard-setting. In promulgating air
quality standards, the program clearly outlines the
expected health and environmental benefits and
will be working  on developing an efficiency
measure to show efficiency improvements over
time.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Percent change in
average sulfur
deposition and mean
ambient sulfate
concentrations
reduced.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target





FY 2007
Target


29


Units


Percentage
Reduction


                                          EPM-9

-------
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Percent change in
average nitrogen
deposition and mean
total ambient nitrate
concentrations
reduced.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target





FY 2007
Target


10


Units


Percentage
Reduction


Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
Tons of sulfur dioxide
emissions from electric
power generation
sources
FY 2005
Actual

Data Lag

FY 2005
Target

6,900,000

FY 2006
Target

7,000,000

FY 2007
Target

7,500,000

Units

Tons
Reduced

Reducing emissions of SO2 and NOX continue to be a crucial component of EPA's strategy for
cleaner air.  Particulate matter can be formed from  direct sources (such as diesel exhaust or
smoke), but can also be formed through chemical reactions.  Emissions of SC>2 and NOX can be
chemically  transformed into sulfates and nitrates ("acid rain particulate"), which are very tiny
particles that can be carried by winds hundred of miles.  These same small particles are also a
main pollutant that impairs visibility across large areas of the country, particularly national parks
that are known for their scenic views.  Meeting EPA's national health-based air quality standards
is an important step towards ensuring the air is safe  to breathe.  To meet the  standards, EPA,
states, tribes, and local governments work as  partners to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX and
ambient sulfate and total ambient nitrate concentrations.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+$181.3) This increase will support development of the operating infrastructure for the
      CAIR program. This  includes the allowance trading and emissions reporting systems
      under the Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule implementation.

   •  (+$1,237.1)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing and new
      FTE.

   •  (+6  FTE)   FTE were reprogrammed from the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards
      Certification (Mobile  Sources Program)  and the Federal  Support  for  Air Quality
      Management Programs to support the Clean  Air Implementation  Rule  (CAIR).  These
      resources will used to augment existing FTE in: modifying  data systems; establishing
      allowance   accounts;  allocating  allowances;  assisting  States   in  developing  and
      promulgating their State Implementation Plans (SIP); assisting affected facilities through
      set  up  of  certification emissions measurement equipment;  and  to establish baseline
      assessments for program accountability.

Statutory Authority:

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
                                       EPM- 10

-------
EPM - 11

-------
                                                   Federal Stationary Source Regulations
                                                      Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                        Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$20,555.3
$20,555.3
105.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$23,215.0
$23,215.0
105.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,678.3
$25,678.3
105.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,463.3
$2,463.3
0.0
Program Project Description:

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is responsible for setting, reviewing, and revising the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as for setting emission standards for sources
of air toxics. These national standards form the foundation for air quality management and air
toxics  programs implemented at the national, state, local and Tribal levels, and establish goals
that protect public health and the environment.

The Clean Air Act  requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
pollutants considered harmful to  public health  and the  environment.   The  Clean Air  Act
established two types of national air quality  standards.  Primary standards set limits to protect
public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as  asthmatics, children,  and
the elderly.  Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against
decreased visibility and damage to  animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.  EPA establishes
NAAQS for the six most pervasive air pollutants:  particulate matter (PM), ozone, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead.

This program includes activities related to the development of the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT), combustion,  and area  source standards,  the Stationary Source Residual
Risk Program, and associated national guidance and outreach information.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The following chart shows the current status of the NAAQS reviews:
Criteria Pollutant*
PM(Fine& 10)**
Ozone**
(~
-------
In FY 2007, EPA will promulgate two residual risk standards.  Promulgations:

    •  Halogenated Solvents - 12/05
    •  Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) - 12/05

EPA is  required to regulate 70  source categories through area  source standards.  EPA has
completed 15 source categories, with an additional one to be promulgated in 2007 and three to be
proposed in 2007.

In FY 2007, EPA also will promulgate one New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

    •  NSPS for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines - Spark Ignition Engines

In FY 2007, EPA will likely  be under court  ordered schedules for the remaining area source
standards. As the NSPS rules, residual risk rules and 183 (e) rules are also currently in litigation,
EPA anticipates the probability of also being under a court ordered schedule for those rules by
FY2007.
    Performance Assessment:  The Air Toxics Program, re-assessed by
    OMB in the 2004 PART process, received a rating of "Adequate." The
    Program reduces emissions of toxic air pollutants by establishing and
    reviewing  technology-based  regulations  for  mobile  and stationary
    sources. The Program also collects information about exposure to air
    toxics and provides tools and compliance assistance to state, Tribal, and
    local air pollution control agencies.   The Program is working on
    improving  monitoring systems  to fill data gaps and  get a  better
    assessment of actual population exposure to toxic air pollution.

    Performance Assessment: In the 2005 PART process OMB assessed
    the  NAAQS  and Regional Haze  Programs,  and rated  them  as
    "Adequate."  The NAAQS program sets standards to protect human
    health and the environment  from the effects  of air pollution. The
    Regional Haze program, which addresses some of the same pollutants,
    improves visibility in areas of special natural, recreational, scenic,  or
    historic value.  The Program is working on developing a broader, more
    integrated  multiple-pollutant  approach   in  standard-setting.     In
    promulgating air quality standards, the Program clearly outlines the
    expected health and environmental benefits and will be working on
    developing an efficiency  measure to show efficiency improvements
    over time.
                                           EPM- 13

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
cancer risk) emissions
of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target


22


FY 2007
Target


22


Units


Percentage


Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
noncancer risk)
emissions of air toxics
from 1993 baseline.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target


55


FY 2007
Target


56


Units


Percentage


   Implementation of the MACT standards is expected to result in overall reductions of over 1.7
   million tons of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources.  These emission reductions,
   used in conjunction with unit risk estimates and reference concentration information, are
   converted into toxicity-weighted emission  reductions.  Changes to the FY 2007 level  of
   funding will not impact the established targets  as they  are based on  standards already
   promulgated.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$202.0)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (+$2,261.3) This increase improves EPA's capacity to meet air toxics rulemakings under
       court-ordered deadlines and to complete other priority air toxic rulemaking in accord with
       benzene National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

Statutory Authority:

CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661F).
                                      EPM - 14

-------
                                            Federal Support for Air Quality Management
                                                     Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                          Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$89,350.1
$10,747.8
$100,097.9
721.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$95,949.0
$10,012.0
$105,961.0
715.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$88,065.6
$10,272.9
$98,338.5
709.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($7,883.4)
$260.9
($7,622.5)
-6.9
Program Project Description:

The  Federal  support program  includes  non-financial support from EPA  headquarters  and
regional offices to state, Tribal,  and local air pollution control agencies for the development,
implementation,  and evaluation of programs to implement the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).  EPA  develops Federal  measures  and regional strategies that  reduce
emissions from stationary and mobile sources.  States and tribes must develop the additional
clean air measures necessary  to meet the NAAQS.  EPA partners with states, tribes, and local
governments  to create a comprehensive compliance program to ensure that multi-source  and
multi-pollutant reduction targets and air quality improvement objectives are met and sustained.
For each of the criteria pollutants, EPA tracks two kinds of air pollution  trends:  air pollutant
concentrations based on actual measurements in the ambient (outside) air at selected monitoring
sites throughout the country,  and emissions based on engineering estimates of the total tons of
pollutants released into the air  each year.  EPA works with states and local governments to
ensure the technical  integrity of the source controls in the state implementation plans  (SIPs).
EPA  assists  areas in identifying the most cost-effective control options  available including
consideration of  multi-pollutant reduction and  innovative strategies.   The Federal  support
program includes working with other Federal agencies to ensure a coordinated approach,  and
working with the United Nations and other countries to address pollution  sources outside US
borders that pose risks to public health and air quality within the U.S. This program supports the
development  of risk assessment methodologies for the criteria air pollutants.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will promulgate the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) to ensure that the CAIR reductions occur in a timely fashion and that PM2.5  and
ozone non-attainment problems are reduced.

EPA will continue to assess particle pollution, ozone and the transport of particle pollution and
provide support  to  states and  Tribes in developing  control strategies for  attaining  and
maintaining the PM2.5 NAAQS and the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
                                       EPM- 15

-------
The Agency will review issues on reactivity of volatile organics and will propose updates to the
volatile organic compound (VOC) control policy.

EPA will continue to address visibility through region-specific programs.

EPA will assist state, Tribal, and local agencies in implementing and assessing the effectiveness
of national programs using a broad suite of analytical tools  such as source characterization
analyses, emission factors and inventories, statistical analyses, source apportionment techniques,
quality  assurance protocols and audits,  improved source testing  and monitoring  techniques,
augmented cost/benefit tools  to assess  control  strategies, including voluntary measures, and
urban  and regional-scale  numerical grid  air  quality  models (For  more information  visit:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/). These tools provide the basis for assessing regional control strategies
and measuring progress toward meeting CAIR, meeting regional haze goals and developing SIPs
and Tribal  implementation plans (TIPs).

EPA will continue to improve and automate associated data and technology exchange/transfer.
Through the EPA's Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI), technical air pollution training will
be provided to state, Tribal, and local  air agency professionals. (For  more information please
visit:  http://www.epa.gov/apti/).   EPA will also continue to  assist other Federal  agencies and
state and local governments in implementing the conformity regulations during this period.  The
regulations require Federal agencies taking actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to
determine that the emissions caused by their actions will conform to the SIP.
EPA will strengthen its program leadership to address
  Performance  Assessment:   The Air Quality Grants and
  Permitting Program, assessed by OMB  in the 2005 PART
  process, received a rating of "Ineffective."  These programs
  support the prevention and control of air pollution at the state
  and   local level.  Grants   are  provided   for  program
  implementation and research  and development. Permits are
  issued to manage pollution from new and existing facilities.
  The programs have developed new performance measures and
  will be working to developing efficiency  measures to assess
  program progress.

  Performance Assessment:  In the 2005 PART process OMB
  assessed the NAAQS and Regional Haze Programs, and rated
  them as "Adequate."  The NAAQS program sets standards to
  protect human health and the environment from the effects of
  air pollution. The Regional Haze program, which addresses
  some  of the same pollutants,  improves visibility in areas of
  special natural, recreational, scenic,  or historic value.  The
  Program is working on developing a broader, more integrated
  multiple-pollutant  approach   in  standard-setting.     In
  promulgating  air quality  standards, the Program  clearly
  outlines the expected health and environmental benefits and
  will be working on developing an efficiency measure  to show
  efficiency improvements overtime.
transboundary air pollution.  The Agency
   will  continue  to  lead  negotiations
   under international treaties (e.g., US-
   Canada,  Convention  on Long  Range
   Transboundary     Air     Pollution,
   Stockholm Convention  on Persistent
   Organic Pollutants  (POPs)) to address
   fine  particles,  ozone,  mercury, and
   POPs; assess trends and its impact on
   US   air  quality  using  sophisticated
   models;  and  build capacity  in key
   regions  and  countries  of  the world
   (i.e.,. Asia, China, Mexico).

   The  AIRNow Program  will  offer air
   quality (AQ) forecast maps, developed
   in conjunction with National Oceanic
   and   Atmospheric   Administration
   (NOAA)  and  using  data from  the
   NOAA prototype AQ Forecast Model
   Activities    include     streamlining
   existing  processes; developing  new
   products including web services, tools,
                                          EPM- 16

-------
XML,  and Geographic Information Systems (GIS); and producing new maps, forecasts and
information as additional monitors, forecast cities, and agencies join the program.  (For more
information visit: http://airnow.gov).

EPA will modify the Air Quality System (AQS) to reflect new ambient monitoring requirements
and to ensure that it complies with programmatic needs and EPA's architecture and data standard
requirements.  The  AQS Data Mart will continue to operate  as a method for the scientific
community and others to obtain air quality data via the internet.

EPA will continue to focus on the  timely issuance of Part 70 renewal permits. EPA also will
continue to  develop periodic monitoring rules and address  monitoring issues in  underlying
Federal and state rules.  EPA will implement recommendations from the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee regarding Title V program performance and will  implement the OAR action plan
resulting from the Office of Inspector General  (OIG)  evaluation of the Title V program.  (For
more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/permits/)

EPA will continue its NSR reform efforts by finalizing rules currently under development. EPA
will review and respond to the 2006 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report evaluating the
2002 NSR reform rules.  EPA will continue to work with states to implement revisions to the
PSD and NSR rules and will work to complete  updates to delegation agreements (for delegated
states)  and review for approval implementation plan revisions (for SIP-approved states).  EPA
will also continue to review and respond to reconsideration requests and (working with DOJ)
legal challenges related to NSR rule revisions.

EPA will continue to maintain and operate the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) Web
data base. (For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc).

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient concentration
of ozone in monitored
counties from 2003
baseline.
FY 2005
Actual

Available
in 2006


FY 2005
Target

3


FY 2006
Target

5


FY 2007
Target

6


Units

Percentage


Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of major NSR
permits issued within
one year of receiving a
complete permit
application.
FY 2005
Actual
Available
in 2006
FY 2005
Target
65
FY 2006
Target
70
FY 2007
Target
75
Units
Percentage
                                       EPM- 17

-------
Measure
Type


Output


Measure
Percent of new Title V
operating permits
issued within 18
months of receiving a
complete permit
application.
FY 2005
Actual


79


FY 2005
Target


79


FY 2006
Target


83


FY 2007
Target


87


Units


Percentage


Measure
Type


Output


Measure
Percent of significant
Title V operating
permit revisions issued
within 1 8 months of
receiving a complete
permit application.
FY 2005
Actual


ss
oo


FY 2005
Target


ss
oo


FY 2006
Target


91


FY 2007
Target


94


Units


Percentage


EPA, collaborating with the states, will be implementing Federal measures and assisting with the
development of clean air plans to continue to improve air quality as measured by the air quality
index and other measures.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

 •     (-6.9 FTE) This change reflects a decrease in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.  The result of
       these reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness
       in carrying out its programs.

 •     (+$946.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

 •     (-$6,950.7) This  reduction  reflects  shifting  priorities,   expected  improvements in
       efficiency and reallocating efforts from rulemaking to technical assistance.

 •     (+$2,800.0) Funding is requested to support work required under the Energy Policy Act
       of 2005.   This funding will  support analysis of fuels, emissions, and air quality and
       development of improved modeling capabilities.

 •     (-$4,679.3) This  redirects funds to support  implementation of the Energy Policy Act of
       2005 (EPAct) to the Clean Diesel Grants Program in the STAG Appropriation.

Statutory Authority:

CAA (42 U.S.C.  7401-7661f).
                                       EPM- 18

-------
                                                 Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
                                                     Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                          Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$23,518. 7
$3,040.8
$26,559.5
139.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$25,405.0
$2,225.0
$27,630.0
144.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
525,573. 7
$2,264.7
$27,778.4
144.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$108.7
$39.7
$148.4
-0.6
Program Project Description:

Federal support for the air toxics programs includes non-financial support by EPA headquarters
and Regional offices  to state, Tribal and local air pollution control agencies  for:   modeling,
inventories,  monitoring,  assessments, strategy  and program development;  community-based
toxics programs; voluntary programs including those that reduce inhalation risk and those that
reduce  deposition to water bodies  and  ecosystems;  international cooperation  to  reduce
transboundary  and   intercontinental  air  toxic  pollution;  National  Emissions  Inventory
development and updates; Great Waters; the development of risk assessment methodologies for
the toxic air pollutants; and Persistent Biocummulative Toxics (PBT) activities.  It also includes
training for air pollution professionals.  In addition, it includes activities for implementation of
federal air toxics standards and the triennial National Air Toxics Assessments.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

By FY  2007, EPA will have completed  a  significant portion of the 2005 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI), which can be used by EPA, states, and others to analyze the public  health risks
from air toxics, and develop strategies to  manage that risk.  The 2005 NEI will be a more truly
multi-pollutant     inventory    integrating    criteria    pollutants    and    HAP     data
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html).

To aid  the Agency in characterizing risk, EPA  will continue to work with state and local
agencies, via the National Air Monitoring Steering Committee, to implement the National Air
Toxics Monitoring Network.  The network has two main components: the National Air Toxics
Trends Sites (NATTS), and Local Scale Monitoring (LSM) projects. The NATTS are comprised
of 22 permanent monitoring sites, designed to capture the impacts of widespread pollutants. The
LSMs are comprised  of several short-term  monitoring sites, each designed to address  specific
local issues.  Additional community scale monitoring projects will  be initiated in FY 2007.
Information on air toxics monitoring is  available at the (For more information please visit:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg.html).
                                       EPM- 19

-------
EPA will provide information to states and communities through case examples, documents,
websites,  and workshops on tools to help them in conducting assessments and identifying risk
reduction strategies for air toxics. This will allow state, local and Tribal governments, industry,
public interest groups, and local citizens to work together to determine if actions are needed, and
if so, what should be done.
                                                   Performance  Assessment:   The Air Toxics
                                                   program, re-assessed by OMB in 2004, received a
                                                   rating of "Adequate."  The  Program  reduces
                                                   emissions of toxic air pollutants by establishing
                                                   and reviewing technology-based regulations for
                                                   mobile and stationary sources. The Program also
                                                   collects information about exposure to air toxics
                                                   and provides tools and compliance assistance to
                                                   state,  Tribal,  and  local air  pollution control
                                                   agencies.  The program is working on improving
                                                   monitoring systems to  fill data gaps and  get a
                                                   better assessment of actual population exposure
                                                   to toxic air pollution.
Based  on  recommendations  from  the  PBT
Monitoring Steering Committee, ambient mercury
models will be improved to support understanding
of  changes   in  ambient  concentrations  and
deposition rates because of changes in  mercury
emission  rates.  There will be improvements in
both multi-scale and multimedia modeling.  The
multi-scale monitoring will enable assessment of
near-field potential  for elevated  concentrations
associated with  both  major  and   minor point
sources.   Re-emittance of mercury through  soil,
vegetation and  water  is  believed to  be  an
important factor  affecting  the  mercury  cycle;
however,  it is currently poorly characterized in atmospheric models.  We will develop  a true
multimedia modeling framework that links  air quality  models  with watershed/water surface
models.

EPA will continue its efforts under the Air-Water Interface Work Plan to address and prevent
adverse effects of atmospheric deposition to coastal  and inland waterways (i.e., Great Waters).
(For more information visit:  http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/gr8water/).   EPA  will  continue
implementation  of the revised Air-Water Interface Work Plan.   These  efforts involve the
development and support of multi-media approaches to  reduce risk and  achieve  water quality
standards.   Up-to-date  information regarding  air  deposition,  emission sources,  monitoring
technologies, and toxic effects will be provided.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
cancer risk) emissions
of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target


22


FY 2007
Target


22


Units


Percentage


                                         EPM - 20

-------
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
noncancer risk)
emissions of air toxics
from 1993 baseline.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target


55


FY 2007
Target


56


Units


Percentage


Implementation of the MACT standards is expected to result in overall reduction of over 1.7
million tons of hazardous air pollutants.  These emission reductions, used in conjunction with
unit risk estimates and reference concentration information, are converted into toxicity-weighted
emission reductions.   Changes to the FY 2007 level of funding will not impact the established
targets as they are based on standards already promulgated.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (-0.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
      will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •  (+$60.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •  (+$48.0) This increase will  develop or revise three toxics  emission factors used for
      developing control strategies.

Statutory Authority:

CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
                                       EPM-21

-------
                                                                    Radiation: Protection
                                                      Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                 Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                      Objective(s): Radiation; Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$11,694.4
$2,552.0
$1,969.4
$16,215.8
102.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,178.0
$2,086.0
$2,120.0
$15,384.0
103.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,648.6
$2,054.3
$2,323.3
$15,026.2
96.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($529.4)
($31.7)
$203.3
($357.8)
-6.9
Program Project Description:

The Radiation Protection Program includes activities that minimize public radiation exposure.
EPA  provides  oversight of operations at the Waste  Isolation  Pilot  Plant  (WIPP) and  is
responsible for development of environmental standards applicable to Yucca  Mountain. EPA
also sets protective limits  on  radioactive air  emissions  and  ensures that the  Agency has
appropriate methods to  manage radioactive releases and exposures.  EPA works  with  other
Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and industry to develop and use training, public information, and
voluntary programs to reduce public exposure to radiation.3  Other EPA approaches include
radiation clean-up  and waste management guidance,  clean materials programs, and guidance on
radiation protection standards and practices to Federal agencies.

EPA conducts radiation risk assessments and provides the technical tools and the scientific basis
for generating radionuclide-specific  risk coefficients.  Risk managers use this information  to
assess health risks  from radiation exposure and to determine appropriate levels for contaminated
site clean-up.  This information  is also utilized by EPA to develop radiation protection and risk
management policy, guidance, and rulemakings.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will continue certifying that all radioactive waste  shipped by the Department of Energy
(DOE)  to the Waste Isolation  Pilot Plant (WIPP) is  permanently and safely  disposed  of,
consistent with  EPA standards4 by  conducting inspections of waste generator facilities and
evaluating DOE's compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations every 5 years.
By 2007, EPA will have reviewed and made its first determination on DOE's documentation that
the WIPP complies with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations.

EPA will continue protecting people  and the environment from harmful and avoidable exposure
 Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/assessment/index.html last accessed 8/2/2005.
1 Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/WIPP/index.html last accessed 8/2/2005.
                                        EPM - 22

-------
to radiation by providing information about radiation and hazards from radioactive materials.

EPA, in partnership with other Federal agencies, will promote the management of radiation risks
in a consistent and safe manner at water treatment facilities, and during cleanups at Superfund,
DOE, Department of Defense (DOD), state, local and other Federal sites. EPA will continue to
conduct risk assessments on radiation, including radon, and provide technical tools.

By  2007, EPA will have  evaluated and  proposed revisions to its cancer  risk models  and
projections based on Biological Effects of Ionizing  Radiation  (BEIR)  VII recommendations
which will be submitted to the Science Advisory Board (SAB).  The Agency will draft a report
that presents the scientific basis of our understanding of radiation-induced health effects and
revised methods for calculating radiogenic cancer risks.  This draft report will be submitted to
the SAB for formal review by FY 2008.  Also, during FY 2007, EPA will  begin to examine what
impact the proposed changes might have on risk estimates for specific radionuclides as contained
in Federal Guidance Report-13 and to assess possible policy implications. EPA will continue to
provide  national guidance on the risks posed by radiation in the environment, including technical
guidance for conducting and documenting risk assessments.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (-$210.1) This decrease will reduce guidance and other activities for low level waste.

   •  (-5.9 FTE) Part  of this  decrease (2.9 FTE) reflects  a change  in  EPA's workforce
      management strategy that will help it better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
      An additional 2.0 FTE reduction represents our ability to decrease workyears in the area
      of WIPP as a result of the completion of the recertification process.  An additional 1.0
      FTE is taken in the Radiation Risk Assessment area to reflect streamlining of resources
      upon completion of the initial evaluation work resulting from the BEIR VII Report.

   •  (-$319.3)  This decrease is the net effect of increases  for payroll and cost  of living
      increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
      workforce costs.

Performance Targets:

EPA is developing new outcome-oriented performance measures for this program in preparation
for a 2006 PART assessment. The program will  have  new performance information to report in
FY 2008.   EPA  will continue  to  track  progress on  routine program indicators  such as
preparedness and response capability for radiological incidents.

Statutory Authority:

AEA of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011  et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970;
CAA Amendments of 1990; CERCLA, as amended by the SARA of 1986; Energy Policy Act of
1992, P.L. 102-486; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3
                                       EPM - 23

-------
CFR, 1980; NWP Act of 1982; PHSA, as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; SOW A; UMTRCA of
1978; WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.
                                   EPM - 24

-------
                                                     Radiation:  Response Preparedness
                                                     Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                               Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                                  Objective(s): Radiation
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,284.4
$2,460.0
$4,744.4
35.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$2,632.0
$3,468.0
$6,100.0
42.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,688.7
$3,585.9
$6,274.6
42.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$56.7
$117.9
$174.6
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA generates policy guidance and procedures for EPA radiological response under the National
Response Plan (NRP).  EPA is a member of the Federal Radiological Protection Coordinating
Committee (FRPCC),  supports the federal Advisory Team on Environment, Food, and Health
"A-Team" and also maintains its own EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT).
EPA conducts national and regional radiological response  planning and training and develops
response plans for radiological incidents or accidents.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA's RERT, a component of the Agency's emergency response structure, will
maintain its preparedness for those radiological incidents for which EPA is  the Coordinating
Agency under the National Response Plan (NRP) and also  will be  prepared to  fulfill  its
requirement under the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the NRP. EPA also will continue
to develop  and maintain Protective Action Guides (PAGs) for use by Federal, state,  and local
responders.  EPA will provide training on the use of the PAGs to users through workshops and
radiological emergency response exercises.  EPA will design training and exercises to enhance
the RERT's ability to fulfill EPA responsibilities;5 as well as analyze them for improvements
needed for overall radiation response preparedness.

EPA will continue to coordinate with its interagency partners under the FRPCC to revise Federal
radiation emergency  response plans, develop radiological  emergency  response   standard
operating procedures. The Agency also will develop guidance for coordination of EPA support
with other Federal and state response agencies.

EPA will contiue to participate in planning, and implementing international and Federal table-top
and field exercises including radiological anti-terrorism activities, with the National  Response
Center (NRC), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defence (DOD) and Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). EPA will also continue to train state, local and Federal officials and
' Additional information can be accessed at:  http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/rert.htm last accessed 12/20/2005.
                                       EPM - 25

-------
provide technical support to federal and state radiation, emergency management, solid waste, and
health programs that are responsible for radiological emergency response and for development of
their own preparedness programs.

Performance Targets:

EPA is developing new outcome-oriented performance measures for this program in preparation
for a 2006 PART assessment. The program will have new performance information to report in
FY 2008.   EPA will  continue  to track progress  on routine program indicators such as
preparedness and response capability for radiological incidents.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$35.6) This increase will support the development of and participation in emergency
       response exercises.

    •  (+$21.1) This reflects an  increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

AEA of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011  et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970;
CAA Amendments  of 1990; CERCLA,  as  amended  by  the Superfund Amendments  and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA);  Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National
Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980;  Executive Order 12656 of November  1988, Assignment of
Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988; PHSA, as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et
seq.; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C
5121etseq.;SDWA.
                                      EPM - 26

-------
                                                  Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
                                                       Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                  Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                        Objective(s): Protect the Ozone Layer
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$4,478.1
$4,478.1
21.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$4,938.0
$4,938.0
27.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,221.4
$5,221.4
27.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$283.4
$283.4
-0.1
Program Project Description:

The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on earth by preventing harmful UV radiation from
reaching the earth's surface.  Scientific evidence amassed over the past 25 years has shown that
Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) used  around the world are  destroying  the  stratospheric
ozone layer.6  Increased levels of UV radiation due to ozone depletion may raise the incidence of
skin cancer, cataracts, and other illnesses.7 Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer and
accounts for more than 50 percent of all cancers in adults.8 Increased UV levels have also been
associated with other human and non-human risks, including immune suppression and effects on
aquatic ecosystems and agricultural crops.

EPA estimates that in the United States alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODS's will avoid 299
million cases  of non-fatal skin cancers  and 27.5 million cases  of cataracts between  1990 and
2165.9 This estimate is based on the assumption that international ODS phaseout targets will be
achieved, allowing the ozone layer to begin recovery by the middle of this century. According to
current atmospheric  research, the  ozone  layer is not expected to  recover until the mid-21st
century at the earliest, due to the very long lifetimes of ODSs.10  Given that ozone recovery will
take several decades, EPA will continue education and outreach efforts to encourage behavioral
changes that reduce UV-related health risks.

EPA's Domestic Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program will implement the  provisions of the
Clean Air Act Amendments  of 1990 (the Act) and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), which  will lead  to the reduction and control  of
ODSs in the U.S. and lower health risks to the American public due to exposure to UV radiation.
The Act provides for a phaseout of production and consumption of ODSs and requires controls
6 World Meteorological Organization (WMO). "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002." WMO: Geneva,
Switzerland. February 2003.
 World Health Organization.  "Solar Radiation and Human Health: Fact Sheet No. 227." August 1999. Accessed December 30,
2003. Available on the Internet at: www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact227.html.
8 American Cancer Society. "What are the Key Statistics for Melanoma?" Accessed December 30,2003. Available on the
Internet at:  www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/CRI_0.asp.
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010:  EPAReportto
Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999.
10 WMO, February 2003.
                                         EPM - 27

-------
on various products containing ODSs.  As a signatory to the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. also is
committed to regulating and enforcing its terms domestically.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In carrying out the requirements  of the Act and the Montreal Protocol in FY 2007, EPA will
continue to implement the domestic rulemaking agenda for reduction and control of ODSs and
will provide compliance assistance and enforce rules controlling their production, import, and
emission. EPA's ozone protection program will  combine market-based regulatory  approaches
with  sector-specific   technology guidelines,   and  will   facilitate  the   development  and
commercialization of alternatives to ODSs.
In FY 2007, EPA will focus its work to both assure that currently required caps on production
and import are met, as well as on approving the use of alternatives to ODS to assist the market's
transition to safer, non-ozone depleting alternatives.  EPA is developing the analyses and major
regulations upon which the next round of phase-outs will be based.  An advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking is expected in FY 2006 and a final rule (FR) must be promulgated in 2009.
 Performance  Assessment:    In 2004,  OMB
 assessed the Stratospheric Ozone program through
 the PART process, and rated  it as "Adequate."
 EPA's Stratospheric Ozone program  is the only
 governmental or private  program in  the U.S.
 designed  and authorized  to  eliminate  ozone-
 depleting substances. The program is monitoring
 annual progress to ensure that it is on track to meet
 its long term (25-160 years) goals.
                                            Pollution prevention is an important element in
                                            achieving the  ozone protection objective.  The
                                            National  Emission  Reduction  Program  will
                                            require recovery and recycling or reclamation of
                                            ODSs,  primarily  in  the air-conditioning and
                                            refrigeration sectors. Also, under the Significant
                                            New  Alternatives  Program  (SNAP),  EPA will
                                            review  newly developed alternatives to ODSs
                                            and, if necessary, will restrict use of alternatives
for a given application that are more harmful to human health  and the environment on an overall
basis. In addition, EPA will work with Federal and international agencies to curb illegal imports
of ODSs and ensure a smooth transition to non-ozone depleting alternatives in various sectors.

Given that Americans will be exposed to higher levels of UV radiation for many years, EPA will
also work to inform the public about health risks associated with UV radiation exposure and to
encourage sun safety behaviors that help to reduce risk.  The Agency is placing special emphasis
on education and outreach to children, who are particularly vulnerable to UV overexposure,
through the award-winning Sun Wise Program.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Remaining US
Consumption of
HCFCs in tons of
Ozone Depleting
Potential (OOP).
FY 2005
Actual
Data lag
FY 2005
Target
<9,900
FY 2006
Target
<9,900
FY 2007
Target
<9,900
Units
OOP MTs
                                        EPM - 28

-------
Measure
Type

Efficiency

Measure
Cumulative federal
dollars spent per school
joining the SunWise
program.
FY 2005
Actual



FY 2005
Target

580

FY 2006
Target

560

FY 2007
Target

525

Units

Dollars

Annual performance goals are set to meet Clean Air Act requirements for the  quantities and
timing of phasing out the production and import of ozone depleting substances. The base of
comparison for assessing the program is the domestic consumption cap of class II HCFCs as set
by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.  Each ozone  depleting substance (ODS) is weighted
based on the  damage it does to the stratospheric ozone — this is the ozone depletion  potential
(ODP). Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the  domestic
OOP-weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989 plus the OOP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989.
Consumption  equals production plus import minus export.

The next incremental reduction in production  and import of Class II HCFCs that the U.S. is
required  to meet is no  more than 5334 Metric tons  starting  in  2010.  Further incremental
reductions are required through 2020, until all ODS production and import is phased out except
for exempted  amounts.

FY 2007  Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•   (+$168.3)  Investments in FY 2007 - FY 2009 will lay the  groundwork for the first major
    stage  of phasing out  class II ODS in time to meet a statutory deadline of January 1, 2010.
    This will allow EPA  to meet the first major increment in reducing ODS emissions, and will
    provide an added co-benefit of reducing an estimated 49 MMTCE/yr  of greenhouse gas
    emissions.

•   (-0.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in the EPA's workforce management strategy that
    will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

•   (+$115.1)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living  for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990, Title I, Parts A and  D (42U.S.C. 7401-7434, 7501-7515), Title V
(42 U.S.C. 7661-7661 f),  and Title VI (42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q); The Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
                                      EPM - 29

-------
                                                   Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
                                                      Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                 Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                      Objective(s):  Protect the Ozone Layer
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$9,920.0
$9,920.0
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$8,600.0
$8,600.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,365.0
$13,365.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$4, 765.0
$4,765.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on earth by preventing harmful UV radiation from
reaching the earth's surface.  Scientific evidence amassed over the past 25 years has shown that
Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) used around the world are  destroying the stratospheric
ozone  layer.  Increased  levels of UV radiation are  due to ozone  depletion and may increase
incidence of health effects such as skin cancer, cataracts and other illnesses.

Under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the U.S. and other
developed countries contribute to  the Multilateral Fund to support projects and activities that
eliminate the production and use of ozone depleting substances (ODS) in developing countries.
Currently, the United States and 188 other countries are Parties to  the Montreal Protocol.  The
United  States  has  repeatedly  affirmed its  commitment  to this  international  treaty and  to
demonstrating world leadership by phasing out domestic production of ODSs, as well as helping
other countries find suitable alternatives.

EPA estimates that, in the United  States alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODSs will save 6.3
million lives  from fatal  cases of skin cancer, and will avoid 299 million cases of non-fatal skin
cancers and 27.5 million cases of cataracts between 1990 and 2165. This estimate is based on the
assumption that international  ODS  phaseout targets will be achieved, allowing the ozone layer to
begin recovery by the middle of the century. In addition, the Multilateral Fund has reached long-
term  agreements  to dismantle  developing  country  chlorofluorocarbon  (CFC)  and halon
production capacity to eliminate production of 119,648 metric tons.
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA's contributions to the Multilateral Fund
in FY 2007 will help support cost-effective
projects that are designed to build capacity
and    eliminate   ODS    production   and
consumption   in   over   60    developing
countries.
Performance Assessment:   In the  2004 PART process,
OMB assessed the Stratospheric Ozone Program, and rated
it as "Adequate." EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Program is
the only governmental or  private program in the U.S.
designed and  authorized  to eliminate ozone-depleting
substances.  The program is monitoring annual progress to
ensure that it is on track to meet its long term (25-160 years)
goals.
                                        EPM - 30

-------
The Multilateral Fund continues to support over 5,150 activities in 139 countries, and when fully
implemented, will prevent annual emissions of more than 223,729  metric tons of ODSs.  Over
80% of project activities have been implemented to date, with remaining work expected to be
fully implemented by 2009.

Performance Targets:

 Long term performance goals are set to reflect environmental  response to actions to reduce
 consumption  of ozone  depleting  substances.  Meeting the long term  performance goal of
 reduced levels of effective equivalent stratospheric chlorine requires successful action not only
 by the US and other developed countries, but by all developing nations worldwide.  Developing
 nations rely on timely, complete contributions to the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund in
 order to meet their commitments, thus resulting in the meeting of the goals for reduced levels of
 effective equivalent stratospheric chlorine.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

 •     (+$4,765.0)  This increase  to the  Montreal  Protocol  Multilateral  Fund  increases
       assistance to developing  countries  in  their  efforts to eliminate  Ozone Depleting
       Substances.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990, Title 1, Parts A and D  (42 U.S.C. 7401-7434, 7501-7515), Title V
(42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f), and Title VI (42  U.S.C.  7671-7671q);  The Montreal Protocol  on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
                                       EPM-31

-------
Program Area: Brownfields
         EPM - 32

-------
                                                                           Brownfields
                                                              Program Area: Brownfields
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                               Objective(s): Communities

                                         Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$27,248.4
$27,248.4
119.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$24,534.0
$24,534.0
121.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$24,637.3
$24,637.3
121.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$103.3
$103.3
-0.4
Program Project Description:

The  Brownfields program  is designed to help states, Tribes,  local communities  and other
stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together to assess,  safely cleanup, and reuse
Brownfields.  EPA's Brownfields program funds research efforts, clarifies liability issues, enters
into Federal,  state, and local partnerships, conducts outreach activities, and creates related job
training and workforce development programs. EPA's work is focused on removing barriers and
creating incentives for Brownfield redevelopment.  The program provides financial assistance
for:

•  Training with regard to  hazardous substances for organizations representing the interests of
   states and Tribal co-implementors of the Brownfields law;
•  Tribal  technical outreach support to  address  environmental justice  issues and support
   Brownfields research; and
•  Administrative and programmatic  support  to the Agency to implement the Brownfields
   program, including logistical support for grant competition and for measurement of program
   outcomes.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In addition to supporting the operations and management  of the Brownfields program, funds
requested  will provide financial assistance for training  on hazardous  waste to  organizations
representing the interests of state and Tribal co-implementers of the Brownfields  law (Small
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act). The program also offers outreach
support for environmental justice issues involving Tribal and native  Alaskan villages or other
disadvantaged communities that  need to  address perceived  or real hazardous  substance
contamination at sites in their neighborhood or town.  EPA also will provide technical assistance
to communities that were awarded funding to combine smart growth  policies with Brownfields
redevelopment or national  groups that use the funding to address  general  issues of vacant
properties and infrastructure decisions.  EPA also will conduct further research on incentives for
                                       EPM - 33

-------
cleanup that  enables Brownfields redevelopment, pilot additional techniques to accomplish
redevelopment within communities, identify new policy and research needs and create examples
and best practices that can be copied in other communities.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-0.4 FTE) This change reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •   (+$566.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (-$463.3)  This reflects a reduction based on realigned workforce and support contract
       costs to more accurately reflect programmatic priorities.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA as amended by SBLRBRA (P.L. 107-118); RCRA, Section 8001; GMRA (1990);
SWDA; FGCAA.
                                       EPM - 34

-------
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
                 EPM-35

-------
                                                              Climate Protection Program
                                                  Program Area: Climate Protection Program
                                                 Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
   Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Protect the Ozone Layer; Radiation; Reduce Greenhouse
                                                                              Gas Intensity

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$92,457.2
$20,448.0
$112,905.2
218.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$90,834.0
$18,648.0
$109,482.0
216.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$91,843.3
$12,549.6
$104,392.9
214.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,009.3
($6,098.4)
($5,089.1)
-2.2
Program Project Description:

The core of  EPA's climate change efforts are  voluntary  government/industry partnership
programs designed to  capitalize on the  opportunities  that  consumers,  businesses,  and
organizations have for making sound investments in efficient equipment, policies, and practices.
Energy efficiency saves fuel and leads to reduction in emission  from power plants and the
transportation sector.

EPA manages a number of efforts, such as the  ENERGY STAR and SmartWay programs, clean
energy partnerships, and voluntary transportation efficiency programs to remove barriers in the
marketplace and to  deploy technology faster. EPA  programs do not provide financial subsidies.
Instead, they work to address the  lack of clear, reliable information on technology opportunities;
lack of awareness of energy efficient products,  services, and transportation  choices; and low
incentives for manufacturers to invest  in efficiency research and development.

EPA also manages the continued implementation of the Methane to Markets Partnership - a U.S.
led international initiative that promotes cost-effective, near-term methane recovery and use as a
clean energy source.  The Partnership has the potential to deliver by 2015 annual reduction in
methane emission of up to 500 billion cubic feet of natural gas. Methane to Markets builds on
the success of EPA's domestic methane voluntary programs by creating an international forum
                                             that will achieve its goals through collaboration
                                             among   developing    countries,   developed
                                             countries,   and countries with economies  in
                                             transition-  together with  strong  participation
                                             from the private sector, development banks, and
                                             other   governmental   and  non-governmental
                                             organizations.
Performance Assessment: OMB assessed the
Climate Change Program in 2004 through the
PART process, and gave it a rating of "Adequate."
There are over 20 climate change programs which
work with the private sector to cost effectively
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and facilitate
energy efficiency improvements. Each sector
(buildings, industry, and transportation) has
performance and efficiency measures to track the
amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are
reduced as a result of the programs' efforts.
                                             EPA's   Climate   Protection   Program   has
                                             encouraged  the reduction  of carbon  dioxide
                                             (CO2)  and  other  greenhouse gases  such  as
                                        EPM - 36

-------
methane and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).  EPA's climate  change programs promote the use of
energy  efficient equipment.   Since  energy efficient  equipment often has a working life of
decades or more, consumer purchases of energy efficient equipment — that are made today — will
continue to  deliver environmental and economic benefits for many years to come. Based on
investments  in equipment already made due to EPA's programs, organizations and consumers
across the country will net savings of about $100 billion and reduce greenhouse emissions by
more than 700 MMTCE (cumulative reductions based upon estimated  2004 achievements).11
For every dollar  spent by EPA on its technology  deployment programs, the programs have
reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 1.0 metric ton of carbon equivalent (3.67 tons of
CO2) and delivered more than $75 in energy bill savings.12  This is based upon cumulative
reductions since 1995.

EPA's international activities  lead to greater information and technical capacity available for
developing and industrialized countries to implement emissions reductions policies and climate
protection programs. EPA is one of several U.S. government agencies participating in the Asia-
Pacific  Partnership on Clean  Development and Climate.  The  United  States partnered with
Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea to formally launch this initiative in January 2006.
This  partnership   will focus  on  voluntary  practical  measures to  create  new investment
opportunities,  build local capacity, and  remove barriers to the introduction  of clean, more
efficient technologies. This  partnership will also help each country meet nationally designed
strategies for  improving  energy security,  reducing pollution, and addressing the long-term
challenge of climate change.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will continue to build upon its voluntary government/industry partnership efforts to achieve
even  greater greenhouse gas  reductions,  which contribute to the President's goal to reduce
greenhouse gas intensity by  18 percent by 2012. In FY 2007, EPA's climate change programs
are projected to:

•  Reduce  other  forms of pollution, including  air  pollutants such  as  nitrogen oxides (NOX),
   particulate matter, and mercury;
   Continue the ENERGY  STAR program across  the residential, commercial, and  industrial
   sectors, expanding the program as outlined in the  Administration's National Energy Policy;
•  Continue the Climate Leaders program as a key element  of the  President's Climate  Policy
   and  Clean Energy Programs which are key elements of the Administration's National Energy
   Policy;
•  Continue the  SmartWay Transport  Partnership to increase  energy  efficiency and  lower
   emissions  of freight  transportation by substantially increasing  the  market penetration of
   diesel engine  retrofits,  anti-idling technologies,  lower  rolling resistant tires, improved
   aerodynamic truck designs, improved freight logistics, and by partnering with international
   partners  like Canada and Mexico, especially at border crossings;
1: Climate Protection Partnerships Division estimate
12 Climate Protection Partnerships Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Protecting the
Environment— Together, ENERGY STAR and Other Voluntary Programs, 2003 Annual Report.


                                        EPM - 37

-------
   Continue the Best Workplaces for Commuters program to save energy, reduce C02 emissions
   and transform the way Americans get to  work by  targeting  key national businesses and
   industry sectors so that employers routinely offer great commuter benefits including telework
   programs, transit passes and carpool incentives;
•  Extend the Methane-to-Markets Partnership by assessing the feasibility of methane recovery
   and use projects at landfills, coal mines, and natural gas and oil facilities and by  identifying
   and addressing institutional, legal, regulatory and other barriers to project development in
   partner countries;
•  Assist developing countries and countries with economies-in-transition to reduce emissions
   of greenhouse gases through cost-effective  measures  and assist in the fulfillment  of the U.S.
   obligations  under the U.N.  Framework Convention on Climate  Change (UNFCCC)  to
   facilitate technology transfer to developing countries;
•  Produce measurable  international greenhouse gas emission reductions through  clean
   industrialization partnerships with key developing countries;
•  Working with USDA,  analyze, identify, and develop  specific opportunities to sequester
   carbon in  agricultural  soils,  forests, other vegetation,  and  commercial products, with
   collateral benefits for productivity and the environment;
•  Begin work on  the government-wide Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development to
   assist the region  in developing country-specific strategies to improve  investment  in clean
   energy, energy security and reduce pollution.  EPA will also  work with this Asia-Pacific
   region to develop and deploy  new and emerging technologies and tailor programs,  such as
   methane capture  and use,  building energy efficiency,  clean energy generation, and more
   efficient industrial energy use to meet the specific conditions of each area.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the
buildings sector.
FY 2005
Actual
Data
Avail. 06
FY 2005
Target
23.8
FY 2006
Target
26.5
FY 2007
Target
29.4
Units
MMTCE
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the
industry sector.
FY 2005
Actual
Data
Avail. 06
FY 2005
Target
53.5
FY 2006
Target
59.5
FY 2007
Target
64.5
Units
MMCTE
                                        EPM-38

-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the
transportation sector.
FY 2005
Actual
Data
Avail. 06
FY 2005
Target
2.9
FY 2006
Target
3.3
FY 2007
Target
4.2
Units
MMTCE
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-0.7 FTE) This change reflects a decrease in EPA's workforce as part of a management
       strategy to better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •   (-$175.0 \ -1.5 FTE)  This reduces workforce and payroll contributions by the Office of
       International Affairs to the Climate Protection Program. Remaining resources have been
       shifted to the International Capacity Building Program/ Project.

    •   (+$612.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (-$107.4) This reduces contributions by the Office of International Affairs to the Climate
       Protection Program. Remaining resources have been shifted to the International Capacity
       Building Program/ Project.

    •   (-$2,127.5) This reduces contract funds for the Energy Star program to reflect efficiency
       gains and shifting  priorities.

    •   (+$2,032.0) This will support the Methane to Markets program, an international initiative
       that  advances cost-effective,  near-term  methane recovery and  use  as  a clean  energy
       source. The goal  of the Partnership is to reduce global methane emissions  in order to
       enhance economic growth, strengthen energy security, improve  air quality, improve
       industrial safety, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

    •   (+$5,000.0) This funding will  support involvement in the Asia-Pacific Partnership, which
       will  build from existing EPA programs as well  as new efforts.  This partnership will
       focus on voluntary practical measures taken by Australia, China, India, Japan, and South
       Korea  to  accelerate  clean development  in  the  Asia-Pacific  region  to create new
       investment opportunities, build local capacity,  and remove barriers to the introduction of
       clean, more efficient technologies.  EPA will work with these  nations to develop and
       deploy innovative technologies that are cleaner and more efficient.

    •   (-$4,225.5) This decrease reflects the net changes to all other Climate Change programs,
       such as Green Power Partnership, Industrial Carbon, Best Workplaces, and International
       Capacity Building.
                                        EPM - 39

-------
Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments, 42  U.S.C.  7401 et seq.  - Sections  102,  103,  104 and  108; Pollution
Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13101  et seq. - Sections 6602, 6603, 6604 and 6605; NEPA, 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq. - Section 102; Global  Climate Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2901 - Section
1103; Federal Technology Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. - Section 3701a; CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq. - Section 104; Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.- Section 8001.
                                      EPM - 40

-------
Program Area: Compliance
         EPM-41

-------
                                                      Compliance Assistance and Centers
                                                                Program Area: Compliance
                                                    Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                               Objective(s): Preserve Land

                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental  Stewardship
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$27,207.0
$531.6
$270.1
$0.0
$28,008.7
200.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$27,935.0
$711.0
$284.0
$11.0
$28,941.0
212.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$28,890.7
$839.1
$280.2
$22.2
$30,032.2
212.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$955.7
$128.1
($3.8)
$11.2
$1,091.2
-0.3
The FY 2005 Obligations include a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and Compliance
Incentives program projects.

Program Project Description:

EPA's compliance assistance program includes  a range of activities  and tools designed to
improve  compliance with  environmental laws.  Regulated entities,  Federal  agencies  and the
public benefit from easy access to tools that help them understand these  laws and  find efficient,
cost-effective means for putting them into practice. To achieve these  goals, the Compliance
Assistance and Centers program provides information, training and technical assistance to the
regulated community to increase its understanding of statutory and regulatory environmental
requirements, thereby gaining measurable  improvements in compliance and reducing risks to
human health and the  environment.  The program also provides tools  such as plain-language
guides; interactive virtual compliance assistance centers and an on-line clearinghouse; training;
and assistance  to  other compliance  assistance providers. The Program provides international
enforcement  and  compliance  training, promotes environmental  "good  governance,"  and
promotes positive approaches to trade and environment.   Activities are tracked and reported
using the Integrated Compliance  Information System  (ICIS).  For more information, visit:
www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html;  www.epa.gov/clearinghouse;  and www.assist
ancecenters.net.

 FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007,  EPA will continue to provide general and targeted compliance assistance to the
regulated community and to integrate assistance into its  enforcement and compliance efforts. In
partnership with trade associations and other assistance  providers,  the Agency will continue to
support  the Compliance Assistance  Centers.  These Centers are  a key component of EPA's
efforts to help small and medium-sized businesses and governments understand and comply with
                                        EPM - 42

-------
federal  environmental  requirements.    The fourteen  existing  centers  and  the  National
Environmental  Compliance  Assistance  Clearinghouse  provide one-stop  shopping through
integration with the "Business Gateway" e-government initiative. The Business Gateway targets
sectors of the regulated community and the public for regulatory environmental and technical
assistance, pollution prevention activities, and resources suited to the individual sector.
   Performance Assessment:
   The   Civil   Enforcement
   Program    was    rated
   adequate in the last PART
   review completed for the
   Program in 2004 based on
   preparation of a Measures
   Improvement Plan (MTP)
   to   better   characterize
   pollutant  reductions with
The Federal Facility Enforcement Program will continue to provide technical guidance to other
Federal agencies on compliance with executive orders and applicable environmental laws. EPA
                           will also continue working with other Federal agencies to support
                           the new Federal Facilities Stewardship and Compliance Assistance
                           Center (www.fedcenter.gov) in FY 2007.
                           The Agency will improve local and state-specific information (e.g.
                           state  regulatory requirements)  available  in new  and existing
                           centers.  EPA  will  also continue to integrate the centers and
                           clearinghouse with the "Business Gateway"  Initiative. In FY 2007,
                           EPA  will  continue  refining  data  elements  to ensure accurate
                           reporting  into  the Integrated  Compliance  Information  System
                           (ICIS), and build the Agency's capacity to  measure compliance
assistance outcomes.
In FY 2007, the Agency will also carry  out the actions outlined in the Domenici-Barton Energy
Policy  Act of 2005 by providing compliance  assistance to owners and operators of Underground
Storage Tanks (UST).

The program will continue to assist foreign industries (especially those along the United States
border) who  do  business  in the  United States to  comply  with  statutory  and  regulatory
environmental requirements; and promote effective enforcement programs in foreign countries.
This will strengthen environmental protection, and level the economic playing field  in a global
trading system.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type







Measure
Percentage of regulated
entities receiving direct
compliance assistance
from EPA reporting
that they improved
EMP as a result of
EPA assistance.
FY 2005
Actual



72



FY 2005
Target



50



FY 2006
Target



50



FY 2007
Target



50



Units



Percentage



                                        EPM - 43

-------
Measure
Type







Measure
Percentage of regulated
entities receiving direct
assistance from EPA
reporting that they
reduced, treated, or
eliminated pollution, as
a result of EPA
assistance.
FY 2005
Actual



13



FY 2005
Target



25



FY 2006
Target



15



FY 2007
Target



15



Units



Percentage



EPA's Compliance Assistance Program achieves pollutant reductions, improvements in regulated
entities environmental management practices, and increases regulated entities understanding of
environmental requirements through direct compliance assistance provided by EPA  personnel,
and through on-line compliance assistance centers and the clearinghouse.    There are  many
programs evaluated under the  Civil Enforcement PART.  These programs include Compliance
Assistance, Compliance Incentives, Compliance  Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Enforcement
Training, Forensics, Superfund Enforcement, and categorical grant programs for toxic substances
and sectors.  One of the key Civil PART program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks
at the overall reduction in pollution as a result of enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring
methodologies to extend the  measure  by analyzing the risk  associated with the  pollutants
reduced. This may entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.

Although the estimated pollution reductions,  resulting from enforcement actions taken by EPA,
have grown over the past  5 years, they are  projections made from future pollution reduction
based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.  One or two cases
can have a significant affect on the end-of-year results. EPA is  working to develop a statistical
method to set the baseline  for this  measure that will eliminate the extreme variations in results
from a few cases. A baseline will be established in FY 2006.

Through  compliance assistance in FY  2005, EPA  increased the understanding of regulated
entities,   improved environmental  management  practices  (EMPs),  and reduced  pollution.
Regulated entities reported improvement of EMPs went up 78% for regulated entities using the
CACs and 72% for regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance. Forty six percent of
regulated entities reported that they reduced, treated,  or eliminated pollution as a result of using
Compliance Assistance Centers and the clearinghouse.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+1  FTE) This increase  supports the Energy Policy  Act of 2005 which provides
       assistance  for the state and tribal coordination of Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
       inspections.

    •   (+$29.3, +2.8 FTE)  This increase represents a restructuring which moves resources from
       the International  Capacity  Building program/project.  The resources will continue to
       promote security along the United States' borders with Mexico and Canada.
                                      EPM - 44

-------
    •  (+$138.9) This increase will  be used to provide  information, training, and technical
       assistance on  the nation's  environmental  laws  to regulated entities, including  other
       federal agencies and the public.

    •  (+$170.8) This is a technical adjustment moving IT/Telecommunications resources from
       the Compliance Monitoring program to support the Integrated Compliance Information
       System (ICIS) modernization project.

    •  (+$8.9 \ +1 FTE) This is a technical adjustment redirecting resources for Tribal outreach
       activities  from  the  Congressional,  Intergovernmental,   and  External  Relations
       program/project.

    •  (+$102.5) This supports multi-media enforcement and compliance assurance capacity
       building for Tribal programs.

    •  (-5.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •  (-$1,153.4) The program will  be able  to maintain the current number of Centers at 14 in
       FY2007.

    •  (+$1,658.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living increases for existing
       FTE.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA;  CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; CERCLA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; EPAct.
                                       EPM - 45

-------
                                                                   Compliance Incentives
                                                                Program Area: Compliance
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental  Stewardship
                                                          Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$10,135. 7
$148.9
$10,284.6
78.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$9,412.0
$186.0
$9,598.0
76.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,702.2
$142.7
$9,844.9
76.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$290.2
($43.3)
$246.9
-0.2
The FY 2005 Obligations include a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and Compliance
Incentives program projects.

Program Project Description:

EPA  is currently using a variety  of approaches to encourage corporate self-disclosures,  with
emphasis  on   corporate-wide   disclosures  of  environmental  violations  under  various
environmental  statutes.  EPA's Audit Policy encourages  corporate  audits of environmental
compliance and subsequent  correction of self-discovered violations, providing  a uniform
enforcement response toward disclosures of violations. Under the Audit Policy, when companies
voluntarily discover and  promptly  correct  environmental violations, EPA may  waive  or
substantially reduce civil penalties.  For more information visit:
www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/programs/index.html.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
 The  Agency's  Enforcement  Program  will   continue   to
implement  the  Audit/Self-Policing  Policy (Audit  Policy);
Small   Business  Compliance  Policy;  and   Small  Local
Governments Policy as core elements of the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Program.  Since FY 2001, over 5,000
facilities have resolved violations  under  EPA's  Voluntary
Disclosure Policies.  In FY 2007, the Agency will continue to
expand  use of the Audit Policy through aggressive outreach to
industries.   Several examples  of the  EPA's  sector-specific
efforts   include   refrigerated  warehouses,   colleges   and
universities, and healthcare facilities.  EPA actively encourages disclosures at multiple facilities
owned by the same regulated  entity, because such disclosures allow each entity to review their
operations  holistically, which more effectively benefits the environment.

In F Y 2007, the Compliance Incentives program continues to promote the use of Environmental
Management Systems  (EMSs).  EMSs provide  organizations with an approach to minimizing
Performance Assessment:
The    Civil    Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the    last   PART    review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement Plan
(MIP)   to  better  characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
                                        EPM - 46

-------
environmental impacts - regulated and unregulated - by integrating environmental concerns into
business decisions and practices. EPA will continue to implement the National Environmental
Performance  Track Program (NEPT) which  is a program that recognizes and motivates top-
performing facilities that consistently meet their legal requirements, have implemented EMS,
and made tangible improvements to their environmental performance.

In FY 2007,  the Agency  will support  and encourage states' efforts to  adopt the innovative
Environmental Results Program (ERP). ERP  consists of a set of three linked tools - compliance
assistance, self-evaluation and certification, and inspections and performance measurement - that
work together  to hold  facility  owners  and operators accountable for their  environmental
obligations.  In Massachusetts, where ERP was developed, the program improved performance
for small businesses and also resulted in savings for businesses,  while allowing the  state and
EPA to focus  resources on higher priority environmental problems.

Compliance Incentives activities are reported into the Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS), to enable the Agency to make strategic decisions for the best utilization of resources and
tools, and to  respond to increasing demands for compliance and environmental information.
EPA will  continue to make multi-media compliance incentives  information available to  the
public  through  the Enforcement and Compliance  History On-line (ECHO) Internet website
during FY 2007.  This site provides communities with compliance status, and averages 65,000
queries per month.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
Pounds of pollutants
reduced, treated, or
eliminated, as a result
of audit agreements.
FY 2005
Actual

1.9
million

FY 2005
Target

0.25
million

FY 2006
Target

0.4
million

FY 2007
Target

0.4
million

Units

Pounds

EPA's  Compliance  Incentive Programs, which encourage regulated  entities to monitor and
quickly correct environmental  violations, achieves pollutant reductions, and improvements in
regulated entities environmental management practices.  There are many programs evaluated
under  the  Civil  Enforcement PART.   These programs  include Compliance  Assistance,
Compliance Incentives,  Compliance  Monitoring,  Civil Enforcement,  Enforcement Training,
Forensics, Superfund Enforcement, and categorical  grant programs for toxic substances and
sectors.  One  of the key Civil Enforcement PART program  measures,  pounds of pollutants
reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution as a result of enforcement actions. The
Agency is exploring methodologies to extend the measure by analyzing the risk associated with
the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.

Although the estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown over the past 5 years, they are projections made of future pollution reduction based
on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year. One or two cases can have
a significant affect on the end-of-year results. A baseline was established in FY 2006.
                                       EPM - 47

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$19.1) This is a  technical adjustment moving IT and telecommunications resources
       from the  Compliance  Monitoring  program  to  support  the  Integrated Compliance
       Information System (ICIS) modernization project.

   •   (-$76.2) This reflects a decrease to  resources used to provide  incentives for regulated
       entities to comply with the environmental laws.

   •   (-0.2 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (+$347.3) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA; CWA;  SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
                                      EPM - 48

-------
                                                                  Compliance Monitoring
                                                                Program Area: Compliance
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental  Stewardship
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$85,297.9
$1,452.4
$86,750.3
625.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$85,463.0
$955.0
$86,418.0
627.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$93,018.8
$1,144.1
$94,162.9
632.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$ 7,555. 8
$189.1
$7,744.9
4.4
The FY 2005 Obligations include a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and Compliance
Incentives program projects.

Program Project Description:

The  Compliance Monitoring  program reviews  and evaluates  the activities of  the regulated
community to determine compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permit  conditions,  and
settlement  agreements.  It also responds to tips and complaints from the public, and determines
whether  conditions exist that  may  present imminent and substantial endangerment to  human
health or the environment. EPA's Compliance Monitoring program includes the management of
compliance and enforcement data and data systems,  and the use of that data to manage the
compliance and enforcement program. For more information visit:
www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring /index.html.

The Agency reviews and responds to 100 percent of the notices for trans-boundary movement of
hazardous  waste,   ensuring that  these  wastes  are  properly handled in  accordance  with
international agreements and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations.  For more
information about the Import/Export program visit:
www.epa.gov/compliance/international/importexport.html.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA  coordinates with  and provides support to state  and
Tribal partners conducting inspections either under their own
authority  or EPA's authority.   EPA's activities  will  be
targeted  in  areas that pose risks to human health or the
environment, display patterns  of noncompliance,  or involve
disproportionately  exposed populations.   EPA's  efforts
complement state and Tribal programs to ensure compliance
with laws throughout the United  States.   EPA is working
with states and Tribes to identify where these inspections,
evaluations and investigations will have the greatest impact
on  achieving environmental  results.  Program  activities will
 Performance Assessment:
 The     Civil    Enforcement
 Program was rated adequate in
 the   last   PART   review
 completed for the Program in
 2004 based on preparation of a
 Measures Improvement Plan
 (MIP)  to  better  characterize
 pollutant   reductions   with
 respect to hazard and exposure.
focus on  the  national program
                                        EPM - 49

-------
priorities and the core programs identified in the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's FY
2005/2007  National Program Guidance  as  well as on supporting and  overseeing delegated
state/Tribal programs.
For more information visit: www.epa.gov/ocfopage/npmguidance/index.htm.

To  ensure  the quality  of these  inspections/evaluations/investigations,  EPA  identifies  and
provides needed training to ensure that the inspectors/investigators are:  1) knowledgeable of
environmental  requirements and policies;  2) technically proficient to conduct the inspection and
take samples; and 3) skilled at interviewing potential witnesses and documenting the results of
inspections.

The Agency plans to implement the modernized Permit Compliance System (PCS) beginning in
Spring 2006 for direct-user states.  The  Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) -
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), or modernized PCS, will improve
the  ability of EPA and the states  to manage the Clean Water Act NPDES program.  During
Spring  2006,  ICIS-NPDES  will  bring  on  approximately seven  states, with  an  additional
seventeen states added by the end of 2006.  Development of a modernized PCS,  through
integration  into ICIS,  will  continue throughout FY 2007,  with a  goal of  completing
modernization  and moving all states to ICIS-NPDES by the end of FY 2008.

EPA will continue to make multi-media compliance monitoring information available to the
public  through the  Enforcement and Compliance  History  On-line (ECHO) Internet website
during FY 2007. This site provides communities with compliance status, averaging about 65,000
queries per month.

EPA will continue  to review  all  notices for  trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste.
While the vast majority  of the hazardous waste trade occurs with Canada, the United States also
has international trade agreements with Mexico, Malaysia, Costa Rica and the Philippines; and is
a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development which issued a
Council Decision controlling  trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste applicable to all
member countries.  In 2004, EPA  responded to 1,142 notices (representing 424 import notices
and 718 export notices).

In FY 2007, the Agency also will implement the Domenici-Barton Energy Policy Act of 2005 by
inspecting Underground Storage Tanks (UST)  on sites not inspected since December 31,  1998,
with a wide range of industries including gas stations, chemical companies, and federal facilities.
The program will also focus on monitoring compliance of gasoline rules and will ensure that the
operation and  maintenance  of ICIS  and the data flows  to  capture State UST  inspection
information will be completed.
                                       EPM - 50

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of pollution
estimated to be
reduced, treated, or
eliminated as a result
of concluded
enforcement actions.
(civil enf)
FY 2005
Actual
1,100
FY 2005
Target
300
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
Units
million
pounds
Measure
Type





Measure
Percentage of
concluded enforcement
cases (including SEPs)
requiring that pollution
be reduced, treated, or
eliminated.
FY 2005
Actual


28.8


FY 2005
Target


30


FY 2006
Target


30


FY 2007
Target


30


Units


Percentage


Measure
Type







Measure
Percentage of
concluded enforcement
cases including SEPs
requiring
implementation of
improved
environmental
management practices.
FY 2005
Actual



72.5



FY 2005
Target



60



FY 2006
Target



65



FY 2007
Target



70



Units



Percentage



Measure
Type





Measure
Percentage of regulated
entities taking
complying actions as a
re suit of on-site
compliance inspections
and evaluations.
FY 2005
Actual


19


FY 2005
Target


10


FY 2006
Target


25


FY 2007
Target


30


Units


percentage


                                  EPM-51

-------
EPA's Monitoring and Enforcement Program achieves pollutant reductions, and improvements in
regulated entities  environmental management practices through the settlement of enforcement
cases.    There are many programs evaluated under the Civil Enforcement PART.   These
programs include Compliance Assistance, Compliance Incentives, Compliance Monitoring, Civil
Enforcement, Enforcement Training, Forensics, Superfund Enforcement, and categorical grant
programs for toxic substances and sectors.  One of the key Civil Enforcement PART program
measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the  overall reduction in pollution as a result of
enforcement  actions. The Agency  is  exploring methodologies to  extend the  measure by
analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of pollutant
hazards and population exposure.

Although the estimated  pollution reductions, resulting from enforcement actions taken by EPA,
have grown  over  the past 5 years, they are projections made from future  pollution reduction
based on the  settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year. One or two cases
can have a significant effect on the  end-of-year results.  The baseline  was established in FY
2006.

FY 2007 Change from  FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$287.1 \ +6 FTE) This increase will be used to implement the Energy Policy Act of
       2005 by inspecting Underground Storage Tanks (UST) and monitoring the compliance of
       new ethanol fuel standards, Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) oxygenate, and summertime
       Volatile Organic Compounds  (VOC) requirements.

    •  (+$148.8,  +1  FTE)  This increase will be used by EPA's Region  10 to support local
       compliance monitoring activities in Alaska.

    •  (+$226.7, +1 FTE)  This increase is a technical adjustment moving resources from the
       Congressional, Intergovernmental, and External Relational program for work relating to
       the National Environmental  Performance Partnerships  System (NEPPS) and National
       Association of Attorney's General.

    •  (+$1,709.6)   This increase   provides   additional  resources  for  inspections   and
       investigations that are used to determine if members of the regulated community are in
       compliance with the nation's environmental laws.

    •  (+$1,219.5)   This increase supports continued development  of a  modernized Permit
       Compliance System which support the information management requirements of the
       Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program.

    •  (-3.6 FTE) This  decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •  (-$189.9)  This is a technical adjustment moving IT and telecommunications resources to
       the Compliance Assistance and  Compliance  Incentives  program/projects.  These funds
       are  being  moved  from  the  Integrated Compliance Information  System  (ICIS)
                                       EPM - 52

-------
       modernization component in compliance monitoring to the ICIS components in the two
       other programs.

   •   (+$4,154.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA;  ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR; EPAct.
                                    EPM - 53

-------
Program Area: Enforcement
          EPM - 54

-------
                                                                        Civil Enforcement
                                                                Program Area: Enforcement
                                                    Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                                 Objective(s): Restore Land

                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental  Stewardship
                                                          Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$113,719.7
$1,900.7
$625.2
$116,245.6
933.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$117,807.0
$1,910.0
$796.0
$120,513.0
960.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$120,777.7
$1,826.3
$883.0
$123,487.0
958.5
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,970.7
($83.7)
$87.0
$2,974.0
-2.2
The FY 2005 Obligations include a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Compliance Assistance and Compliance
Incentives program projects.

Program Project Description:

The  Civil Enforcement  program's  overarching goal is to  protect human health and  the
environment, targeting enforcement actions  according to degree  of health and environmental
risk.   The program works  with the  Department  of Justice to ensure consistent and  fair
enforcement of all environmental laws and regulations.  The objective is to level the economic
playing field by ensuring that violators do not realize an economic benefit from noncompliance,
and to deter future violations.  The  civil enforcement program develops, litigates and settles
administrative and civil judicial cases against serious violators of environmental laws. For more
information visit:
www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/index.html: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/backgnd.htm.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Civil  Enforcement program coordinates with  states  and
within EPA to establish priorities based on risk and patterns of
compliance.  In FY 2007, the Agency will continue to build on
its  work  on  national  compliance and enforcement priorities
established in FY 2005,  including Petroleum Refining; Clean
Water Act  (CWA)/Wet  Weather discharge; Clean Air  Act
(CAA)/New    Source   Review/Prevention   of   Significant
Deterioration   (NSR/PSD);   CAA/Air   Toxics;    Resource
Conservation  and Recovery Act (RCRA)/Mineral  Processing;
and RCRA/SDWA/TSCA/Financial Responsibility.
Performance Assessment:
The    Civil    Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the    last   PART    review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement Plan
(MIP)  to better  characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
                                        EPM - 55

-------
The  program will also focus FY 2007 resources on national  program priorities, including
environmental and human health problems, trans-boundary pollutants, and multi-state industrial
violators.  The  Federal Facilities Enforcement program will  continue to expeditiously pursue
enforcement actions at Federal facilities where significant violations are discovered. The Civil
Enforcement  program also  will  support  the Environmental  Justice program by  focusing
enforcement  actions  on industries  that  have repeatedly  violated  environmental  laws  in
disproportionately affected communities, including minority and/or low-income areas.

Also in FY 2007, the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) will continue to support
the civil enforcement program by ensuring the security and integrity of this data, and build the
Agency's capacity to measure civil enforcement outcomes.  The Agency will also implement the
Domenici-Barton Energy Policy Act of 2005 by focusing on enforcing new fuel standards and
acting on waiver applications.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of pollution
estimated to be
reduced, treated, or
eliminated as a result
of concluded
enforcement actions.
(civil enf)
FY 2005
Actual
1,100
FY 2005
Target
300
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
Units
Million
Pounds
Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
Dollars invested in
improved
environmental
performance or
improved
environmental
management practices
as a result of concluded
enforcement actions
(i.e., injunctive relief
and SEPs)
FY 2005
Actual


10 billion



FY 2005
Target


4 billion



FY 2006
Target


4.1 billion



FY 2007
Target


4.2 billion



Units


Dollars



EPA's Monitoring and Enforcement Program achieves pollutant reductions, and improvements in
regulated entities environmental management practices through the settlement of enforcement
cases.   There are many programs evaluated under the Civil Enforcement PART assessment.
These  programs  include  Compliance  Assistance,  Compliance  Incentives,  Compliance
Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Enforcement Training, Forensics, Superfund Enforcement, and
categorical  grant programs for toxic substances and sectors.  One of the key Civil Enforcement
PART  program  measures,  pounds of pollutants  reduced, looks at the overall reduction  in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring methodologies to extend
                                       EPM - 56

-------
the measure by  analyzing the risk  associated  with the  pollutants reduced. This may entail
analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.

Although the estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown over the past 5 years, they are projections made from future pollution  reduction
based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year and one or two cases
can have a significant affect on the end-of-year results. A baseline was established in FY 2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$326.7 \ +3.5 FTE)  This increase will be used to enforce the  Energy Policy Act of
       2005 by supporting investigations and follow up enforcement at refineries and terminals,
       and enforcement of Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) oxygenate and summertime Volatile
       Organic Compounds (VOC) requirements.

    •   (+$811.6)  This  increase will be  used  to pursue enforcement actions  against serious
       violators of the law, focusing on main national priorities, including petroleum refining,
       air toxics, New Source Review and Prevention of  Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD),
       wet weather, mineral processing, and tribal.

    •   (+$31.7 \ +2.9 FTE) This increase represents a restructuring that more accurately aligns
       the work accomplished  by the International Compliance Assurance Division of the
       Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. These resources will be transferred
       from the International Capacity Building program to assist border countries (i.e. Canada
       and Mexico) to  comply  with United  States statutory  and  regulatory environmental
       requirements  and promote effective  enforcement  programs in foreign  countries. This
       restructuring will not  change the  work that is currently being  accomplished by the
       International Compliance Assurance Division.

    •   (+$10.0) This increase  will  be  used  by  EPA's Region 10 to  support local  civil
       enforcement activities in Alaska.

    •   (-8.6 FTE)  This decrease reflects a  change in EPA's workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •   (+$1,790.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA;  CWA;  SOW A;  CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR; NEPA; SBLRBRERA; CERCLA; PPA; CERFA; AEA; PPA; UMTRLWA; EPAct.
                                       EPM - 57

-------
                                                                 Criminal Enforcement
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                         Goal: Compliance and Environmental  Stewardship
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$35,109.3
$8,070.1
$43,179.4
251.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$37,565.0
$8,275.0
$45,840.0
273.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
537,793.5
$8,502.2
$46,295.7
270.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$228.5
$227.2
$455.7
-2.7
Program Project Description:

The Criminal Enforcement program, mandated by the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990, deters
violations of environmental laws and regulations by demonstrating that the regulated community
will be held accountable, through jail sentences and criminal fines,  for serious, willful statutory
violations.  The program thus serves as a warning for potential violators, enhancing aggregate
compliance with laws and regulations.

The Criminal Enforcement program conducts  investigations and refers case  for prosecution.
Where appropriate, it  helps secure plea agreements  or sentencing  conditions that will  require
defendants to improve their environmental management practices (e.g., by securing permits or
developing environmental  management systems to enhance performance).  The Agency also
develops information to support grand jury inquiries and decisions, and works with other law
enforcement agencies  to present a highly  visible and effective force in the Agency's  overall
enforcement strategy.   Cases are  referred  to the Department of Justice for prosecution, with
special agents serving as key witnesses in the proceedings.

The program also participates in task forces with state and local law enforcement, and provides
specialized training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA.
FLETC provides one of  the few opportunities  for  state,  local, and  tribal environmental
enforcement professionals to obtain criminal investigation training. For more information visit:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the Criminal  Enforcement  Program  will continue  implementing  its strategic
approach by emphasizing investigations and prosecutions of national and regional enforcement
priorities, as well as complex cases that have the most significant impact upon human health and
the environment.  The Criminal  Enforcement Program also will continue to enhance  its
coordination with the Civil Enforcement  program by expanding the Regional case screening
process and by taking  criminal enforcement actions against long-term, or repeat significant non-
compliers where appropriate.
                                       EPM - 58

-------
 Performance Assessment:  The Criminal
 Enforcement Program was rated adequate
 with  the  addition  of  new outcome
 measures. The program created a measure
 implementation plan to  set targets and
 milestones for  performance measures.
 Case Conclusion Data Sheet improvements
 will  collect  new  data  for Criminal
 Enforcement  PART   measures.   EPA
 anticipates   collecting    performance
 information for  pollution reduction and
 recidivism performance targets in 2006.
 The    targets    for   the   Improved
 Environmental  Management and the
 Pollutant  Impact  measures  will  be
 developed  in  FY2007  and FY2008
 respectively.
In FY  2007,  the Criminal  Case Reporting  System
(which  replaces the  existing CRIMDOC  system and
will come "on-line" in FY 2006) will complete a series
of enhancements to  allow real  time entry  of  data
associated with all closed criminal enforcement cases.
This information will be used to systematically  compile
a profile  of criminal  cases, including  the  extent  to
which   the  cases support Agency-wide,  program-
specific, or Regional  enforcement  priorities.   The
profile will  also  describe the impact of the cases  in
terms of pollution released into the  environment and
resulting environmental harm such as the degradation
of drinking water wells, human populations injured  or
made ill, and aquatic or animal life harmed.
Performance Targets:

This program underwent a PART assessment in 2004 and received a rating of Adequate based on
submission of  a  Measures  Implementation Plan.   In FY 2007,  the  Criminal  Enforcement
program's Pollution Reduction measure will be reported against the baseline and target set in FY
2006, which uses an average of pollutant reduction data from three fiscal years (FY 2003-2005).
The results of this measure are likely to fluctuate annually due to the specific characteristics of
the enforcement cases concluded during a given fiscal year, however, applied over the long-term,
this information will  help the program to identify  and prioritize cases that present the most
serious threats to public health and the environment.

In addition, in  FY  2007 the Criminal Enforcement Program will report  its  PART-approved
measures  on "improved  environmental management"  and "recidivism" after the targets  and
baselines are developed in FY 2006. The program will also develop the targets and baselines for
its "pollutant impact" measure (i.e., the amount of illegal pollution released into the environment
that cannot be treated, remediated or otherwise reduced) in order to begin external reporting of
that measure in  FY 2008. Work under this program supports the Improve Compliance objective.
Currently, there are no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$111.3) This increase will be used to conduct criminal investigations and refer cases
       for prosecution.

    •  (-2.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •  (-$886.7)  This decrease reflects the FY  2006 Congressional earmark for the criminal
       enforcement program which is not requested in FY 2007.
                                       EPM - 59

-------
    •  (+$1,003.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA; CWA;  SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR; Pollution Prosecution Act;  Federal Criminal  Code (18 USC) Powers of
Environmental Protection Agency; EPAct.
                                    EPM - 60

-------
                                                                   Enforcement Training
                                                               Program Area: Enforcement
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental  Stewardship
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$3,766.2
$897.8
$4,664.0
25.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$2,945.0
$581.0
$3,526.0
17.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,503.7
$621.9
$3,125.6
16.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($441.3)
$40.9
($400.4)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

As  mandated by the Pollution Prosecution Act, the Agency's Enforcement Training program
provides environmental enforcement training  nationwide, through EPA's National Enforcement
Training Institute (NETI). The program oversees the design and delivery of core and specialized
enforcement courses that sustain a well-trained workforce to carry out the Agency's enforcement
goals.   Courses are  provided to lawyers, inspectors,  civil  and criminal  investigators,  and
technical experts at all levels of government.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2007, NETI will develop and deliver training to address
variances  in   enforcement   and   compliance   assurance
knowledge and skills identified in  needs assessments  and
national strategic plans. The program funds training for states
and  tribes through cooperative agreements with  state/tribal
entities.

NETI also maintains a training center on the Internet,  "NETI
Online," which offers targeted technical training courses and a
clearinghouse  of  training  information  to  national   and
international audiences. The site provides tools for tracking individual training plans, as well as
developing, managing and  improving the  program's  training  delivery processes.   For more
information, please visit:  http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html.
Performance Assessment:
The    Civil     Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the    last   PART   review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement  Plan
(MIP)  to better  characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
                                        EPM-61

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of pollution
estimated to be
reduced, treated, or
eliminated as a result
of concluded
enforcement actions.
(civil enf)
FY 2005
Actual
1,100
FY 2005
Target
300
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
Units
Million
Pounds
This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review in 2004, which received an
overall rating of Adequate based on development of a Measures Implementation Plan.  One of
the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution
as a result of enforcement actions.   The Agency is exploring methodologies to  extend the
measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced.  This may entail analysis of
pollutant hazards and population exposure.

Although the estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown over the past 5 years, they are projections made from future pollution reduction
based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.  One or two cases
can have a significant affect on the end-of-year results. A baseline was established in FY 2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-$492.1)  This decrease reflects the FY 2006 Congressional earmark for the National
       Enforcement Training Institute (NET!) which is not requested in FY 2007.

    •  (-$17.5) This decrease reduces support for various enforcement training activities.

    •  (+$68.3) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

PPA; RLBPHRA;  RCRA;  CWA;  SDWA; CAA;  TSCA; EPCRA; TSCA; FIFRA;  ODA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
                                      EPM - 62

-------
                                                                  Environmental Justice
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                               Objective(s): Communities
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$4,853.2
$921.5
$5,774.7
21.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$5,569.0
$827.0
$6,396.0
18.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,859.0
$756.7
$4,615.7
17.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,710.0)
($70.3)
($1,780.3)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

The Environmental Justice program addresses environmental and human health concerns in all
communities, focusing attention on minority and/or low-income communities — segments of the
population that have been, or could be disproportionately exposed to environmental harm and
risks.   The program  provides education, outreach,  and data to communities and facilitates the
integration of environmental justice principles into Agency activities. The Agency also supports
state and tribal environmental justice programs and conducts outreach and technical assistance to
states,  local  governments,  and stakeholders  on  environmental justice  issues.   For more
information on the Environmental Justice program please visit:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/index.html.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA  will  enhance  and maintain  the  Online Environmental
Justice Geographical Information System Assessment Tool to
help individuals, government, industry, and organizations better
identify and address environment and public health issues that
may affect  them.   The Environmental Justice  Geographical
Information System Assessment Tool provides ready  access to
environmental, public health, economic, and social demographic
information from EPA and other government sources.
Performance Assessment:
The    Civil    Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the   last   PART   review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement  Plan
(MIP)  to better characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
The Program will also work with other EPA offices to develop customized online tools that help
the Agency integrate environmental justice  into their  day-to-day  work in an  efficient  and
effective manner.  Currently, the Program is assisting the Compliance Assurance program to
develop an online assessment tool for use in conjunction with compliance activities.

In FY 2007, EPA will maintain the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving (CPS)
Cooperative Agreement Program.  This program provides financial assistance to affected local
community-based organizations who wish to engage in constructive and collaborative problem-
                                       EPM - 63

-------
solving.  This is achieved by utilizing tools developed by EPA and others to find viable solutions
for their community's environmental and/or public health concerns.

EPA will continue to manage its Environmental  Justice  Small Grants program, which assists
community-based organizations  in developing  solutions  to local environmental issues.   The
program  has awarded more than  1,000 grants of up to $20,000  each to community-based
organizations and other entities such as universities, Tribes, and  schools.

In FY 2007, EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program will continue to lead an
Agency-wide effort to more fully incorporate environmental justice into EPA's programs and
operations, including its  5-year planning  and budget process.  The Environmental  Justice
Strategic Plan will link to applicable  portions of the headquarters program and regional offices'
environmental justice activities.

The  Agency  also  will  continue  to   chair the  Federal   Interagency   Working  Group  on
Environmental  Justice (IWG), composed of 11  Federal agencies, to ensure that environmental
justice concerns are incorporated into all Federal programs.  In 2007, the IWG will continue its
efforts to work collaboratively and constructively with all  levels of government, and throughout
the public and private sectors.  The IWG also will effectively address the environmental, health,
economic  and  social challenges  facing our  communities by  continuing to monitor the
demonstration and revitalization projects underway which have used the collaborative problem-
solving model as a tool for addressing local environmental  and/or public health issues.

In FY 2007, the Agency will continue to use alternative dispute  resolution (ADR) as an effective
means of addressing disputes by training local community  organizations on its use.  Through the
use of ADR, the Agency expects to reduce time and resources accompanying  litigation and
anticipates that decisions reached will be more efficient and favorable for all parties involved.

The Agency will  also continue to assist program offices and other environmental organizations
and government agencies deliver customized training to  increase the capacity  of personnel to
effectively address issues  of environmental justice.   This training includes both in-person
presentations and development of online training.

Performance Targets:

This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review in 2004,  which received an
overall rating of Adequate based on development of a Measures Implementation Plan.  One of
the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution
as a result of  enforcement actions.   The Agency  is exploring methodologies to extend the
measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced.  This may entail analysis of
pollutant  hazards and  population  exposure.  Work under this program  supports  Healthy
Communities objective. Currently, there are no performance measures specific to this program
project.
                                        EPM - 64

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$1,875.0)  This  decrease  reflects  the  FY 2006  Congressional  earmark  for  the
       environmental justice program which is not requested in FY 2007.

   •   (-0.1 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (-$26.2)   This  decrease  reflects a small reduction  in  funding  for the Agency's
       environmental justice activities.

   •   (+$191.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

Executive Order 12898; RCRA; CWA; DWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA;
ODA; NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA; Pollution Prosecution Act.
                                      EPM - 65

-------
                                                                 NEPA Implementation
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
 Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$13,016.8
$13,016.8
110.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$12,640.0
$12,640.0
101.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,787.5
$13,787.5
104.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,147.5
$1,147.5
2.3
Program Project Description:

As required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the NEPA Implementation program
reviews Environmental Impact Statements detailing the  anticipated environmental impacts of
proposed major Federal actions, and options for avoiding or mitigating them.  The program
manages the Agency's official filing activity for all Federal  environmental impact statements, in
accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council on Environmental Quality.
The  program also  manages  the  review  of  environmental  impact  assessments  of  non-
governmental activities in Antarctica, in accordance with the Antarctic  Science,  Tourism, and
Conservation Act.

In addition, the program fosters cooperation with other Federal agencies to ensure compliance
with applicable environmental statutes, and to promote better integration of pollution prevention
and ecological risk assessment elements into their programs. The Agency targets high impact
Federal program areas, such as water resources and transportation/energy related projects. The
program also develops policy and technical guidance on issues related to NEPA, the Endangered
Species Act,  the National Historic Preservation  Act and relevant Executive Orders. For  more
information visit: www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2007, EPA  will work with other Federal  agencies to
streamline and improve their NEPA process. Work will focus on
a number of key areas such as approval of highway and airport
expansion;  hydro-power/nuclear power plant re-licensing;  coal
bed  methane development and other energy-related  projects;
military base realignment/redevelopment; flood control and port
development; and management of national forests and public
lands.
Performance Assessment:
The    Civil    Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the   last   PART   review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement Plan
(MIP)  to better  characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
The  NEPA  Implementation program  also guides EPA's own
compliance  with  NEPA,  other  applicable  statutes  and  executive  orders,  and  related
Environmental Justice requirements.   Corresponding efforts include  EPA-issued new source
                                       EPM - 66

-------
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, in cases where a State or
Tribe has not assumed responsibility for the NPDES program; off-shore oil and gas projects;
Clean  Water Act wastewater treatment plant  grants;  and special  appropriation grants  for
wastewater, water supply and solid waste collection facilities.  In FY 2007,  90 percent of EPA
projects  subject  to  NEPA  environmental assessment  or  environmental  impact statement
requirements (e.g., water treatment facility projects and other grants, new source NPDES permits
and EPA facilities) are expected to result in no significant environmental impact.

NEPA reviews for projects in Alaska are expected to increase in number and complexity, and
resources are requested to support the additional  efforts needed. By 2007 the projected number
of oil,  gas and mining projects in Alaska is anticipated to increase by 50% to 100% over 2005
levels. The variety and complexity of these Alaska projects span a broad spectrum, including: a
proposed natural gas pipeline; on-shore and off-shore oil and gas   exploration and production,
including the Congressionally authorized oil and  gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge; and metal mines.  This challenge is impacted by Executive Order 13212, which requires
agencies to expedite their permit reviews or other actions to accelerate the completion of energy-
related projects.

Performance Targets:

This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART assessment in 2004, which received
an overall rating of Adequate based on development of a Measures Implementation Plan. One of
the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution
as a result of enforcement actions.  The Agency  is exploring methodologies to extend  the
measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of
pollutant hazards and population exposure. Work under this program  supports the Improve
Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation objective.  Currently
there are no specific performance measures exist for the program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$63.9)  This increase will support environmental impact statement  and environmental
       assessment work.

    •  (+$294.4,  +3 FTE)  This increase will be used by EPA's Region 10 to  support local
       compliance monitoring activities in Alaska.

    •  (-0.7 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •  (+$789.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CAA; NEPA; ASTCA; CWA; ESA; NHPA; AHPA; FCMA; FWCA; EO 12898.
                                       EPM - 67

-------
Program Area: Geographic Programs
              EPM - 68

-------
                                                  Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
                                                      Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                               Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                        Objective(s): Protect Water Quality

                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                 Objective(s): Ecosystems
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$22,886.6
$22,886.6
22.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$22,118.0
$22,118.0
21.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
526,397.7
$26,397.7
21.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$4,279.7
$4,279.7
-0.2
Program Project Description:

EPA's work in the Chesapeake Bay is based on a regional partnership  formed to direct and
conduct  restoration  of the  Chesapeake Bay.   Partners include  Maryland,  Virginia  and
Pennsylvania; the District  of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative
body; and  participating citizen  advisory groups.  Delaware,  New York and West Virginia,
representing the Bay's headwaters, also  participate in Bay Program water quality  restoration
activities.

Chesapeake 2000,  a comprehensive strategy developed between all partners, guides restoration
and protection efforts in the Bay through 2010. The plan focuses on improving water quality as
the most critical element in the overall protection and restoration of the Bay  and its tributaries.
The restoration of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), a primary indicator of water quality, is
a key program performance measure.

To improve water quality  and restore SAV, Bay partners have committed to reducing nutrient
(phosphorus and nitrogen) and  sediment pollution  loads.  In Chesapeake 2000, the partners
committed  to "correcting the nutrient-  and  sediment-  related problems in the Chesapeake  Bay
and its tidal tributaries sufficiently  to remove the Bay and the tidal portions of the tributaries
from the list of impaired waters under the  Clean Water Act" by 2010.  Total  reductions from
1985 levels needed to achieve the new standards are currently estimated to be 162 M Ibs/yr for
nitrogen, 14.3 M  Ibs/yr for phosphorus  and 1.68 M tons/yr  for sediment.   Total reductions
needed from the FY 2002 baseline  are HIM Ibs/yr for nitrogen, 6.3  M Ibs/yr for phosphorus
and 0.88 M tons/yr for sediment, indicating progress is being attained.

In order to  achieve the necessary additional reductions, states will need to fully implement their
pollution reduction strategies.  Key elements of State strategies to achieve these reductions
include: (1) the implementation of advanced wastewater treatment to reduce nutrient discharges;
(2) the use of a range of best management  practices to reduce nutrients and  sediment loadings
from farms; and (3) the restoration and protection of riparian forests that serve as a buffer against
sediment and nutrient pollution that  enters waterways from the land. (For additional information
visit http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=l 86.)
                                       EPM - 69

-------
         :ง 20
         E
             5
 010
Phosphorus
5
                                              2010
                                              Nitrogen
                                              Goal

-1
20
Se
Go
1_
10
diment
al

_
1
                 HIS  7000  70M
                                          W85  2000  2004
                                                                       ?OOI)  7004
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
 While there are a number of measures used by the Chesapeake Bay Program, a key measure of
 success, which integrates water quality and essential aquatic habitat, is the restoration of SAV.
 SAV is one  of the most  important biological communities in  the Bay, producing  oxygen,
 nourishing  a  variety  of animals,  providing shelter and  nursery  areas for fish and shellfish,
 reducing wave action  and shoreline erosion,  absorbing nutrients such  as  phosphorus  and
 nitrogen, and  trapping sediments.

 While recent improvements in water quality have contributed to a modest increase in SAV, from
 a low of 38,000 acres in  1984 to a cumulative total of 72,935 acres, more improvements  are
 needed. The  "healthy Bay" goal of 185,000 acres of SAV is expected to return the resource to
 historical levels.  As a measure of improved water quality in the Bay, the goal for FY 2007 is
 there   will   be   100,000   acres   of   SAV.      (For   additional   information   visit
 www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=88 .)
            •BO
        O 8O -

        Cฃft 6O -

         co 4O -

        3l 20 -

              O
                      Restoration Goal (1 SS,OQO acres by 2O1O)
                              n
                  n
fl
                 f^~~ r^- ^D ia^f ฃEf <3cl ob 545 cK II> *SS *3C> ^IS iri tซ 'fcp? ^^ %3^ 
-------
 subsequent inability to reliably photograph SAV. Spatial gaps in 2001 occurred due to flight restrictions near Washington D.C.
 after the September llth terrorist attacks. Other gaps occurred in 2003 due to adverse -weather in the spring, summer, and fall
 (Hurricane Isabel). Estimates of acreage in the nonsurveyed areas, based on prior years' surveys, were developed for 1999,
 2001, and 2003.

 Additional indicators used to measure environmental improvement in the Bay are reductions in
 the  pounds   of nitrogen,  phosphorus,  and  sediment  entering the  Bay.    Through the
 implementation of best management practices, reductions in these pollutants are  occurring and
 are  offsetting  significant load increases  that  would  have resulted  from population growth.
 Maintaining the existing nitrogen, phosphorus  and sediment loading levels will be a challenge
 due to the continued expected growth in  human and farm animal population in  the region. In
 addition, the current pollutant loading rate continues to exceed the level needed to meet the Bay
 water quality standards adopted by the states in 2005.

In 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners  (including the Administrator of EPA) committed
to a goal of restoring Bay water quality by 2010. This ambitious commitment created a sense of
urgency within EPA and partner government agencies to establish new, attainable water quality
criteria and standards and agree to scientifically-supported, protective nutrient and  sediment load
allocations.   The targets in  Bay Program  plans for nutrient  and  sediment reductions are
scientifically based and reflect a multi-state consensus.

The Program plans to conduct a full re-evaluation beginning in 2007 in response to commitments
made by program leaders.  In the meantime, the Program continues to pursue strategies to
accelerate nutrient-sediment reduction.  Strategies include, (1) state adoption of enforceable Bay-
specific water quality standards,  (2) implementation of an innovative basin-wide  NPDES
permitting  strategy for nitrogen and phosphorus,  and  (3) the implementation of a  strategy to
address excess animal manure and poultry litter endorsed by the  Chesapeake Executive Council
in 2005.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Acres of submerged
aquatic vegetation
(SAV) present in the
Chesapeake Bay.
(cumulative)
FY 2005
Actual
89,659
FY 2005
Target
90,000
FY 2006
Target
90,000
FY 2007
Target
100,000
Units
Acres
While recent improvements in water quality have contributed to a modest increase in SAV, from
a low of 38,000 acres in 1984 to a cumulative total of 72,935 acres, more improvements are
needed. Beginning in FY 2005, achievement of SAV targets will be based on the "single best
year" of acreage as observed through the most recent three years of data from the aerial survey.
This new method for reporting performance more accurately captures the natural fluctuations in
acreage due to annual changes caused by weather.  Baywide, the single best year in the calendar
years 2002 through 2004 period was 89,659 acres in 2002.

The CBPO is revising the FY 2006 commitments and FY 2007 targets based on these factors:
                                        EPM-71

-------
   •   The FY 2005 commitments (based on single best year in the calendar years 2002 through
       2004)  for nutrient  and  sediment  reductions  and SAV were not met.   FY 2006
       performance will be based on calendar year 2004 results of 72,935  acres, unless actual
       figures for 2005 are higher.
   •   SAV acreages  are impacted  by loads of nutrients and sediment delivered to the Bay.
       Calendar year  2002 was  a drought year and relatively low levels  of these pollutants
       entered the Bay, allowing SAV acreage to increase.  Calendar years 2003 - 2004 were
       wet years. SAV acreages declined significantly in 2003  and increased only modestly in
       2004.  Based on 2005 rainfall, it is expected that SAV acreage for  calendar year 2005
       may show a slight increase but still fall short of the FY 2006 commitment.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$6,396.9) This increase will be used for wetlands protection and other nonpoint source
       work.

   •   (-$1,970.6) This reflects a decrease from Small Water Program activities, reflecting the
       discontinuation of special 2006 funding for promoting community-based  efforts to
       develop and implement conservation strategies.

   •   (-$146.6)  This decrease  is  the net effect of increases for payroll  and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a recalculation of base workforce costs.

   •   (-0.2 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

CWA.
                                       EPM - 72

-------
                                                       Geographic Program:  Great Lakes
                                                       Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                  Objective(s): Ecosystems
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$21,098.8
$21,098.8
53.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$21,164.0
$21,164.0
52.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$20,577.1
$20,577.1
65.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($586.9)
($586.9)
13.0
Program Project Description:

The Great Lakes are the largest system of surface freshwater on earth, containing 20 percent of
the world's surface freshwater and accounting for  84 percent of the surface freshwater in the
United States. The watershed includes two nations, eight U.S  states, a Canadian province, more
than 40 Tribes, and more than one-tenth of the U.S.  population. The goal of the Agency's Great
Lakes Program is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical  and biological  integrity of the
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.  The Great Lakes Program:

    •   Monitors and reports annual air and water monitoring data for nutrients, toxics and biota
       for five lakes in partnership with other Federal, state and Canadian agencies;
    •   Operates the binational Great Lakes Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network;
    •   Performs toxic reduction activities by implementing the Great Lakes Binational Toxics
       Strategy for reduced loadings  of targeted pollutants in accordance with the Great Lakes
       Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)13;
    •   Performs demonstrations and  investigations related to contaminated sediments in  Great
       Lakes rivers and harbors;
    •   Protects and restores habitat to decrease loss of high quality ecological communities and
       rare species and increase ecosystem  conditions and functions providing habitat with the
       necessary size, mixture, and quality to sustain native plants and animals; and
    •   Addresses  invasive  species,  though collaboration  with   partners,  by  emphasizing
       prevention of additional introductions.
For more information visit http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/.)
13 U.S. EPA. Great Lakes National Program Office. April 1997.  The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. Washington, DC.
Available online at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/p2/bns.html.
                                        EPM - 73

-------
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes, and will work with
State, local, and Tribal  partners, using  the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's strategy as a
guide.  The President's May 2004 Executive Order established the Great Lakes Task force to
coordinate the Federal effort to improve water quality in the Great Lakes.  EPA will continue
working with partners to  restore the chemical, physical,  and biological integrity of the  Great
Lakes ecosystem through the core water protection programs. EPA will make strong efforts in
working with states and local communities to clean-up  and de-list 8 AOCs by 2010 and most
AOCs by 2025.  EPA will continue to  work toward the existing Agency goals of a  25 percent
reduction in PCB concentrations in Lake Trout and walleye (see Figure 1) and for 90 percent of
monitored Great Lakes beaches to be open 95 percent of the season.
EPA  will work  with  states,  industry,  Tribes,  non-governmental  organizations,  and  other
stakeholders  to   coordinate  Great  Lakes  monitoring,  information management,  pollution
prevention, contaminated  sediments,  habitat,  invasive  species,  lakewide  management, and
remedial  action plan programs to be consistent with the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategic  Plan.   Following intensive ship- and land-based monitoring of Lakes Michigan and
Superior  in 2005 and  2006,  respectively, EPA will focus  on similar cooperative monitoring
efforts with Canada on Lake Huron in 2007.
      E
      Q.
      Q.
      W>
      m
      o
      o.
 5

4.5

 4

3.5

 3

2.5

 2

1.5

 1

0.5

 0
                  Total PCBs in Great Lakes Top Predator Fish, Odd
                                            Year Sites
                                    Lake Trout (Walleye in Lake Erie)
Lake Michigan
Lake Superior
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
                                                                 o
                                                                 g
                                                                 CM
                                                             1-    CM
                                                             ง    ง
                                                             CM    CM
                CO
                g
                CM
                                               Year
                               PCBs in Great Lakes Top Predator Fish
                                                            14
14 A sample of 50 whole fish is collected each year (x-axis). 10 sets of 5 fish are composited and averaged for the data points above. Great Lakes
Fish Monitoring Program - Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sample Analysis, University of Minnesota.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP%20OAPP%20v7.pdf Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - Quality Assurance
Project Plan for Sample Collection Activities, Great Lakes National Program Office.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP OAPP 082504.pdf
                                          EPM - 74

-------
EPA will continue to monitor the annual occurrence of high rates of oxygen depletion, which
lead to low dissolved-oxygen levels in Lake Erie in the so-called "dead zone," and EPA will lead
the development of management recommendations to mitigate the underlying causes.  Despite
U.S. and Canadian success in achieving total  phosphorus load reductions,  phosphorus in the
central basin of Lake Erie has increased since the early 1990's to levels substantially in excess of
the GLWQA Objective of 10ug-P/l15. During 2006, EPA will  work with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) to continue to investigate the depleted oxygen conditions
and will update models of Lake Erie's response to nutrients.  In 2007, efforts will focus on
information  gaps,  which are  identified  through  the modeling  process regarding  nutrient
dynamics, and on the identification of management implications for Lake Erie restoration.

In FY 2007, EPA will lead Canadian and US Federal agencies  and the academic community in
exploring causes of the rapid decline  of the Diporeia population in the Great Lakes.  The decline
may be related to invasive species.  Diporeia are normally the predominant organism at the base
of the Great Lakes food web (up to 70 percent of living biomass of a healthy lake bottom).  Their
decline may portend adverse affects on Great Lakes fish and fisheries.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Prevent water pollution
and protect aquatic
systems so that overall
ecosystem health of the
Great Lakes is
improved (cumulative)
FY 2005
Actual


21.9
points


FY 2005
Target


21


FY 2006
Target


21


FY 2007
Target


21


Units
40 point
Great Lakes
Ecosystem
Scale
(l=poor;
40=excellent)
Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
Average concentrations
of PCBs in whole lake
trout and walleye
samples will decline.
FY 2005
Actual

6.2%

FY 2005
Target

5%

FY 2006
Target

5%

FY 2007
Target

5%

Units

Annual
Decrease

Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002, Approved April
2003. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/

5 Great Lakes National Program Office Annual Monitoring Program - Changes in Phosphorus levels and direction over time,
Great Lakes Environmental Database. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/glindicators/index.html.
                                         EPM - 75

-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Average concentrations
of toxic chemicals in
the air in the Great
Lakes basin will
decline
FY 2005
Actual
7.1%
FY 2005
Target
7%
FY 2006
Target
7%
FY 2007
Target
7%
Units
Annual
Decrease
Each of these performance measures reflects the results of multiple base EPA base programs and
other activities of organizations working to improve Great Lakes environmental conditions.

The score for overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is expected to remain constant in 2007
from 2006.  Ecosystem improvement  on a scale as  large as the Great Lakes is likely to be
reflected  in time periods greater than a year.

Following long term trends, average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake  trout and walleye
samples  are expected  to continue to  decline by 5% annually, reflecting  modest  continual
improvement in Great Lakes health.

Following long term trends, average concentrations of toxic chemicals (PCBs) in the  air in the
Great Lakes  basin are expected to continue  to  decline by  7% annually,  reflecting modest
continual improvement in Great Lakes health.

FY 2007  Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•  (-$806.8) This decrease is will allow EPA to redirect funding from lower priority activities.
   The Great Lakes Legacy Act, which is funded at $50 million, $20  million over 2006 levels,
   will coordinate with GLNPO to augment and support ongoing AOC work.

•  (+$219.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

•  (+13 FTE) The increase provides the workforce to support the Great Lakes Legacy Act.

Statutory Authority:

1990 Great Lakes Critical  Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act (Great
Lakes Legacy Act); CWA;  Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990;
Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; North American  Wetlands Conservation Act;  US-
Canada Agreements;  WRDA;  1909 The  Boundary Waters Treaty; 1978 GLWQA; 1987
GLWQA; 1987 Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances; 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997
Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy.
                                      EPM - 76

-------
                                                   Geographic Program:  Gulf of Mexico
                                                      Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                 Objective(s): Ecosystems
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$3,739.8
$3,739.8
10.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$4,809.0
$4,809.0
13.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,310.7
$4,310.7
14.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($498.3)
($498.3)
1.0
Program Project Description:

EPA's efforts in the Gulf of Mexico directly support a collaborative, multi-organizational Gulf
states-led partnership comprised of regional, business and industry,  agriculture, state and local
government, citizens, environmental and fishery interests, and numerous Federal departments
and agencies. The Gulf of Mexico Program (www.epa.gov/gmpo) is designed to assist the Gulf
states and stakeholders in developing a regional, ecosystem-based framework for restoring and
protecting the Gulf of Mexico.  In response to the U.S. Ocean  Action Plan,  thirteen Federal
agencies have come together to form a Regional Partnership to provide support to the Gulf of
Mexico Alliance, a partnership of the five Gulf states. The Gulf  states have identified five key
priority coastal  and ocean issues that are regionally significant and can be effectively addressed
through cooperation at the local, state, and Federal levels. The partnership will target specific
Federal,  state, local, and private programs and identify processes and financial authorities in
order to leverage the resources needed to support the Gulf of Mexico Action Plan developed by
the Gulf Alliance. EPA supports this partnership's efforts to effectively address the complex and
pressing issues facing the Gulf of Mexico.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Gulf  of Mexico issues  can  be broadly categorized  as affecting water  quality, public health,
nutrient reductions, and coastal restoration.  Activities of the Gulf of Mexico Program and its
partners include:

   •   Supporting efforts to  achieve the 2007 target to restore 20% of impaired segments in the
       13 priority coastal areas to achieve water and habitat quality levels that meet state water
       quality standards;

   •   Supporting projects with the goal of creating, restoring or protecting 2400  acres of
       important coastal and marine habitats in the Gulf of Mexico;

   •   Supporting State and  coastal community efforts to manage harmful algal blooms (HABs)
       by implementing an integrated binational early-warning system;
                                        EPM - 77

-------
       Assisting the Gulf States in reducing contamination of seafood and local beaches through
       efforts to establish effective bacterial source tracking methods and technologies;
   •   Assisting in consumer awareness/educational efforts to reduce the rate of shell-borne
       Vibrio vulnificus  illnesses  caused by consumption of commercially-harvested raw  or
       undercooked oysters;

   •   Supporting efforts to reduce nutrient loadings to watersheds;

   •   Fostering regional stewardship through Gulf Guardian Awards and outreach projects.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
Prevent water pollution
and protect aquatic
systems so that overall
aquatic system health
of coastal waters of the
Gulf of Mexico is
improved
FY 2005
Actual



2.40



FY 2005
Target



2.4



FY 2006
Target



2.4



FY 2007
Target



2.4



Units
5 -point
National
Coastal
Condition
Index (1=
poor;
5=good)
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Reduce releases of
nutrients throughout
the Mississippi River
Basin to reduce the
size of the hypoxic
zone in the Gulf of
Mexico, as measured
by the five year
running average
FY 2005
Actual


12,700


FY 2005
Target


14,128


FY 2006
Target


14,128


FY 2007
Target


14,128


Units


sqkm


A major indication of improvement in the overall health of the  entire Gulf of Mexico is a
reduction  in the size of the zone of hypoxic conditions (i.e. low  oxygen in the water) in the
northern Gulf.  The hypoxic zone results in the failure to capture fish, shrimp,  and crabs in
bottom-dragging trawls when the oxygen falls below the critical level of 2 ppm.  The seasonal
formation  and persistence of hypoxia  are influenced by discharges and nutrient loads of the
Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers.  The  fresher water forms a layer above the saltier Gulf
waters.  Nitrogen and phosphorus in the river water stimulate the growth of microscopic plants or
phytoplankton.  These algae are either transferred into the food web or end up as organic debris
on the sea floor.  Their decomposition by bacteria depletes oxygen in the lower waters until they
no longer sustain the life of most marine animals.
                                        EPM - 78

-------
The coast wide extent of the hypoxic zone mapped in 2005 was  11,840 square kilometers (or
4,564 square miles).  The low oxygen waters extended from near the Mississippi River to the
Louisiana/Texas border.  The long-term average since mapping began in 1985 is 12,700 km2 (or
4,800 square miles).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$477.4) This reduction in program  funding  will allow EPA to fund higher priority
       activities.

   •   (-$20.9) This decrease is the net effect  of increases for payroll and cost of living increases
       for existing FTE,  combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
       costs.

   •   (+1 FTE)  This increase reflects the special needs of the Gulf area and will serve as a
       liaison on post-Katrina Gulf policy issues.

Statutory Authority:

CWA.
                                       EPM - 79

-------
                                                 Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
                                                      Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                 Objective(s): Ecosystems
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$686.3
$686.3
0.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$1,926.0
$1,926.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$933. 8
$933.8
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($992.2)
($992.2)
0.0
Program Project Description:

Lake  Champlain was designated a resource of national significance by the Lake  Champlain
Special Designation Act (Public Law 101-596) which was signed into law on November 5, 1990.
A plan, "Opportunities for Action", was developed to achieve the goal of the Act, which brings
together people with diverse interests in the Lake to create a comprehensive pollution prevention,
control,  and restoration plan for protecting the future of the  Lake Champlain Basin.  Efforts to
protect  Lake  Champlain reflect  the successful  interstate,   interagency,  and  international
partnership undertaking the implementation of the Plan. "Opportunities for Action" is designed
to address various threats to the Lake's water quality, including phosphorus loadings, invasive
species,    and   toxic   substances.       For  more   information,   visit   www.lcbp.org,
nh.water.usgs.gov/champlain feds/, and www.epa.gov/NE/eco/lakechamplain/index.html.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Lake  Champlain  Basin's water quality,  fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, recreation, and  cultural
resources depend on EPA's participation and funding contribution to the Lake Champlain Basin
Program.  In the  Lake Champlain Basin Program,  EPA  will work with  state  and  local
governments to restore and protect Lake Champlain and its surrounding watershed for future
generations. Activities include:

    •  Addressing high levels of phosphorus, which encourage algal blooms in parts of the lake;

    •  Reducing levels of persistent toxic contaminants in the lake's sediments and fish;

    •  Addressing invasive, non-native  aquatic plants, and animals, such  as zebra mussels,
      milfoil, and water chestnuts,  which displace  native species and reduce recreational
      values;

    •  Continuing work to understand the high seasonal concentrations  of toxic cyanobacteria,
      particularly microcystin, in the northern reaches of Lake Champlain;

    •  Continued limnological monitoring in inland waters (both saline and fresh);
                                       EPM - 80

-------
   •   Continued education/outreach and training;

   •   Continuing restoration through community involvement;

   •   Controlling aquatic nuisance species; and

   •   Continuing the implementation of the Lake Champlain Total  Maximum Daily  Load
       (TMDL) for phosphorus.

Performance Targets:

Tracking progress is a key component of the "Opportunities for Action." Plan.  EPA and our
partners conduct extensive monitoring and assessment to demonstrate progress toward a variety
of goals, including those for the reduction of toxics, phosphorus loadings and the introduction
and spread of invasive species.

Work under this program  supports EPA's healthy  communities and  ecosystems  objective.
Currently, there are no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$992.2) This will  reduce  efforts in implementing  the TMDL for phosphorous.  This
       reduction will allow EPA to fund higher priority activities.  Other national programs also
       will continue to provide support for Lake Champlain.

Statutory Authority:

1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes
and Lake Champlain Act;  CWA;  North American Wetlands Conservation Act; U.S.-Canada
Agreements; and WRDA.
                                      EPM-81

-------
                                               Geographic Program:  Long Island Sound
                                                      Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                 Objective(s): Ecosystems
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,132.7
$2,132.7
0.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$470.0
$470.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$466.9
$466.9
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($3.1)
($3.1)
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA supports protection and restoration activities in the Long Island Sound and implementing
the Sound's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), which was approved
in September 1994 under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended.

The CCMP is a product of the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) — a bi-state cooperative effort to
restore and  protect the  Sound authorized  under CWA Section 119.  The LISS includes EPA,
Connecticut, New York, scientific researchers, user groups, industry, and other  concerned
organizations and individuals. The LISS organized a number of committees to help ensure broad
input into development of,  and continuing implementation  of the CCMP.  These committees
represent policy,  management,  citizen, and scientific  and technical interests from around the
Long Island Sound region. Restoration and protection actions focus on six areas identified in the
CCMP that require special attention: hypoxia, toxic contamination, pathogens, floatable debris,
the impact of habitat  degradation  and loss on the health of living resources, land use  and
development, and public education, information, and participation.

Further information about this program can be found at http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to ensure implementation of
the LISS CCMP in 2007 through coordinating
the  actions  of  the   LISS   Management
Conference   authorized   under  the   CWA
Sections 320 and 119. Efforts will focus in the
following four primary areas  — cleanup and
restoration actions; water quality monitoring;
scientific research; and public information and
education.  Specifically, EPA will focus on:
Performance  Assessment:   The  Oceans  and
Coastal Program underwent the PART for the first
time in FY 2005 and received an adequate rating.
The purpose of the program is to  integrate the
control of water pollution from land-base sources
and vessels to improve the overall health of ocean
and coastal ecosystems.   The program provided
performance measures, including one long-term,
                                        EPM - 82

-------
Cleanup and Restoration

    •   Nitrogen reduction from point and nonpoint sources of pollution to reduce large areas of
       the Sound that are seasonally impaired as habitat for fish and shellfish because of low
       dissolved oxygen levels, a condition called hypoxia;

    •   Habitat restoration and protection to improve the productivity of tidal wetlands,  intertidal
       zones,  and  other key   habitats that  have  been  adversely affected  by  unplanned
       development, overuse, or pollution;

    •   Watershed protection and nonpoint source pollution controls to reduce  the effects  of
       runoff  pollution on rivers  and streams discharging to the Sound,  and to restore and
       protect streamside buffer zones;

    •   Stewardship of ecologically  and biologically  significant  areas,  and identification and
       management of recreationally important areas and compatible public access and use;

Water Quality Monitoring

    •   Monitoring water quality, including environmental indicators  such as dissolved oxygen
       levels,  temperature,  salinity, and water clarity,  and  biological indicators  such  as
       chlorophyll a, to assess  environmental conditions that may contribute to impaired water
       quality;

Scientific Research

    •   Scientific research into the  causes and effects of pollution on  the Sound's living marine
       resources, ecosystems, water quality and human uses; and

Public Information and Education

    •   Public  education and information to report on implementation progress and the status of
       environmental and other indicators of ecosystem health.

Performance  Targets:

    •   Water  Quality:  reduced nitrogen pollution to Long Island Sound by 26% from 1994
       baseline, or by 59,000 pounds per day from the baseline level.

    •   Habitat Restoration and  Protection: restored or protected 1,175 acres of coastal habitats
       in New York and Connecticut portions of the Long Island Sound watershed, and

    •   Fish Passage:  reopened 65 miles of river corridor in Connecticut to anadromous fish
       passage, achieving 65% of the 10-year goal through 2004.
                                        EPM - 83

-------
   Work under this program supports EPA's healthy communities and ecosystems.  Currently,
   there are no performances measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$3.1) This modest reduction will have no measurable impact.

Statutory Authority:

2002 Great Lakes  and Lake Champlain Act; CWA; Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and
Restoration Act of 1990; Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of  2000; North American Wetlands
Conservation Act;  WRDA.
                                      EPM - 84

-------
                                                           Geographic Program: Other
                                                      Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                   Objective(s): Communities; Ecosystems
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$6,786.1
$6,786.1
6.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$9,957.0
$9,957.0
12.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,050.0
$9,050.0
12.4
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($907.0)
($907.0)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

EPA  targets  efforts  to protect and restore  communities  and  ecosystems  impacted  by
environmental problems.  Under this program, the Agency works with communities to develop
and implement community-based  approaches to mitigate  diffuse sources of pollution  and
cumulative  risk  for  four  geographic  programs: South  Florida;  Northwest  Forest; Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Restoration; and Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE).
The Agency also  fosters community efforts to build consensus and mobilize local resources to
target highest risks.
The South Florida Program takes the  lead on special initiatives and planning activities in  the
South Florida region, which includes  the Everglades and Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem.
Implementing,  coordinating,  and facilitating  activities include the  Section  404 Wetlands
Protection Program of the Clean Water Act  (CWA),  Comprehensive  Everglades Restoration
Program (CERP), Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National  Marine
Sanctuary (FKNMS), the Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI) as directed by  the
U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, Brownfields Program, and other Waste Division programs.  For
more information  see http://www.epa.gov/Region4/southflorida/index.html.

The Northwest (NW) Forest Program implements a  collaborative planning and  management
framework that supports efforts needed to generate interagency  management agreement and joint
funding for watershed assessment, planning, protection,  and restoration efforts.  The Program's
focus  on aquatic  and watershed monitoring contributes to aquatic and riparian monitoring on
Federal lands,  as well  as, monitoring efforts  on all  lands  under  the Pacific NW  Aquatic
Monitoring Partnership.  These two efforts contribute to the achievement of national examples of
watershed scale aquatic monitoring and  collaborative monitoring across Federal,  Tribal, state,
and private lands.  For more information see http://www.reo.gov/monitoring.

The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program strives to restore the ecological health of the
Basin by developing and funding restoration projects and related  scientific  and public education
projects. Projects focused on water quality, habitat monitoring and evaluation, and sustainable
development will  be emphasized in response to the impacts of Hurricane Katrina.    For more
information see http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/casel/ponchatrain.htm.
                                       EPM - 85

-------
The Community Action  for a Renewed Environment (CARE) is a  community-based, multi-
media program  designed to  help local  communities address the cumulative  risk of toxics
exposure. Through the CARE program, EPA provides technical support for communities, helps
them use collaborative processes to select and  implement local  actions, and awards federal
funding for projects to reduce exposure to toxic pollutants. CARE works through two different
competitive grants:  the smaller cooperative agreements support the development of community
based stakeholder groups to assess local toxics risks; and, the larger cooperative agreements are
for communities that have already  organized  and assessed risks  and are ready to select risk
reduction activities.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

South Florida

In FY 2007 the South Florida Program will continue to coordinate and implement the Water
Quality Protection Program  for the FKNMS,  including management of long-term status and
trends monitoring  projects (water quality,  coral  reef, and seagrass).  In addition, EPA will
conduct studies to determine  cause-and-effect  relationships between pollutants and changes to
biological resources, implement wastewater and  storm water master plans, and conduct public
education and outreach  activities.   Finally,  the program  will provide  monetary  and/or
technical/managerial support for priority environmental projects and programs in South Florida,
including:
       •  Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative,
       •  Water Quality Protection Strategy for the South Florida Ecosystem; and
       •  Integrated Mercury Study.

This program is funded at $2.5 million.

Northwest Forest

In FY 2007 EPA and partners will implement shared responsibilities for the Aquatic Monitoring
Strategy, including broad scale monitoring  indicators, protocols, and a design framework.  In
addition, EPA will implement an intensive effectiveness-monitoring network in 3 to 5 basins in
Oregon and Washington and compare and report on 2006 state, EPA,  Tribal  and Forest Service
monitoring protocols.    EPA also  will develop shared data  standards  and  data  sharing
network/tools  for state, Tribal, and Federal efforts and continue developing and implementing
the common probabilistic survey design to allow  creation of annual data summaries and "report
cards" for state, Tribal and Federal PNW monitoring efforts. EPA also will complete watershed
condition/trend monitoring in 25 to 30 watersheds in California, Oregon, and Washington.  This
program is funded at $1.1 million.

Lake Pontchartrain
In 2007 EPA will continue efforts to restore of the ecological health  of the Lake Pontchartrain
Basin, particularly in response to changes resulting from Hurricane Katrina. Through the Lake
Pontchartrain  Basin Foundation, EPA  will  support water  quality   and habitat evaluations
throughout the Basin, and  sustainable  development opportunities  in New Orleans and  in
                                       EPM - 86

-------
previously undeveloped land to  the north and west  of New  Orleans.  EPA will continue  to
support projects and  studies in the Comprehensive Management Plan  (CMP) and through
outreach and public education projects.  EPA will work with partners  to execute franchise
agreements for centralized sewer collection and drinking water distribution systems in priority
areas; this project will establish a template by which appropriate franchising can be applied to
other parishes  in Louisiana.   The  CMP was recently updated, and  EPA has approved the
additional coastal preservation/restoration objectives and the multiple lines of defense strategy in
the CMP in response to Hurricane Katrina.  This program is  funded at approximately $1.0
million.
CARE

In FY 2007 CARE will continue to build on the wide range of current Agency efforts designed to
address community concerns such as Waste-wise, Integrated Pest Management, Best Workplaces
for Commuters, National  Priorities for Environmental  Pollutants and Performance  Track
improving their effectiveness by  working  to  integrate  them  to better meet the  needs  of
communities.  EPA has  funded  12  CARE programs throughout the country. EPA expects this
number to fund approximately 20 programs in FY 2007.

Performance Targets:

The South Florida Program continues  efforts to implement EPA's Everglades Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), the only monitoring effort that provides extensive
information  on mercury and  phosphorus conditions and environmental health throughout the
entire Everglades system.  Research projects associated with the  FKNMS program provides the
scientific information to justify critical wastewater and storm water infrastructure projects.  The
program also works with partners to develop control technologies to meet the 10 part-per-billion
requirement for phosphorus in the  Everglades,  and leads the  development of pesticide
monitoring and best management practices to avoid contamination of surface and ground water
in Everglades National Park.

Activities in the NW Forest Program  focus  on  developing data standards and  participating  in
interagency watershed monitoring and  planning efforts.  EPA works with partners to develop
shared data standards and implement effectiveness monitoring pilots.

EPA continues efforts to implement priority actions in the Comprehensive Management Plan for
the Pontchartrain Basin, including upgrading sewerage collection systems to improve water
quality in the Basin, with an emphasis on reducing health risks associated with the contamination
of drinking water wells. A detailed engineering and financial plan has been developed for the
implementation of the regional system, as well as a strategy for including private, community
and individual treatment systems in the regional plan. EPA worked with partners to complete the
development of a comprehensive, Parish-wide wastewater plan for the next 20 years. This phase
also included:   further identification  of property  needs, detailed  evaluation  of existing
infrastructure and development of plans and specifications for the initial  transmission system and
connection to interim regional treatment facilities. The Agency also finalized the management
system  recommendations  and funding plan necessary  for full  implementation of the  region
program.
                                       EPM - 87

-------
Through the CARE program, EPA provides technical support for communities, helps them use
collaborative processes to select and implement local actions, and awards Federal funding for
projects to reduce exposure to toxic pollutants. Much of the risk reduction comes through the
application of over 25 EPA voluntary programs from across the Agency. CARE uses two sets of
cooperative agreements. In the smaller Level I agreements, the community, working with EPA,
creates  a collaborative problem-solving group made up  of the various stakeholders  in the
community.  That group assesses the community's toxic exposure  problems and begins to
identify potential solutions. In the  larger Level II agreements,  the community, working with
EPA, selects and funds projects that reduce risk and improve the environment in the community.

Work under this program  supports  EPA's healthy  communities and ecosystem objective.
Currently, there are no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$1,971.0)   This  reflects  a  decrease from  Puget  Sound  activities,  reflecting the
       discontinuation  of  special 2006 funding  for  implementation of the Comprehensive
       Conservation and Management Plan.

    •   (-$1,141.2)  This reflects  a decrease from Lake Pontchartrain efforts,  reflecting the
       discontinuation  of  special  2006 funding  for  support of  planning,  outreach  and
       implementation activities.

    •   (+$50.4)  This  reflects an increase to Northwest Forest activities ($16.0) and the South
       Florida Program ($34.4) to  support implementation of ecosystem-based  plans in these
       areas.

    •   (+$619.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (-0.1  FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management  strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •   (+$1,535.4)  This increase to the CARE program will enable EPA to work with additional
       communities and state and local governments to use  collaborative processes to develop
       neighborhood-based  solutions that will reduce toxic risks.

Statutory Authority:

South Florida:  Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990;  National
Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992; CWA; RCRA; and CERCLA. Northwest
Forest:  CWA;  Economy Act of 1932; and Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. Lake
Pontchartrain:  CWA. CARE: As a multi-media program CARE uses grant authority from all
the major statutes (CAA, CWA, SWDA, TSCA, etc.).
                                       EPM - 88

-------
                                                          Regional Geographic Initiatives
                                                      Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                    Objective(s): Communities; Ecosystems
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$8,057.0
$8,057.0
17.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$8,060.0
$8,060.0
15.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,137.3
$9,137.3
15.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,077.3
$1,077.3
0.0
Program Project Description:

Multi-media Regional  Geographic Initiative  (RGI) funds are available to EPA's Regions to
support innovative, geographically-based projects.  These  funds support priority local  and
regional  environmental projects that protect children's health, restore watersheds, provide for
clean air, prevent pollution and foster environmental stewardship.  The problems addressed by
RGI funds often  showcase innovative solutions to local priority threats to human health and
ecosystems. RGI provides an essential tool for EPA's Regional offices to broaden their role as
regulatory  entities, to  include  facilitation  of holistic innovative  resolutions  to complex
environmental problems.  RGI spurs local projects that have often become national models (such
as school bus diesel retrofits, watershed planning and development  of agricultural pollution
prevention performance  standards for pest management).   Many  RGI Initiatives also have
financial support from other sources:  states, localities,  non-profit organizations and the private
sector.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

RGI provides  modest funding to support eight to ten environmental and public health projects
per Region. These initiatives encourage communities to invest in projects which yield improved
environmental results important to their communities. Areas of focus include:

•   In FY 2007 and beyond, watershed and coastal protection will continue to be top priorities
    for EPA's regional office in Atlanta, Georgia.  This region has one third of the nation's
    wetlands, one third of its estuaries, and one third of the nation's coastline (over 2,000 miles).
    It supports the river systems of the Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee and Savannah River basins,
    and with the other  Southeast river systems, totals nearly 460,000  miles of waterways (the
    most miles for any  EPA regional office in the country).  A major portion of FY 2007 RGI
    funding will be used to help address specific  local water quality issues, especially those
    related to agriculture,  the Gulf of Mexico, major river systems, coastal smart growth projects,
    and community watershed projects.

•   EPA's  regional office  in Seattle, Washington continues to use RGI  funds to support
    collaborative  community based  multimedia projects that are both  innovative and cost-
                                        EPM - 89

-------
   effective. In FY 2007, the regional office plans to focus its RGI funds in two strategic target
   areas:  1) Sensitive Populations: reducing  or preventing environmental risks  to  sensitive
   populations, including but not limited to children, the elderly, asthmatics, pregnant women,
   and immigrant and Native  American communities, and 2) Environmentally  Responsible
   Land Use: projects that include, but are not limited to smart growth planning in developing
   areas, sustainable agriculture and forestry,  and innovative storm water management.  EPA
   recognizes the value  of the knowledge,  expertise,  and  communities' commitment toward
   solving their environmental problems, and has seen regional interest in this type of funding
   opportunity increase  annually.   Typically,  the Seattle  office receives well over  100
   applications annually, for about ten grant awards.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program supports multiple objectives. Currently,  there are no performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$289.1)  This decrease is the net effect of increases to  payroll and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based  on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

   •   (+$1,366.4)  This  increase  will support additional  local and  regional environmental
       projects that protect  children's health, prevent  pollution   and  foster environmental
       stewardship activities.

Statutory Authority:

CWA; CAA; TSCA; CERLA; SOW A; PPA; RCRA.
                                       EPM - 90

-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
             EPM-91

-------
                                   Homeland Security:  Communication and Information
                                                       Program Area: Homeland Security

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$5,432.4
$0.0
$5,432.4
7.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$6,475.0
$296.0
$6,771.0
13.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,799.7
$300.0
$7,099.7
13.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$324.7
$4.0
$328.7
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program  coordinates development and implementation of homeland security policy and
related information security across the Agency. EPA coordinates its homeland security policy
with other Federal partners as well as within the Agency through implementation of Homeland
Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs).  EPA also works to ensure rapid access to relevant
communication tools, accelerated transfers of data, the development of models and  maps to
support response activities, and effective Agency wide communication in emergency situations.

The HSPDs, and use of an  Agency  wide  team of  people  called the Homeland  Security
Collaborative Network (HSCN) support the Agency's ability to effectively implement its broad
range of homeland security responsibilities, ensure consistent development and implementation
of homeland security policies and procedures, and build an external network of partners so that
EPA's homeland security efforts are integrated into the  Federal effort, complementing the work
of other Federal partners.  This approach also serves  to capitalize on the concept of "dual-
benefits" so that EPA's homeland security efforts enhance and are integrated into EPA core
environmental programs that serve to protect human health and the environment.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA's FY 2007 homeland security resources for information systems will continue support for
the Agency's rapid  response  infrastructure by delivering increased network capacity.  In FY
2007, EPA will ensure emergency access to the Agency's information resources by  continuing
deployment of an integrated  Internet/Wide Area Network (WAN)/Local Area Network (LAN)
solution - Mobile Laboratory LAN-in-a-Box — that can be immediately deployed anywhere to
equip mobile laboratories with high speed, secure access to the Internet and the EPA WAN, and
the ability to  share  information  on  scene.   In addition, Homeland  Security information
technology efforts  are closely coordinated with  the Agency-wide  Information Security  and
                                       EPM - 92

-------
Infrastructure activities coordinated and managed in the Information Security  and IT/Data
Management programs.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives.  Currently,  there are  no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$58.9) Increased resource levels will provide for the acquisition of additional LAN-in-
       a-Box systems.

    •   (+$162.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (+$103.4) This increase will provide for an automated tracking system of progress on the
       Agency's homeland security activities.

Statutory Authority:

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); CERCLA; SOW A,
CWA; CAA, BioTerrorism Act; Homeland Security Act of 2002; Defense Against Weapons of
Mass Destruction Act (Title XIV of Public Law 104-201).
                                       EPM - 93

-------
                                   Homeland Security:  Critical Infrastructure Protection
                                                         Program Area: Homeland Security
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                              Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Radiation

                                                               Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                        Objective(s): Protect Human Health

                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Compliance

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$6,700.6
$17,952.2
$1,348.2
$26,001.0
47.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$6,787.0
$12,393.0
$1,442.0
$20,622.0
59.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$7,242.7
$45,251.0
$1,571.6
$54,065.3
59.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$455.7
$32,858.0
$129.6
$33,443.3
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program involves several EPA activities that coordinate and support the protection of the
nation's  critical  public infrastructure  from terrorist threats.  EPA activities  support effective
information sharing and dissemination to help protect critical water infrastructure.  Support to
state and local governments also helps them develop methods to detect anomalies in ambient air.
EPA also provides subject matter expertise in environmental criminal investigations and training
support for terrorism-related investigations.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to build its capacity to identify and respond to threats to critical
national infrastructure.

EPA's  wastewater  and  drinking water   security  efforts  will continue  to  support the
implementation of information sharing tools and mechanisms to provide timely information on
contaminant  properties,  water treatment   effectiveness,  detection technologies,  analytical
protocols and laboratory capabilities for use in responding to a water contamination event. EPA
will continue to support  effective  communication conduits to disseminate threat and incident
information and  to  serve as  a  clearing-house for  sensitive  information.   EPA promotes
information sharing between the water sector and such groups as environmental  professionals
and scientists, law enforcement and public health agencies,  the  intelligence community, and
technical assistance providers.  Through such exchange, water systems can  obtain up-to-date
information on current technologies in water security, accurately  assess their vulnerabilities to
                                        EPM - 94

-------
terror acts and  work  cooperatively with  public  health officials,  first  responders  and law
enforcement officials to respond effectively in the event of an emergency.

EPA partners with both the Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center (WaterlSAC) and
the Water Security Channel (WaterSC) to provide up-to-date security information for drinking
and wastewater  utilities.   This group  is  evaluating the potential  for  integration  with  the
Department of Homeland Security's Homeland Security  Information Network  (HSIN) - a new
information sharing network offered to the critical infrastructure sectors,  including  all utilities
within the water sector. In FY 2007, approximately 8,000 drinking water and wastewater utilities
will receive notices and have access to the WaterSC web portal, a  service of the WaterlSAC
designed to provide communication from the Federal government to the water sector affiliates.
In addition, more than 500 water  utilities representing  55% of the population will rely on a
secure and up-to-date  web-based  environment on water system  security  as  members of
WaterlSAC.

In FY 2007, EPA will focus on its goal to train all EPA criminal investigators in the National
Counter Terrorism Evidence Response Team (NCERT) areas of Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Environmental Crime Scene/  Forensic Evidence Collection. EPA criminal investigators
provide environmental expertise for criminal cases and support the FBI and DHS in the event of
a terrorist attack anywhere in the United States.   In FY 2007, the program will continue this
multi-year effort to train and provide these agents with the necessary specialized response and
evidence collection equipment. This will enable EPA criminal investigators to collect evidence
and process a crime scene safely and effectively in a contaminated environment (hot zone).

EPA will continue to provide support for infrastructure  protection by assisting state and local
governments  to develop methods for detecting anomalies in ambient air.  This includes the
continued  development of source-oriented, near-field  modeling science and  techniques to
address direct releases  or  emission of toxic and/or harmful  air pollutants as well  as  the
development and improvements of multi-pollutant models to demonstrate effects of air threats to
air quality.  For monitoring, EPA will  continue the testing and improvement of  monitoring
technologies and institutional infrastructure of the Federal, state and local ambient air  monitoring
networks and capabilities. EPA will provide technical assistance as necessary to respond to or be
prepared for an air quality threat in the United States.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives.  Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$358.3)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (+$28.9)  This increase will support continuation of the WaterlSAC.

    •   (+$23.6) This increase will provide improved ambient air monitoring
                                       EPM - 95

-------
   •  (+$44.9) This increase will provide improved environmental criminal investigative
      capacity related to Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Statutory Authority:

SDWA;  CWA; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002;
EPCRA;  CAA; RCRA;  TSCA; Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act;  FIFRA;
ODA; NEPA; North American Agreement on Environmental  Cooperation;  1983  La Paz
Agreement on US/Mexico Border Region; Pollution Prosecution Act.
                                      EPM - 96

-------
                              Homeland Security:  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
                                                         Program Area: Homeland Security
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                       Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,620.2
$33,417.3
$38,131.8
$74,169.3
143.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$3,252.0
$35,752.0
$37,579.0
$76,583.0
160.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,328.7
$44,498.1
$49,774.9
$97,601.7
165.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
576.7
$8,746.1
$12,195.9
$21,018.7
5.0
Program Project Description:

Through this program EPA continues to increase the state of preparedness for homeland security
incidents. One area of emphasis is to prepare for incidents that release or introduce dangerous
chemicals or certain foreign plant or animal pathogens or other pests into the United  States.
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) are also needed by  first responders and Chemical
Risk Managers  to  help  guide response and  preparedness efforts.   In addition  to  dictating
evacuation or shelter-in-place decisions, AEGLs are used to help guide the development  of
chemical protective equipment and chemical detection limits.

EPA is taking action to significantly improve the nation's ability to decontaminate buildings and
other sites, crops, and livestock and food facilities contaminated  with select agent pathogens or
other biological organisms of significant consequence to public health, the food and agriculture
sector, and  the economy.  EPA, using its core  programs and  statutory authority, is making
decisions to approve the use of new pesticides that will  prevent or control these organisms in
order to facilitate safe re-occupancy and to protect the production  of crops, livestock, and food in
the U.S.

Introduction of dangerous pathogens or pests could cause significant crop or livestock diseases,
which could result in catastrophic damage to the  multi-billion dollar U.S.  food and agriculture
sectors.   EPA, working with other Federal  and state  agencies and industry, will focus on
addressing the  need for  readily available chemical pesticide products for  decontamination  of
agricultural structures, crops, and livestock and food facilities.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will review and make decisions  on  requests from  other Federal and state
agencies and/or pesticide manufacturers for the use of specific pesticides to inactivate biological
agents or emerging pathogens that have been identified  by authorities as potential significant
threats to the public's health and/or livestock animals and crops and the nation's food supply and
                                        EPM - 97

-------
economy.  The goal is to ensure availability of adequate  pesticides to prevent, control, and
recover from a major threat.

In FY 2007, depending on the number of submitted requests, the Agency will make regulatory
decisions on approximately 5 pesticides for use against potentially dangerous crop and livestock
pests.  EPA will review extensive scientific data on each of these pesticides to ensure their use
will meet current safety  standards for human health and the environment and additionally, for
public health antimicrobial pesticides, that they meet efficacy standards. EPA will also establish
by regulation any necessary maximum residue limits (tolerances) for those pesticides to ensure a
safe food supply and enable interstate commerce and international trade of treated crop and food
commodities.

EPA will accelerate development of AEGLs that are needed by First Responders and Chemical
Risk Managers for use in chemical emergency and counter-terrorism planning,  prevention and
response programs.  In FY 2007, EPA's program plans to develop Proposed AEGL values for 24
chemicals.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the Healthy Communities objective. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•      (+$7.3)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

•      (+$69.4)  This increase will support development  of AEGLs relevant to Homeland
       Security preparedness.  Including support for IT, telecommunications and contracts.

Statutory Authority:

Public Health  Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; CERCLA;
SARA;  TSCA; Oil Pollution Act; Pollution Prevention Act; RCRA; EPCRA; SOW A;  CWA;
CAA; FIFRA;  FFDCA; FQPA; Ocean Dumping Act; Public Health Service Act, as amended; 42
U.S.C 201 et seq.; Executive Order 10831 (1970); Public Law 86-373; PRIA.
                                       EPM - 98

-------
                     Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
                                                        Program Area: Homeland Security

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$9,102.2
$2,517.6
$12,936.5
$694.2
$25,250.5
4.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$6,199.0
$2,050.0
$11,331.0
$588.0
$20,168.0
3.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,268.9
$2,079.0
$11,385.1
$594.2
$20,327.2
3.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$69.9
$29.0
$54.1
$6.2
$159.2
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and that the Agency is prepared to conduct its essential functions during an emergency or threat
situation. This involves safeguarding EPA's  staff, ensuring the continuity of operations and
protecting the capability of EPA's vital infrastructure assets.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency funds three types of activities with these Homeland Security resources: physical
security, personnel security, and national security information activities.

Physical  security activities involve conducting nationwide vulnerability assessments at EPA's
191  facilities on a regular basis in accordance with federal mandates.  In FY 2007, the Agency
will focus  on physical security activities  to retrofit access control systems in  order to comply
with Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12 - Policy for a Common Identification
Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors.

Personnel  security  activities  include  conducting  position  risk  designations;  performing
prescreening  activities on prospective new  hires;  initiating, tracking and monitoring, and
adjudicating federal investigations to  determine if employees and select non-federal workers are
suitable for employment  or  worthy of possessing national  security  clearances;  maintaining
personnel security files and information on more than 26,000 employees and select non-federal
workers; leveraging  and optimizing  technology  to automate personnel security functions and
services, such as processing personnel actions and investigations; developing and distributing
guidance and outreach to  employees on various  topics.  In FY 2007,  as part  of the Agency's
                                       EPM - 99

-------
responsibilities under HSPD 12, the Agency plans to conduct 5,000  investigations on  new
employees and the affected  non-federal  workforce prior to issuing  smart cards  to these
individuals.

National security information activities include  classifying,  declassifying, and  safeguarding
classified information; identification and marking of classified information; education, training,
and  outreach;  audits and  self inspections; certification  and accreditation of secure  access
facilities (SAFs) and sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIFs); and reporting.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives.  Currently, there are no performance
measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Changes from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•   (+$4.9) This reflects an increase for payroll  and cost of living for existing FTE.

•   (+$142.8) This increase will support security at new EPA facilities.

•   (-$77.8)  Reflects budget restructuring; funds  moved to  International Capacity  Building
    Program Project.

Statutory Authority:

Public Health Security  and  Bioterrorism Emergency  and Response  Act of 2002; and Secure
Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629).
                                       EPM- 100

-------
Program Area: Indoor Air
         EPM- 101

-------
                                                             Indoor Air: Radon Program
                                                                 Program Area: Indoor Air
                                                 Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                          Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$5,986.6
$696.7
$6,683.3
41.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$5,159.0
$429.0
$5,588.0
43.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,519.2
$442.2
$5,961.4
42.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$360.2
$13.2
$373.4
-0.4
Program Project Description:

EPA's non-regulatory indoor radon program promotes voluntary public action to reduce health
risk  from indoor radon (second only to smoking as a cause of lung cancer).   EPA and the
Surgeon General recommend that people do  a simple home test and, if levels above EPA's
guidelines are confirmed, reduce those levels by home mitigation using inexpensive and simple
techniques.  EPA  also recommends that new homes be built radon-resistant using techniques
described in national building codes.

This voluntary program includes national, regional, state, and Tribal programs and activities that
promote radon risk reduction activities across the spectrum of building type.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007 EPA will:
       Continue  to  build  new  national
       partnerships  and  increase  national
       outreach;
       Increase the number of states, tribes,
       and   localities  with   active   and
       comprehensive   radon   programs,
       through state partnerships;
Performance Assessment: The Indoor Air Program,
assessed by OMB in 2005 through the PART process,
received a  rating of  "Moderately Effective."  The
program does not issue regulations, so it works toward
its goal by  conducting  research  and  promoting
appropriate  risk  reduction actions through voluntary
education and outreach programs.  The Program will
be focusing on making efficiency improvements.
    •   Continue to work with  partners to
       accelerate action in the marketplace to incorporate radon risk reduction as a normal part
       of doing business; and
    •   Expand scientific knowledge and technologies to support and drive aggressive action on
       radon in conjunction with its partners.

Additionally, EPA will continue to promote  public action to test homes for indoor radon and
where levels are above the action level,  to  mitigate; to  encourage builders to construct  new
homes with radon-resistant features in areas  where there is elevated radon;  and to continue its
                                        EPM- 102

-------
work with national partners to inform and motivate public action using recent risk estimates from
the National Academy of Sciences that show substantially higher risks associated with radon
exposure. The program will promote radon testing and mitigation in Federal housing and through
private real estate transactions, promote radon-resistant new construction, and track results in
these program areas.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type

Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes (new and
existing) with radon
reducing features
FY 2005
Actual

Data
Avail. 06
FY 2005
Target

173,000
FY 2006
Target

180,000
FY 2007
Target

190,000
Units

Homes
The measure included in the performance table is a new measure developed during the process of
completing a 2005 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process; the target listed is the
long-term date for reporting out results of the measure.

 In FY 2007, EPA expects 190,000 additional  homes to have radon reducing features (90,000
 mitigations and  100,000 new homes with radon  resistant new construction), bringing the
 cumulative number of U.S. homes with radon reducing features to 2.4 million.  EPA estimates
 that this cumulative number will result in over 700 future premature cancer deaths prevented
 (each year these radon reducing features are in place).  EPA is on track for achieving the FY
 2012 target of 1250 premature cancer deaths prevented.

 These program goals are a result of the total funding the program area receives through EPM,
 S&T, and  State Indoor Radon Grant (SIRG) funding.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

 • (-0.4  FTE) This decrease  reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

 • (-$94.8) This  decrease will reduce  EPA's national radon outreach activities, but progress
       toward annual and long-term performance targets will not be affected.

 • (+$455.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990; IRAA,  Section 306; Radon Gas and  Indoor Air Quality Research
Act; Title IV of the SARA of 1986; TSCA, section 6, Titles II, and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and
2641-2671), and Section 10.
                                      EPM- 103

-------
                                                          Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
                                                                Program Area: Indoor Air
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                         Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$21,464.4
$909.5
$22,373.9
75.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$23,137.0
$810.0
$23,947.0
69.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$23,464.3
$828.7
$24,293.0
68.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$327.3
$18.7
$346.0
-0.3
Program Project Description:

In this non-regulatory, voluntary  program,   EPA creates partnerships with non-governmental
organizations  and Federal partners  as well  as  professional organizations  to  educate and
encourage individuals, schools, industry, the health care community, and others to take action to
reduce health risks from poor indoor air quality.  EPA uses technology transfer to improve the
design, operation, and maintenance of buildings - including schools, homes, and workplaces - to
promote healthier indoor  air.   EPA's technical assistance directly supports State  and local
governments and public health organizations in designing local programs to promote practices
that reduce  exposures to asthma triggers through environmental  management and to promote
smoke-free environments for children.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
                                             Performance Assessment: The Indoor Air program,
                                             assessed by OMB in 2005 through the PART process,
                                             received a rating of "Adequate." The program does
                                             not issue regulations, so it works toward its goal by
                                             conducting research and promoting appropriate risk
                                             reduction  actions through voluntary education and
                                             outreach programs. The program will be focusing on
                                             making efficiency improvements.
In FY 2007 EPA will build on its national,
multi-faceted asthma education and outreach
program, in partnership with other Federal and
non-profit agencies, to improve and  expand
the delivery  of comprehensive asthma-care
programs  that  emphasize  management  of
environmental   asthma  triggers   such  as
environmental  tobacco  smoke, dust  mites,
mold, pet dander, cockroaches and other pests,
and nitrogen dioxide. To reach more people more effectively, EPA will promote the adoption of
best practices to achieve  positive health outcomes.   EPA will  continue  its efforts to  reach
populations disproportionately impacted by asthma and environmental tobacco smoke.

Through public awareness and mass-media communications such as the Childhood  Asthma
"Goldfish" Campaign, EPA will continue to  build public  awareness  and knowledge  of
comprehensive asthma  care and the  importance of environmental  management  to reduce
exposure to indoor triggers.  EPA  also will continue to work with the  health care provider
community to integrate environmental asthma management into the standards of care for asthma.
                                       EPM- 104

-------
EPA will also work with the health-insurance community to integrate cost beneficial and
environmental asthma management strategies into the health care services and products they
offer to providers and enrollees.  In  such public-health settings, EPA's role as environmental
steward reinforces families' trust and acceptance of key risk-avoidance messages.

EPA will continue to build the success of its national Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools (IAQ
TfS) program and extend  the program to more schools.  EPA will continue to market Design
Tools for Schools  (DTfS)16  web-based  guidance,   as well as EPA's  new  Healthy School
Environments Assessment Tool (Heal thy SEAT), assisting school districts in integrating indoor
air  quality and  performance goals into the design,  construction,  and renovation of school
buildings.  EPA also will  continue partnerships and activities that inform and motivate school
officials, school nurses, teachers, facility managers and planners, and parents to improve IAQ in
schools.  EPA also will expand its efforts to address children's asthma in schools in league with
cooperative partners.

EPA will respond to continued interest in reducing indoor air risks through community building
activities (i.e., design, construction, operations and maintenance), by promoting a suite of "best
practice" guidance  including new guidance for the control  and management  of moisture and
mold in commercial and public buildings, followed by  comprehensive best practice guidance for
IAQ during each phase of the  building  cycle.   EPA  will also offer guidance and  training
programs  for  building  operations and  maintenance  that integrate best practices  for indoor
environmental quality and energy efficiency. In addition, EPA will work in partnership and
collaboration with  other  Federal agencies, the  health  care community,  and state and  local
organizations to promote its Smoke-free Homes Pledge Campaign.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Estimated annual
number of schools
establishing indoor air
quality programs based
on EPA's Tools for
Schools guidance.
FY 2005
Actual


3,000


FY 2005
Target


2500


FY 2006
Target


1200


FY 2007
Target


1100


Units


Number


Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
Percent of public that
is aware of the asthma
program's media
campaign.
FY 2005
Actual

31

FY 2005
Target

>20

FY 2006
Target

>20

FY 2007
Target

>20

Units

Percentage

 ' www.epa.gov/iaq/schooldesign last accessed 8/5/2005.
                                       EPM- 105

-------
Measure
Type



Output



Measure
Additional health care
professionals trained
annually by EPA and
its partner on the
environmental
management of asthma
triggers.
FY 2005
Actual



3,080



FY 2005
Target



2000



FY 2006
Target



2000



FY 2007
Target



2000



Units



Number



The measure included in the performance table is a new measure developed during the process of
completing a 2005 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process; the target listed is  the
long-term date for reporting out results of the measure.

EPA will continue to work towards its long term 2012 goal to have  6.5 million people with
asthma take the essential actions to reduce their exposure to their environmental triggers of
asthma, including  environmental tobacco smoke.   EPA's goal  is to have close to 400,000
additional people with asthma to take these actions in 2007, bringing the total number to over 4.5
million people with asthma taking these actions. As part of this goal, EPA will continue to work
to reduce existing  disparities between disproportionately impacted populations and the overall
population.

EPA will continue to work towards its long term 2012 goal of 40,000 schools implementing
effective indoor air quality management plans.  In 2007, EPA aims to have an additional 1,100
schools start implementation of an  effective IAQ management plan, bringing the total to over
35,000 schools implementing these plans nationwide

FY 2007 Change from  FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$263.1) This increase will  support EPA outreach activities to schools, especially those
       in disproportionately impacted areas,  to promote indoor air quality  management through
       the use of Tools for Schools  or a similar plan that highlights essential actions for schools
       to take to improve indoor air quality.

   •   (-0.3 FTE) This  decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (+$64.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for exiting FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990; Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and  Re-authorization Act
(SARA) of 1986.
                                      EPM- 106

-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                   EPM- 107

-------
                          Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination
                                            Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                Objective(s): Communities

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$ 7,135. 8
$7,135.8
14.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$5,633.0
$5,633.0
12.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,063.8
$6,063.8
15.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$430.8
$430.8
3.0
Program Project Description:

The  Office  of Children's Health  Protection  (OCHP)  advocates  for  and  facilitates the
consideration of children's environmental health across  activities identified  in  the Agency's
"National Agenda to Protect Children's  Health  from Environmental  Threats," and Executive
Order  13045, "Protection of Children's Health from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks." EPA also recognizes that older adults are more susceptible to environmental health risks
than the general population.  EPA's Aging Initiative is another emphasis within this office which
strives to protect the health of older adults.  This cross-cutting, non-regulatory program works
with other EPA offices, other federal agencies, States, Tribes, the public, healthcare providers,
industry, and non-governmental organizations  to achieve its mission.  Core activities focus on
building  capacity, providing tools and  information to inform  decisions,  and  engaging in
educational outreach  activities.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Examples of activities that this  program contributes to are ensuring  that EPA programs and
policies  explicitly consider and use the most up-to-date data and methods relevant to evaluating,
protecting, and  improving the environmental health of children and older adults by ensuring that
EPA has the tools and information to enable decision  makers to consider approaches that protect
children  and older adults from heightened public health risks; ensuring that States, tribes, and
local governments will effectively incorporate environmental health of children and older adults
into new or existing programs;  and ensuring  that non-government organizations  and  entities
(family members,  health care providers,  community leaders, etc.) have and use reliable/valid
scientific information when making decisions  about  the environmental health of children and
older adults.
OCHP coordinates efforts to enhance the environmental health of children and older adults.
following are examples of accomplishments and planned activities:
The
       Work with other Agency offices to develop guidance designed to assist the agency in
       considering health risks to children in rule making and evaluating the application of such
       guidance throughout EPA.
                                       EPM- 108

-------
   •   Work within EPA to generate and apply new scientific research, tools and assessments
       and promote easy access to information regarding children's  environmental  health.
       Support efforts within the Agency's Regions to address children's environmental health
       issues that of high priority in their states.

   •   Provide tools,  information, and support to build capacity  in States, Tribes and  local
       governments so that they can take effective action to protect children from environmental
       health  risks.    Continue  support  for  the  Healthy  Schools  Environmental  Health
       Assessment Tool which was launched in December 2005.  Work is underway to assist
       states in implementing it in school districts  nationwide. We will also continue to support
       the Agency's School Chemical Cleanout Program.

   •   Support partners outside of the Agency to  ensure that the public, health care providers,
       and other civic entities have access to tools and information needed to protect Children
       and older adults from environmental health risks. To recognize successful programs and
       encourage organizations to  undertake programs  that protect children the  Children's
       Environmental Health Awards program was launched in 2005.

   •   Ensure that  health professionals  have the capacity to identify, prevent, and  manage
       environmental  health  risks to  children.   Support the Pediatric  Environmental  Health
       Specialty Units which provide consultation,  education  and referral services to other
       health professionals and the public on pediatric environmental  health  issues.   Award
       assistance agreements that will provide education and training to health professionals and
       evaluate the incorporation of pediatric environmental health into their practice.

   •   Continue to work with and support the Agency's global efforts to protect children though
       ongoing  partnerships  with  international  organizations   including  the World  Health
       Organization, the Pan American Health Organization and the Organization and Economic
       Co-operation and Development.
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives.  Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget  (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$5.1)  This increase will be used for program reviews  associated with the President's
       Management Agenda, (e.g., Human Capital, Competitive Sourcing).

   •   (+3  FTE)  This increase reflects a redirection of resources that were allocated in the FY
       2006 enacted budget to support the Environmental Education function.  As part of the
       Agency's ongoing efforts to fully integrate environmental  education into all program
       areas, 19.7 FTEs were reallocated from the Environmental Education Office  to support
       increased outreach initiatives throughout the Agency.

   •   (+$425.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
                                       EPM- 109

-------
Statutory Authority:




EO 13045.
                                    EPM- 110

-------
                                    Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
                                           Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$48,407.3
$111.7
$48,519.0
396.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$50,291.0
$48.0
$50,339.0
370.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$52,142. 7
$130.4
$52,273.1
381.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,851.7
$82.4
$1,934.1
10.9
Program Project Description:

This program provides the vision and leadership needed to enable EPA to meet its commitments
to protect public  health and the environment.   The Administrator and Deputy Administrator
guide the Agency  in implementing its complex mission. Program staff respond to Congressional
requests  for  information and provide written  and  oral  testimony, briefings,  and  briefing
materials.  They develop legislative strategies to support program offices and coordinate Agency
appearances before Congress.   They inform the public (including  State,  Local  and Tribal
Governments) about environmental problems and goals; and act to strengthen communications
with state,  local and tribal  governments and organizations, news  media, and the public. The
office also works to increase public awareness and enhance public perceptions of environmental
issues, and their social, technological and scientific solutions.

Program staff work with states, local and tribal governments and their associations, to ensure that
their concerns are considered in Agency policies, guidance, and regulations. The office also
serves as EPA's lead on issues relating to the National Environmental Performance Partnerships
System  (NEPPS).   Staff manage  correspondence  received  by  the  Administrator,  Deputy
Administrator, and Regional Administrators.  This program also provides the resources for the
direct support to four Federal advisory committees (FACAs), as well as resources to develop and
manage Agency-wide FACA policy and guidance.

The  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program also contributes to the mission of this
program by disseminating information  regarding enforcement actions, compliance monitoring
and the availability of compliance assistance. Monthly Enforcement Alerts, regular news briefs
about enforcement and compliance assistance activities and a website with easily accessible tools
for retrieving information are some of the tools used to inform stakeholders.
                                      EPM -111

-------
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The emphasis and priority of these programs is to provide the vision and leadership for the full
range of activities that support EPA's  mission.  The Regional Administrators and their staff
continue to provide leadership to the regions and states they serve.

Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations efforts continue to:

    •   Lead and support the Administration's efforts to pass legislation to protect human health
       and the environment (such as Clear Skies,  the Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants,
       and Water Resources), and begin  implementation of the recently  passed Energy and
       Transportation legislation.

    •   During FY 2007, the Agency will continue to foster  public awareness of environmental
       issues and the Federal  government's role in monitoring compliance and enforcing the
       nation's environmental laws. This awareness and  support  are critical to public support
       and to the Agency's  success  in meeting its goals.  The  Agency will issue the following
       informational materials: enforcement alerts;  accomplishments reports, daily updating of
       the website, weekly news alerts, specialized list-serves with periodic postings, and news
       releases as Superfund major cases are concluded.

    •   Facilitate and participate in the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation.
       Support the President's Executive Order on intergovernmental consultation through the
       National  Environmental  Performance  Partnership  System   (NEPPS)  and  Local
       Government Advisory Council (LGAC). The LGAC and Intergovernmental Relations
       team will reach out to local governments to  facilitate implementation of the Executive
       Order on Intergovernmental Consultation.

    •   Provide national policy and program management to more fully integrate the NEPPS
       framework  and principles into  the  Agency's core business practices.  Key  activities
       include: (a) developing policy/program guidance, outreach tools and training to promote
       the value and benefits of Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs) and Performance
       Partnership Grants (PPGs); (b) improving opportunities for bilateral joint planning and
       work  sharing agreements,  evaluating  their influence,  and  facilitating continuous
       improvement; and (c)  increasing the use  and  effectiveness of PPAs and  PPGs as
       definitive joint planning and  management tools to achieve environmental results at the
       national, state, and local level.  The effectiveness of PPAs and PPGs is being measured as
       follows:

       o   From the outset, EPA and state leaders understood that building the performance-
           based  management system  envisioned  by  NEPPS  would  evolve  and  require
           continuous improvements along the way.
       o   In 2004, EPA revamped its planning process to  promote the joint strategic analysis of
           environmental conditions  and priority needs, and to give states more  frequent and
           meaningful opportunities to set priorities jointly with EPA.  Enhanced joint  planning
           should  bring  about PPAs  and PPGs that  are results-oriented  and strategically
           connected at the state, regional, and national levels.

                                       EPM- 112

-------
       o  40 CFR Part 35 requires joint evaluation of all state grants, including PPGs.  The
          evaluation process must  include  a  discussion of  accomplishments as measured
          against work plan  commitments and a discussion of the cumulative effectiveness of
          the work performed under the work plan.
       o  To ensure that EPA can link the work performed with grant funds to the achievement
          of the goals and objectives in the EPA Strategic Plan, in 2005 EPA issued  a  new
          order on environmental results.   This  order requires  EPA project officers to  link
          proposed assistance agreements to the Agency's Strategic Plan; ensure that outputs
          and outcomes are  appropriately addressed in work plans and performance reports;
          and consider how  the  results  from  completed  assistance  agreement  projects
          contributed to the Agency's goals and objectives.
       o  To improve accountability, EPA will develop a standardized template that all States
          will use to develop and submit their State grant agreements. This new template will
          include clear linkages  to EPA's Strategic Plan and long-term and annual goals, as
          well as consistent requirements for regular performance reporting.  It also will allow
          for meaningful comparisons between various States' past and planned activities and
          performance, making progress more visible and programs more transparent.

   •   Manage EPA's  cooperative agreement with the Environmental Council of the  States
       (ECOS) through close coordination  and involvement  of several of EPA's  program
       offices.

The Cooperative Environmental Management (CEM) program functions continue to:

   •   Ensure that EPA's 67 federal advisory committees and sub-committees are in compliance
       with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) through policy creation, oversight of
       federal advisory committees, identifying and sharing best practices, and training Agency
       Designated Federal  Officers  (DFOs) and  committee Chairs.  These  efforts ensure
       consistent  application  of an open process  throughout  all of EPA's federal  advisory
       committees. A new "assist visit" process will allow the Committee Policy and Oversight
       Staff to conduct on-site inspection of DFO files to  ensure  Agency  compliance with
       FACA as required by law, thereby, reducing the Agency's risk to legal challenges.

   •   In 2007, CEM will provide stewardship for the Designated Federal Officers' community
       by, providing outreach, assistance, and training.  By continuing its "assist visits," in part,
       CEM will ensure that the GSA database is updated in a timely manner.

    •  Promote and  guide   FACA  and the public participation  process  in  National  and
       International environmental  policy,  while  facilitating the identification of emerging
       trends and issues.

The Public Affairs program continues to support the achievement of  Agency strategic goals by
communicating Agency proposals, actions, policy,  data, research and information through mass
media and directly via the Web.

   •   The Public Affairs program works  with all program and Regional offices to  develop,
       coordinate  and  manage  print, broadcast  and  Web-based  background  and content

                                      EPM- 113

-------
       information to enhance public understanding of Agency policy and actions. Recognizing
       the importance of the Web in the communication of Agency information, the Public
       Affairs program  will be  leading  a major review and consolidation of Agency Web
       content in FY 2007 to ensure that the Web information is current, consistent, accurate and
       easy to find.

   •   In  FY 2007, the program will continue  its coordination with  EPA's Environmental
       Information program to ensure effective distribution of policy and  regulatory information
       requested  by citizens, the media,  other government entities  and  non-government
       organizations.

The Executive Secretariat emphasizes responsiveness and efficiency.  The  program:

   •   Manages the Agency's correspondence tracking  and  workflow  management software
       application.  Indicators of success include an increase in Agency-wide usership, meeting
       or  exceeding all  user support  commitments, and delivering  service  and  meeting user
       needs within the program's annual budget.

   •   Is responsible for mail distribution and performs vital records management functions for
       the Immediate Office.  Indicators of success are determined through a customer feedback
       process and  workflow tracking to help  ensure same-day delivery, timely responses to
       FOIA and discovery requests, and compliance with all NARA mandates.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program supports multiple objectives.  Currently, there are no performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in  Thousands):

   •   (-1.7 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (+14.6 FTE) This increase reflects resources that were  allocated in the FY 2006 enacted
       budget to support the Environmental Education function, but will be used in FY 2007 for
       other administrative  functions  such as grants management and reviews associated with
       the President's Management Agenda, e.g., Human Capital, Competitive Sourcing.

   •   (-0.2 FTE) The decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the agency better align resources,  skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (-2 FTE)  This represents a transfer  of personnel to the Compliance Assistance and
       compliance  monitoring programs for tribal  outreach and for work with the states,
       including work relating to the National Environmental Performance Partnership  System.
                                      EPM- 114

-------
   •   (-$235.6) This represents a  transfer  of resources to the Compliance  Assistance and
       compliance monitoring programs for tribal  outreach  and for work with the states,
       including work relating to the National Environmental Performance Partnership System.

   •   (-$7.2)  This  reduces support for the preparation of enforcement-related information
       materials.

   •   (+$2,456.1) This is reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (-$361.9)   This represents  a  redirection to payroll  and  cost-of-living costs from
       programmatic resources.

Statutory Authority:

As provided in Appropriations Act funding; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Enterprise for the
Americas Initiative Act; NAFTA Implementation Act; RLBPHRA; NAAED; LPA-US/MX-BR;
CERCLA.
                                      EPM- 115

-------
                                                                     Exchange Network
                                            Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach

 Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
 involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
 of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
 (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
 of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$16,723.0
$2,330.3
$19,053.3
24.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$17,700.0
$1,650.0
$19,350.0
24.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$16,048.5
$1,432.4
$17,480.9
24.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,651.5)
($217.6)
($1,869.1)
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program  supports the development and maintenance of the Environmental Information
Exchange  Network  (the Exchange Network), an integrated information system that facilitates
information sharing  among EPA and its partners using standardized data formats and definitions.
The  Exchange  Network  provides a centralized  approach to  receiving  and  distributing
information, and improving access to timely and reliable environmental  information.   This
program provides resources for the development,  implementation, operation and maintenance for
the Agency's  Central Data Exchange (CDX, www.epa.gov/cdx), the point of entry on the
Exchange  Network for data  submissions to the  Agency.  The program also develops the
regulatory framework to ensure that electronic submissions are  legally acceptable, establishes
partnerships with states, tribes,  territories and tribal consortia; and, supports the e-Rulemaking e-
Government initiative. E-Rulemaking is designed to improve  the public's ability to find, view,
understand and comment on Federal regulatory actions, and EPA is providing the leadership role
on this effort.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the  major focus is on fulfilling the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) commitments
and support of EPA's information technology initiatives.  These activities build upon efforts
started in FY 2004-2006 to  enhance the availability,  quality and  analytical  usefulness of
environmental  information for EPA and its partners and stakeholders.  These efforts support the
data exchange  of states, tribes and other partners, through the use of the Exchange Network and
EPA's node on the Exchange Network,  the Central Data Exchange (CDX).

The Exchange Network is the  cornerstone of the Agency's efforts to partner with states, tribes
and territories  to exchange secure, accurate and timely information that supports environmental
and health decisions. In FY 2007, EPA, states, tribes, and territories will continue to re-engineer
                                       EPM- 116

-------
data systems so that information that was previously not available or not easily available can be
exchanged using common data standards and computer language called schemas.  In FY 2007, all
50 states and approximately  10 tribes will have established nodes on the Exchange Network and
will  be mapping data to the new  schemas for sharing with partners and submission to EPA.
These  efforts will be  closely coordinated with the Agency's Program Offices,  as well as data
system registries.

EPA's efforts capitalize on the Exchange Network and CDX to continue to improve access to and
availability  of relevant  program  data for  states, tribes and  direct  reporting participants.
Additional data flow capability will increase information accuracy through tools that check data
before  submission, increase  timeliness  of  data,  improve  analytical   capability,  and create
economies of  scale as standards and schemas are reused and  additional  efficiencies  are found
through re-engineering.

In addition, EPA will be implementing electronic reporting  standards  that will  support the
authentication  and  electronic signatures of report submitters.   EPA  will  work to  provide
assistance to states, tribes and territories in implementing these standards.

Effective implementation of the Exchange Network activities relies on  close  coordination with
the Information Security and Agency Architecture and data management activities. Coordination
helps to ensure necessary system security measures are adhered to, system platforms follow the
Agency's Enterprise Architecture, and data management follows documented data standards.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type




Output




Measure
Number of major EPA
environmental systems
that use the CDX
electronic requirements
enabling faster receipt,
processing, and quality
checking of data. The
baseline is 70 data
flows.
FY 2005
Actual




22




FY 2005
Target




12




FY 2006
Target




29




FY 2007
Target




36




Units




Systems




                                       EPM- 117

-------
Measure
Type



Output


Measure
Number of users from
states, tribes,
laboratories, and others
that choose CDX to
report environmental
data electronically to
EPA. The baseline of
users for the scheduled
deployments of data
flows is approximately
75,000 users.
FY 2005
Actual



45,000


FY 2005
Target



20,000


FY 2006
Target



47,000


FY 2007
Target



55000


Units



Users


Work under this program supports multiple objectives.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$1,800.9) The reduction in resources reflects a shift in the emphasis of the Central Data
       Exchange from infrastructure to adding data flows and Web services; and scheduling
       Enterprise Content Management System and enterprise solutions deployments to better
       align with Agency readiness, and with the lifecycle phase of the e-Rulemaking project.

   •   (+$149.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
CAA and amendments; CWA and amendments; Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act; TSCA; FIFRA; Food Quality Protection Act; Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments;  Federal Food,  Drug and  Cosmetic Act; Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; FOIA;
Computer Security Act; Privacy Act; EFOIA; EPAct.
                                     EPM- 118

-------
                                                            Small Business Ombudsman
                                            Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                                         Goal: Compliance and Environmental  Stewardship
 Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$3,691.3
$3,691.3
16.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$3,343. 0
$3,343.0
13.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,501.7
$3,501.7
13.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$158.7
$158.7
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Small Business Ombudsman (SBO) serves as EPA's gateway and leading advocate for small
business issues.  The SBO partners with state Small Business Assistance Programs (SBAP's)
nationwide, and hundreds of small business trade associations, to reach out to the small business
community.   These partnerships provide the information and  perspective EPA needs to help
small businesses  achieve their  environmental  goals.  This is  a comprehensive program that
provides networks, resources, tools, and forums for education and advocacy on behalf of small
businesses.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The core SBO functions include participating in the regulatory development process, operating
the Small Business Ombudsman Hotline, participating in program and regional office small
business related meetings, and supporting internal and external small business activities.  The
SBO outreach and communication services help small businesses learn about new EPA actions
                                                                  and developments and
                                                                  helps   EPA  to  learn
                                                                  about the  concerns  of
                                                                  small  businesses.  SBO
                                                                  partners   with    state
                                                                  SBAP's    and   trade
                                                                  associations  to   assist
                                                                  small   businesses  and
                                                                  provide   them    with
                                                                           environmental
                                                                  information.      SBO
provides a service to Agency program and regional offices, and other agencies by disseminating
information, and providing tools and information that SBAP's  need to assist small businesses.
SBO supports partnerships with, and provides training to, state SBAP's, in  order to reach  an
ever-increasing number of small businesses and to assist them with updated and new approaches
for improving their environmental performance.  SBO provides technical assistance in the form
                       One-Stop-Relief
               Small Business Ombudsman Functions
•  Provides a convenient way for small businesses to access EPA;
•  Facilitates communications between the small business community and
   EPA;
•  Investigates and resolves disputes with EPA; and
•  Works with EPA personnel to increase their understanding of small
   businesses in the development and enforcement of environmental
   regulations.
                                       EPM- 119

-------
of tools, workshops, conferences and training forums designed to help small businesses become
better environmental performers, and also helps our partners to provide the assistance they need.

In FY 2007, the Small Business Ombudsman will:

   •   Continue to serve as EPA's gateway and leading advocate for small business issues.

   •   Promote  EPA's  Small  Business  Strategy and coordinate the Agency's  Strategy
       Implementation Plan activities.

   •   Strengthen and support partnerships with state SBAP's and trade associations.

   •   Support and promote a state-lead multimedia initiative  and coordinate efforts within the
       Agency.

   •   Serve  as the Agency's Point of Contact for the  Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
       (SBPRA),  through work with an established Agency-wide workgroup addressing the
       requirement to "make efforts to further reduce the information collection burden for small
       business concerns with fewer than 25  employees."

   •   Implement  EPA's Small Business Awards Program to recognize state SBAPs, small
       businesses,  and  trade  associations  that  have  directly  impacted  the  improved
       environmental performance of small businesses.

   •   Support and  promote  the  President's  Management  Agenda by  encouraging small
       businesses,  states, and trade associations to comment on EPA rulemaking through the E-
       rulemaking initiative, as well as providing updates on the Agency's rulemaking activities
       in the semi-annual Small Business Ombudsman Update.

   •   Participate  with  the  Small  Business  Administration  and  other Federal agencies in
       Business Gateway "one-stop"  activities which help improve services and reduce the
       burden on small businesses by guiding them through government rules and regulations.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports multiple objectives. Currently,  there are no performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$243.3)  This decrease is the net effect of increases to  payroll and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

   •   (+$402.0)  This  reflects an increase for additional work with the  Small  Business
       Administration on Business Gateway one stop activities.
                                      EPM - 120

-------
Statutory Authority:




CAA of 1990, section 507.
                                      EPM- 121

-------
                                                     Small Minority Business Assistance
                                           Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,245.7
$2,245.7
10.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$2,503.0
$2,503.0
9.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,646.6
$2,646.6
11.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$143.6
$143.6
2.0
Program Project Description:

This program provides technical assistance to Headquarters and regional employees to ensure
that small, disadvantaged, women-owned, Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone),
and  Service-Disabled  Veteran-Owned  Small Businesses  receive  a fair share  of  EPA's
procurement dollars.  This program enhances the ability of these businesses to participate in the
protection of public health and the environment.  The functions assigned to this area involve
ultimate  accountability  for  evaluating  and  monitoring contracts,  grants and cooperative
agreements entered into on behalf of EPA's Headquarters and regional offices. This will ensure
that the Agency's contract and procurement practices further the Federal laws and regulations
regarding utilization of small and disadvantaged businesses  in direct procurement acquisitions
and indirect procurement assistance.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Small and disadvantaged  business procurement experts will provide assistance to Headquarters
and regional program  office  personnel, as well as  small business owners, to ensure that small,
disadvantaged,  women-owned,  HUBZone,  and  Service  Disabled Veteran-Owned   Small
Businesses receive a fair  share of EPA's procurement dollars.  This fair share may be received
either directly or indirectly through contracts,  grants, cooperative agreements,  or interagency
agreements.  EPA has a  number of national goals that it negotiates with the  Small  Business
Administration (SBA) every two years. EPA's proposed goals for FY 2006/2007 were based on
estimated  contract obligations  of $1.2 billion for  prime contracts and $200 million for
subcontracts. (See chart below)
                                      EPM - 122

-------
EPA's Proposed Direct Procurement Goals for FY2006-FY2007
Estimated Obligations
DIRECT
Small Businesses
8(a) Businesses
Non 8(a) Small Disadvantaged Businesses
Women-Owned Small Businesses
HUBZone Businesses
Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses
SUBCONTRACT
Small Businesses
Small Disadvantaged Businesses
Women-Owned Small Businesses
HUBZone Businesses
Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses
Proposed FY2006/2007 Goals
$ Value
S432M
$90M
$36M
$66M
$36M
$36M
$ Value
S100M
$40M
$15M
$6M
$6M
Goal
36.0%
7.5%
3.0%
5.5%
3.0%
3.0%
Goal
50.0%
20.0%
7.5%
3.0%
3.0%
Contract bundling reviews of an increased number of Agency contracts will emphasize ways to:
1) eliminate unnecessary contract bundling; and 2) mitigate the effects of bundling on America's
small business community. In FY 2007, special emphasis will continue to be placed on working
with Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses,  as mandated by the White House's
October 21, 2004 Executive Order, which requires increased Federal contracting opportunities
for this group of entrepreneurs.  Outreach and in-reach efforts will help EPA meet its 3 percent
procurement goal for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses that was established by
the new Executive Order and  SBA Regulation (F.R. Vol. 69, No.  87, May 5, 2004),  its 5.5
percent goal for women-owned small businesses, and 3 percent goal for HUBZones.

Under its Indirect Procurement Program, EPA has a statutory goal of 10 percent utilization of
Minority Business Enterprises/Worn en-Owned Business  Enterprises  for  research conducted
under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, as well as a statutory 8 percent goal for all other
programs.  The Small Minority Business Assistance program encourages the  Agency to meet
these direct and indirect procurement goals.  These efforts will enhance the  ability of America's
small and  disadvantaged businesses  to help the  Agency  protect  human  health  and the
environment and, at the  same time, create more jobs.   As a result of the Supreme  Court's
decision  in Adarand  v. Pena, 115 S.  Ct. 2097 (1995), EPA will  finalize  a rule  for the
participation of Disadvantaged Business  Enterprises in procurements funded  through  EPA's
assistance agreements in early 2006. The Agency will also begin implementing the certification
requirements of the final rule.  In 2007, the rule will be in full implementation.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program supports multiple performance objectives.  Currently, there  are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
                                      EPM - 123

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+2 FTE)  This increase reflects resources that were allocated in the FY 2006 enacted
       budget to support the Environmental Education  function, but are now being used  for
       other administrative functions associated with Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small
       Businesses and other small business efforts.

    •   (+$250.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (-$106.6) This decrease reflects cost savings resulting from the use of newly developed,
       more efficient data base software  for tracking small minority business utilization within
       the Agency.

Statutory Authority:

Small Business Act, Sections 8 and 15, as amended; Executive Orders 12073, 12432, and 12138;
P.L. 106-50; CAA Amendments of 1990.
                                      EPM - 124

-------
                                            State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
                                           Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                      Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$11,327.5
$11,327.5
53.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,377.0
$11,377.0
57.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,508.4
$12,508.4
57.4
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,131.4
$1,131.4
-0.5
Program Project Description:

EPA works with state and local  partners to help protect the public and the environment from
catastrophic releases of hazardous substances that occur at chemical handling facilities.  Under
the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA regulations require that facilities handling more than a threshold
quantity of certain extremely hazardous substances must implement a risk management program
and submit to EPA  a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP must also be sent to the state,
local  planning  entity, the Chemical  Safety and Hazard Investigation Board,  and be  made
available to the  public. The RMP describes the hazards of the chemicals used by the facility, the
potential consequences of worst case and other accidental release scenarios, a five-year accident
history, the  chemical  accident prevention program in place at the site,  and  the emergency
response program used by the site to minimize the impacts on the public or environment should a
chemical release occur.  Facilities  are required to update their RMP at least every five years,
sooner if certain changes are made at the facility.

The  Agency  works with  state  and  local partners to  help them  implement  their  own risk
management  program through  technical assistance  grants, technical  support, outreach and
training.  EPA also works with communities to provide chemical risk information  on local
facilities, as well as assist them in  understanding how  the  chemical risks may affect their
citizens.   Additionally,  EPA supports continuing  development  of emergency planning and
response tools such as the Computer-Aided Management  of Emergency Operations (CAMEO)
software suite.  With this information  and these tools, communities are in a  better position  to
prepare for, reduce and mitigate releases that may occur.

RMP data is a valuable  source to homeland security analysts for the identification of potential
hazards in the chemical  sector.   EPA assists the Department of Homeland Security and other
Federal agencies  by providing updated  copies of the RMP database  for their vulnerability
analyses. EPA  also provides state and local government entities information and analysis from
the RMP database that is helpful for homeland security planning related to chemical accidents
and terrorism.   In addition, EPA conducts analyses of RMP data to identify chemical accident
trends and industrial  sectors that  may be more accident-prone,  to  gain knowledge on the
effectiveness of risk management measures, and for other analyses in support of the Agency's
mission.
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
                                       EPM - 125

-------
The  Agency will  continue its  efforts  to  help  state and local partners implement the Risk
Management program.  EPA will continue to refine RMP database analyses, make the data more
easily available to appropriate government agencies and improve data utility for security and
emergency prevention, preparedness, and response efforts.   EPA will  also use  information
generated by the RMP with other Right-to-Know data to conduct initiatives and activities aimed
at risk reduction in high-risk facilities, priority industry sectors, and/or specific geographic areas.

The  Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish a system to audit RMPs. In an effort  to help
agencies,  states, and prospective third party auditors  acquire  or improve  skills  required to
conduct audits, EPA has developed and implemented an RMP audit curriculum. This training
will continue to be offered extensively throughout the country in FY 2007. The audit system is
used to continuously  improve  the quality of risk  management programs  as  well as check
compliance with the requirements. In FY 2007, the EPA and other implementing agencies will
perform their audit obligations through a combination of desk audits  of RMP plans and at least
400  on-site  facility inspections.  Additionally in  FY 2007, EPA will  continue its extensive
quality assurance oversight of data collection and reporting procedures.

In FY  2007, EPA will continue its work to transition the  RMP  submission system to allow
complete Internet-based risk management plan submission.   Transitioning the system to full
internet-based  submission capability will reduce facility burden, reduce data processing errors,
and result in more timely updates of EPA's RMP*Info database.

In FY  2007,  EPA and the National Oceanic Atmospheric  Administration  will complete
development of a new Flammables and  Explosives software  module for the Aerial Locations of
Hazardous  Atmospheres  (ALOHA)  air dispersion  model  - part of the CAMEO  suite of
emergency management software applications.  The new Flammables and Explosives  module
will, for the first time, give CAMEO users the ability to accurately estimate the hazardous effects
of large releases of flammable and explosive hazardous substances, and thereby enhance local
preparedness for such events.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks.  Currently, there
are no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-0.5 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (+$631.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (+$500.3) This increase will support ongoing audits at regulated facilities.

Statutory Authority:

EPCRA; SARA of 1986;  Section 112r, Accidental  Release Provisions of the  CAA of 1990;
Chemical Safety Information, Site Security  and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act.
                                       EPM - 126

-------
                                                                    TRI / Right to Know
                                            Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                      Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$15,380. 7
$15,380.7
52.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$14,289.0
$14,289.0
44.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$15,243.4
$15,243.4
44.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$954.4
$954.4
0.0
Program Project Description:

The  Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program provides the public  with information  on the
releases and other waste management of toxic chemicals.  The program: 1) collects information
on listed toxic chemicals from certain industries and makes the information available to the
public through a variety of means, including a publicly accessible national database; operates and
maintains  the  TRI,  TRI-Explorer ((http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/reports.htm) and TRI-Made
Easy  (TRI-ME) (www. epa. gov/tri) systems to  facilitate  the  program's  data collection  and
reporting requirements, and 2) provides TRI program compliance assistance through extensive
outreach efforts including mailings, workshops,  the Internet, and telephone hotlines.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will continue its effort to accelerate the development of ongoing projects that improve TRI
information availability to states and tribes.  Central to this effort is the addition of new states
and tribes to the network and the delivery of additional web-based services.  By reducing the
duplication of work  performed by the  recipients of TRI reported data (the states and  tribes),
resources are being released for allocation to analytical and other services.

The continued expansion and development of the TRI State and Tribe Data Exchange Network is
reducing the reporting load on the regulated community and the processing load on the states and
tribes.  Specifically,  the  regulated community may submit only one electronic report via the
Exchange  Network that is then simultaneously  routed to both the state  or tribe and  federal
recipients.  In  FY 2007, the service of the network is being expanded to include processing of
non-electronic information. Should a reporting facility chose to send in their report(s) on paper
rather than electronically, the TRI data processing center will key enter  the information  and
electronically transmit the resulting files to the state or tribe.  This eliminates the need  for the
reporting facility to submit multiple copies of their reports and precludes the duplication of the
key entry operation at the state or tribe and federal data processing centers.
         Web will be web-based software that will assist facility  owners and  operators in
determining  and  completing their  Emergency  Planning  and  Community  Right-to-Know
(EPCRA) Section 313 (TRI) Form R and Form A certification statements.
                                       EPM - 127

-------
TRIS-II required the relocation of the TRI database from a contractor's site to the EPA National
Computer Center (NCC) in Research Triangle Park, NC. This fundamental step has enabled
direct and secure access of TRI data by the Agency's new TRI data mart, thereby providing real-
time updates and Agency-wide access of complete TRI information.

EPA will continue to provide TRI facilities with compliance assistance through workshops, web-
based reference tools, and telephone hotline support.  EPA also will increase the percentage of
TRI chemical forms that are submitted in electronic  format via EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (i.e., Internet reporting).

The TRI program works closely with EPA's Exchange Network  program to coordinate more
efficient  and effective  data collection and  system  access  using EPA's  CDX node  on the
Exchange Network.  Data collection and reporting  efforts  use data  standards  and reporting
requirements outlined in the IT/Data  Management program  closely linking the  programs  and
ensuring appropriate information security. The TRI  program implements information security
measures  outlined by  the Information  Security program  and  is  compliant  with Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) regulations.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports Chemical, Organism and  Pesticide Risk objective, although
no  performance measures exist for the program project. The TRI program also supports the
development of web-based TRI-ME and TRIS-II, both of which are e-Gov initiatives and support
the President's Management Agenda (PMA).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$417.8)    The increase  will support the acceleration  of  developments  currently
       underway  to improve  TRI  information availability to   states  and tribes  and other
       interested parties.

    •  (+$536.6)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
SARA; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know; CAA and amendments; CWA and
amendments; Safe Drinking Water  Act and amendments;  TSCA;  FIFRA;  Food Quality
Protection Act; Federal  Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act;  Environmental Research,  Development,
and Demonstration Act; GPRA; Government  GMRA; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction
Act; FOIA; Computer Security Act; Privacy Act; EFOIA; Pollution  Prevention Act; EPAct.
                                      EPM - 128

-------
                                                              Tribal - Capacity Building
                                           Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                                         Goal: Compliance and Environmental  Stewardship
                                                       Objective(s): Build Tribal Capacity
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$10,937.7
$10,937.7
75.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,049.0
$11,049.0
73.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,435. 7
$11,435.7
74.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$386.7
$386.7
0.8
Program Project Description:

Under Federal environmental statutes, the Agency has responsibility for protecting human health
and the environment in Indian country.  EPA has worked to establish the internal infrastructure
and organize its activities in order to meet this responsibility.

Since adopting the EPA Indian Policy in 1984, EPA has worked with Tribes on a government-to-
government basis that affirms the Federal trust responsibility between EPA and each Federally-
recognized Tribe. EPA's American Indian Environmental program leads the Agencywide effort
to ensure  environmental protection  in Indian country.   For more  information, please  visit
http://www.epa.gov/indian/policyintitvs.htm and http://www.epa.gov/indian/.

EPA's strategy for this program has three major components:

   •  Work with Tribes to create  an  environmental  presence for each Federally-recognized
      Tribe  (discussed under  the  Tribal  General  Assistance Program  in the  STAG
      appropriation);

   •  Provide the data and information needed by Tribal governments and EPA to meet Tribal
      environmental  priorities.  At the same time, ensure EPA has the ability to view and
      analyze the conditions on Indian lands and the effects of EPA and Tribal actions and
      programs on the environmental conditions; and

   •  Provide the opportunity for implementation of Tribal environmental programs by Tribes,
      or directly by EPA, as necessary.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Complementary  to  the  efforts of providing  an environmental presence through the Indian
General Assistance Program  (GAP), EPA continues  to  develop  its information technology
infrastructure,  known as the  Tribal Program Enterprise  Architecture (TPEA), to organize
environmental data on a Tribal  basis,  enabling  a clear, up-to-date  picture of environmental
                                      EPM - 129

-------
conditions in Indian country.   TPEA includes access to a wide variety of information from
several agencies and numerous sources within those agencies.

The Agency is also working with some Tribes on data exchange efforts (i.e., Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians,  Shoshone and Arapahoe Tribes of the Wind River Reservation, and Navajo
Nation).   The components  of the TPEA  create a  broad,  multiple-variant  view  of  the
environmental conditions and programs in Indian country.  It also includes several applications
that perform analysis of information on environmental performance in Indian country for a wide
variety    of    specific    purposes.     For     more     information,     please    visit
https://oasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TIMS/index  sav.html (Username: lieu; Password: testl).

The ability to comprehensively  and accurately examine conditions and make assessments will
provide a blueprint  for  planning  future activities  through  the  development of Tribal/EPA
Environmental Agreements  (TEAs) or similar Tribal environmental plans that address and
support priority environmental multi-media concerns in Indian country. For more information,
please visit https://oasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TATS/tats_prv/entry_page.

Vital  to  the  EPA Indian Policy are the  principles that  the  Agency has  a government-to-
government relationship with Tribes and that "EPA recognizes Tribes as the primary parties for
setting  standards,  making  environmental   policy  decisions  and  managing  programs  for
reservations, consistent with agency standards and regulations."  To that end, EPA  "encourage[s]
and assist[s] Tribes in assuming regulatory and program management responsibilities," primarily
through the treatment in  a manner similar to a state (TAS) processes  available  under  several
environmental statutes.  EPA  will continue  to encourage  Tribal  capacity development  to
implement Federal environmental programs, including the use of Direct Implementation Tribal
Cooperative Agreement (DITCA) authority.

In FY 2005,  EPA instituted a review of the national GAP grant program to assure effective
management  of grant resources.  This effort, which will be described in Regional Oversight
Reports,  includes  review of Regional GAP programs and  individual GAP grant files.  These
program oversight activities will continue in FY 2007.

Performance Targets:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to standardize and crosswalk Tribal identifier codes to integrate
and  consistently  report  Tribal  information  across Federal agencies.  Integration  of Tribal
identifier codes into various information management  systems allows for better analysis  of
environmental conditions in Indian country.  This type of cross-platform data analysis was not
possible without EPA's TPEA initiative.  EPA will also integrate two additional agency data
systems into  the TPEA.  With  the addition of these two  data systems, EPA will be  able to
measure environmental quality in Tribal lands in two important areas: ambient quality of air and
water, and emissions of pollutants into the environment.  For example, the Agency will have the
capability to quantitatively measure the impacts of hazardous air pollutants and any reductions in
the emission of those pollutants in reservation boundaries and within a 10 kilometer buffer zone
of the Tribe. Both kinds of measures  (ambient  quality and emissions)  are  important in the
development of outcome-based performance measures for EPA Tribal programs.
                                      EPM- 130

-------
One of EPA's approaches to eliminating data gaps is to integrate data from other agencies.  In
FY 2007 we expect to link directly to the Tribal sanitation tracking system of the Indian Health
Service (MS)  Sanitation Facilities Construction Division, which is responsible for most of the
construction of drinking water, wastewater and solid waste facilities in Indian country.  Linkage
to this IHS data will provide information needed to inform critical environmental priorities and
future policy decisions for Tribal programs. Work under this program supports tribal capacity
building. Currently, there are no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$20.0)  This increase will be used by EPA's Region 10 to support local environmental
       activities in Alaska.

    •   (-$66.0) This reduction reflects a decrease in technical assistance activities to Tribes.

    •   (+$432.7)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living  for  existing  FTE,
       including additional  support for EPA's Region 10 for local  environmental activities in
       Alaska.

    •   (+1 FTE)   This reflects an increase for payroll  and cost of living for  existing  FTE,
       including additional  support for EPA's Region 10 for local  environmental activities in
       Alaska.

    •   (-0.2 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

Indian General Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S.C. ง 4368b (1992).
                                       EPM- 131

-------
Program Area: International Programs
               EPM- 132

-------
                                            Commission for Environmental Cooperation
                                                    Program Area: International Programs
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                         Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks; Communities

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$3,370.5
$3,370.5
7.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$4,116.0
$4,116.0
7.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,137.0
$4,137.0
7.4
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$21.0
$21.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The  Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was created by the  North American
Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), a side agreement to the North American
Free Trade  Agreement  (NAFTA), with the  mission of facilitating cooperation  and public
participation to  conserve and improve the North American environment, in the context  of
increasing economic, trade and social links among Canada, Mexico,  and the United States.
EPA's  continuing leadership and management of the CEC is  critical to ensure that activities
generate concrete results consistent with U.S. goals and priorities.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will ensure that the CEC supports the objectives of the NAFTA.  In particular,
the CEC will facilitate trade expansion in a manner consistent with environmental protection by
focusing on the following areas:

   •   facilitating  training  and compliance  assistance  to  ensure  that  customs  and law
       enforcement officials are informed of environmental laws affecting trade;

   •   providing access to export requirements for environmentally sensitive materials;

   •   expediting legal shipments while protecting human health and the environment;

   •   developing guidelines to conduct risk assessments of pathways and species and through
       cooperation to prevent, detect, and eradicate invasive alien species (IAS);

   •   promoting the North American market for renewable energy and green products; and

   •   continuing the assessment of the environmental effects of trade  liberalization.

In the area of capacity building, EPA will continue to support the CEC to strengthen partnerships
among the wildlife enforcement agencies in Mexico and Canada. Through this partnership, EPA
will facilitate cooperation on conducting wildlife forensics, investigative and analysis techniques,
                                      EPM- 133

-------
and help to develop training programs for wildlife enforcement officers. EPA will also assist in
the promotion of clean electronics by supporting voluntary efforts within the electronics industry
to eliminate the use of lead, mercury, cadmium  and other toxic chemicals.  EPA will also
continue to work with the CEC to implement quality assurance mechanisms, transparency, and
cost effectiveness.

Performance Targets:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to support the CEC's efforts to address environmental challenges
by increasing the  comparability, reliability and  compatibility  of national and sub-regional
environmental information by developing  common standards and methodologies to integrate
various information-related activities and reporting mechanisms being used in North America.
This  will  be  accomplished  by  establishing  an  end-to-end  quality  assured information
management system to promote the generation and use of the best environmental information
possible for protecting the North American environment.

Work under this program supports EPA's objective to reduce Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide
Risks,  although no specific performance measures exist  for this program project. Work under
this program to improve quality assurance and cost effectiveness is in line with the President's
Management  Agenda (Budget and Performance Integration). Work under this  program also
supports OECA's PART measures for its International Compliance Assurance Division, through
its Green Customs Initiative. The Green Customs Initiative helps Customs and  other  law
enforcement  agencies  monitor  transboundary  movement  of  regulated hazardous/sensitive
substances, assist foreign industries (especially along the U.S. border) who do business in the
United  States comply  with  U.S. statutory and  regulatory  environmental requirements;  and
promote effective  enforcement  programs  in foreign countries.  This  will  promote global
environmental protection  and level the economic playing field in  a global  trading system.
However, while EPA is focused on  these  efforts, it is  important to note that  achieving the
intended results will depend on the support from the other  Signatory Parties to the NAAEC.

FY 2007 Change from 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$9.5) This reflects a modest decrease to training and compliance assistance.

   •   (+$30.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

NAFTA; NAAEC.
                                       EPM- 134

-------
                                                               Environment and Trade
                                                    Program Area: International Programs
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                              Objective(s): Communities
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,211.7
$2,211.7
12.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$1,766.0
$1,766.0
8.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,861.2
$1,861.2
8.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$95.2
$95.2
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Trade  Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (TPA) requires environmental reviews of trade
agreements and provisions in each agreement to prevent lowering environmental standards or
weakening  the enforcement of existing laws to attract investment or trade.  It also calls for the
provision of U.S. assistance to promote sustainable development and increase the capacity of
U.S. trading partners to develop and implement environmental protection standards.

EPA performs three major functions pursuant to the Trade Act of 2002.  First, we contribute to
the development, negotiation and implementation of environment-related provisions in all new
U.S.  free trade agreements.  This helps ensure that U.S. trading partner countries improve and
enforce their domestic environmental laws, which promotes  sound environmental practices. As
U.S.  trading partner countries pursue more environmentally-sound economic development as a
result of the trade  agreement's environmental provisions we expect to  see reduced growth in
environmental impacts, such as air pollution and the inadvertent transmission of invasive alien
species. A second major function involves helping to  develop the U.S. Government's (USG)
environmental reviews of each new free trade agreement.  This function includes encouraging
and supporting trade partner countries that may wish to conduct their own assessments of the
environmental implications of trade liberalization. Our third major function involves helping to
negotiate and implement the environmental cooperation agreements that parallel each new trade
agreement.  EPA and other entities of the USG are required to help provide assistance to promote
sustainable  development and increase the capacity of U.S. trading  partners  to develop and
implement environmental protection standards that offer high levels of protection.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

During FY 2007, the U.S. will conclude new bilateral free  trade agreements (most likely with
South Korea, Malaysia and possibly Egypt) and trade and investment framework agreements. In
addition  to helping  the  U.S.  Trade  Representative  (USTR) develop  and  negotiate the
environmental provisions  of each  new free trade agreement,  EPA will  contribute to the
environmental reviews and environmental cooperation agreements that are associated with these
trade  agreements.  As part of this work, we will develop baseline assessments of existing
environmental law  and enforcement regimes in a number of U.S. trading partner countries. We
                                      EPM- 135

-------
will  advocate greater attention to invasive species and other  concerns  associated with the
movement of traded goods. EPA also will provide targeted capacity building support under the
environmental cooperation agreements  already developed in parallel with recently-concluded
U.S. free trade agreements - at a minimum, with Jordan, Chile,  Bahrain, Morocco,  Singapore,
seven countries in Central America and the Caribbean, three countries in the Andean region,
Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Also during FY 2007, to facilitate  a  successful conclusion of the Doha Round of negotiations
under the World Trade Organization (WTO) EPA will continue to provide the USTR with policy
and analytical data to influence environmental practices in the  U.S. and other  countries.  In
addition, EPA will continue to work  with other major U.S. trading partners such as China and
India that  pose increasingly complex environmental  and health challenges. More specifically,
EPA will continue working to help these two countries to address air pollution  problems that
result from the emissions from ships that export goods to the U.S. and other countries.

Performance Targets:

Although no specific performance measures  exist for this  program project, work under this
program supports  EPA's objective  to sustain, clean up  and  restore communities and the
ecological systems that support them,  and also indirectly supports pertinent objectives under
Goals  1 (e.g., long-range transboundary air pollution) and 2 (e.g., marine  pollution and
invasives) of EPA's  Strategic Plan.  To illustrate, our work with China,  a major source and
shipper of goods to the U.S., is expected to help to reduce ship-  and  port operations-related air
emissions (e.g., of PM and SOX) associated with our imports of their goods.  This should help to
improve air quality in communities around major U.S. and Chinese ports and help to reduce
long-range transmission of air pollution from China. With the conclusion in FY 2007 of our
ongoing work to develop baseline assessments  of the environmental law and enforcement
regimes of  nine  trading  partner  countries we  will  be better  positioned to  advance new
performance measures and objectives.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$12.0)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (+$83.2)    This  reflects an  increase  for trade-related  environmental  projects  and
       environmental reviews associated with Free Trade Agreements, as called for under Trade
       Promotion Authority.  The increase help support baseline environmental trend analyses
       for trade partner countries, on which we then will develop long-term performance targets
       and measures.

Statutory Authority:

Trade Act of 2002; Executive Order 13141 (Environmental Review of Trade Agreements); WTO
Agreements; NAFTA; NAAEC; PPA.
                                       EPM- 136

-------
                                                         International Capacity Building
                                                     Program Area: International Programs
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                    Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Healthier Indoor Air

                                                              Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                  Objective(s): Protect Human Health; Protect Water Quality

                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                      Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                         Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Compliance

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$10,548.5
$10,548.5
43.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$6,138.0
$6,138.0
42.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,390.3
$6,390.3
37.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$252.3
$252.3
-4.9
Program/Project Description:

EPA has improved the quality of life for all Americans by safeguarding their air, water, and land
and helping protect their health.  Addressing issues at home is only part of the environmental
equation.  As globalization continues to affect the  world  and as we better understand  the
interdependences of ecosystems and the transport of pollutants,  it becomes clearer that  the
actions of others can affect our environment. For example, the water quality of a lake here in the
U.S. is  affected not only by pesticides  from nearby farms, lawns, or gardens but also by
pollutants emitted thousands of miles away. The depletion of a natural resource, such as forest
cover in  one  nation, can  have environmental and economic  consequences in many other
countries.  To achieve our domestic environmental objectives, it is and will become increasingly
more important to  address foreign sources of pollution that impact the U.S.   International
capacity-building is a key component of efforts to protect human health and the environment.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Clean Air.  In  FY 2007, EPA will continue to provide technical cooperation to help countries
reduce air pollution and better manage air quality.  The focus will be on four areas:

    •  Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles. This program will focus on (a) lead phase-out,
      along with the introduction of catalytic converters in countries that have removed lead
      from gasoline, (b) introduction of low-sulfur fuels, and (c) retrofits of in-use vehicles.
      Work will advance the Partnership's goal of global lead phase-out of gasoline by 2008 as
                                       EPM- 137

-------
       well as Partnership efforts to encourage sulfur reductions in transport fuels to 50 ppm and
       lower globally.

   •   Reduction of stationary-source pollution. EPA will focus on practical measures for NOx
       emission reductions.   For example, EPA will  work with China to reduce  dioxin  and
       furans  from cement kilns  and assess and  reduce emissions of  mercury from coal
       combustion sources.

   •   Improved air  quality  management.   EPA  will  work  to  transfer  appropriate air
       management tools and techniques to India,  China, Mexico, Central America, Russia,
       Africa, and other key countries and regions. For example, EPA will work with the Indian
       government to develop a national standard for nitrogen oxides from power plants.

   •   Climate change.  To help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide, EPA will
       work with China, Mexico, Russia, and India through capacity and technology transfer
       activities.

Clean Water.  In FY 2007, EPA will  continue its capacity-building program to address water
quality issues worldwide.

   •   Drinking water.  EPA will continue to provide overseas support that includes (1) the
       development and implementation  of water safety plans in at  least two countries, (2)
       strengthening the capacity of governmental institutions to build regulatory frameworks
       for water quality standards in  conjunction with water safety plan efforts, (3) establishing
       sustainable systems for  financing water system improvement  projects in at least  one
       country.

   •   Wastewater.  EPA is working with two national governments in Central America to build
       regulatory frameworks for wastewater discharges.

   •   Marine Protection.  EPA will work with the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of State, and
       other  interested  agencies to  pursue development  of  more  stringent international air
       emission standards from  ships.

Sound management of toxics.

EPA's international chemicals program  focuses  on reducing  global  sources of persistent
bioaccumulative toxics and gives highest priority to mercury in 2007.  EPA will increase its
international  efforts on mercury in FY  2007 through implementing  Global Partnerships for
Mercury Reduction, which focuses on reductions in mercury use and releases from key sources.
Together these sources account for over 80% of global atmospheric emissions of mercury17.

In 2007 EPA will demonstrate environmental and policy  results by achieving leveraged  and
sustainable mercury partnerships, especially in the chlor-alkali  and artisanal mining sectors.
  UNEP Global Mercury Assessment, 2002. Available: http://www.epa.gov/mercurv.html
                                       EPM- 138

-------
EPA will achieve the reduction of mercury consumption in the chlor-alkali industry through pilot
demonstration projects in India, Russia,  and Mexico, and  in  artisanal mining through pilot
demonstration projects  in  select communities in  Senegal and  Brazil.    Results  of these
demonstration projects will then be duplicated further to achieve even greater global reductions.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports EPA's Improve Compliance objective.  Currently, there are
no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$436.4)  This decrease is the net effect  of increases for  payroll and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

    •   (+0.8 FTE)  Reflects budget restructuring; existing workforce are being redirected within
       the framework of EPA's International Affairs strategic workforce  plan.

    •   (+$749.8) Increased resources for implementing the Global Mercury Partnerships for
       Reduction of Mercury in specific sectors.

    •   (-$61.1,  -5.7 FTE) This decrease represents a restructuring that more accurately aligns
       the work accomplished by the International Compliance Assurance Division of the Office
       of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. These resources will be transferred from the
       International Capacity Building program to the Compliance Assistance and Centers and
       Civil Enforcement programs in order to assist border countries (i.e. Canada and Mexico)
       to comply with United States statutory and regulatory environmental requirements and
       promote effective enforcement programs in foreign countries. This restructuring will not
       change the work that is currently being accomplished by the International  Compliance
       Assurance Division.

Statutory Authority:

PPA; FIFRA; CAA;  TSCA; NEPA;  CWA;  SOW A;  RCRA;  CERCLA; NAFTA;  OAPCA;
MPRSA; CRCA.
                                      EPM- 139

-------
                                                                  POPs Implementation
                                                     Program Area: International Programs
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                      Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$3,196.5
$3,196.5
8.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$1,697.0
$1,697.0
12.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,808.7
$1,808.7
12.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$111.7
$111.7
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program  supports EPA's  international Persistent  Organic Pollutants  (POPs)  efforts.
Domestic POPs-related activities and associated funding are included in the Toxic  Substances:
Chemical Risk Management Program/Project.  EPA's international activities under this program
give priority to reducing persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention.
Long-range and transboundary atmospheric transport and  deposition  of POPs are a continuing
threat to human health and ecosystems.   These  pollutants can be transported and  released far
from their sources, enter the ecosystem, and bioaccumulate through the food chain.  To reduce
the risks posed to the American public, international and domestic sources must be addressed.

To demonstrate U.S. commitment to international action on these chemicals, EPA is working to
reduce potential risk from  POPs on several international fronts  including the following:  1)
reduction  in  the  releases  of  POPs  reaching the  U.S.  by  long  range  transport;  2)
reduction/elimination of sources  of  POPs in countries of origin, focusing  on PCB-containing
equipment, obsolete pesticides stockpiles, and dioxins and furans emissions from  combustion
sources; and 3) better inter-  and intra-country coordination on POPs implementation activities by
improving access to POPs technical, regulatory and  program  information from  all sources
including the Internet.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue efforts to reduce POPs sources world-wide, focusing on regions
and countries from which POPs releases are impacting U.S. human health and the environment,
specifically Russia,  China, India  and the wider Caribbean  (Jamaica, the Bahamas or Cuba).  In
these countries and regions EPA will transfer innovative U.S. technology, and help develop
regulatory and financial infrastructure for sustainable projects.

In 2007, EPA will conduct a proof of concept test demonstration for the destruction  of over 100
tons of PCB liquids  and safe storage up to  2500 tons of obsolete POPs  pesticides in Russia.  EPA
will assist China to reduce dioxins and furans emissions from the cement sector, resulting in a 20
percent reduction of the global emissions of these pollutants.  EPA will also assist India in
developing a plan for  the  safe storage and repackaging  of POPs pesticides in one targeted
                                       EPM - 140

-------
province, in preparation for the targeted destruction of these pesticides by 2011.  In the Wider
Caribbean, EPA will assist one country (Jamaica, the Bahamas or Cuba) to develop a plan for the
collection and safe storage of PCB-containing electrical equipment in preparation for the targeted
destruction of these PCBs by 2011.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports EPA's objective to reduce Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide
Risks, although no specific performance measures exist for the program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$8.5) This decrease reflects a slight reduction to international activities in the Persistent
       Organic Pollutant Implementation Program.

    •   (+$120.2)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

PPA; FIFRA; CAA; TSCA; NEPA; CWA; MPRSA.
                                      EPM- 141

-------
                                                                   US Mexico Border
                                                  Program Area: International Programs
                                            Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                            Objective(s): Communities
                                (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$5,951.5
$5,951.5
22.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$5,749.0
$5,749.0
24.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,061.0
$6,061.0
24.2
FY 2007 Pres
Budv.
FY 2006 Enacted
$312.0
$312.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The U.S.-Mexico 2,000 mile border is one of the most complex and dynamic regions in the
world. This  region  accounts for 3  of the 10  poorest  counties in  the  U.S.,  with an
unemployment rate 250 - 300 percent higher than the rest of the U.S.   432,000 of the 14
million people in the region live in 1,200 colonias18, which are  unincorporated communities
characterized by substandard housing and unsafe drinking water.

The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Program is a joint effort  between the  U.S.  and Mexican
governments19.    The  Border 2012 framework  agreement is  intended  to protect  the
environment  and public health along the U.S.-Mexico Border  region, consistent with the
principles of sustainable  development.  The results achieved to date are extraordinary  and
include: (1)  implementation  of the first air quality improvement plan in Mexico;  (2)
implementation of an economically sustainable plan to virtually eliminate used tire piles
along the U.S.-Mexico border by 2010; (3) the removal of 300 tons20 of  hazardous waste to
protect a local, economically disadvantaged residential community; and  (4) implementation
of emergency response plans to better protect residents.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The key areas of focus for the Border 2012 Program in FY 2007 will continue to include: (1)
the improvement of water quality in the region; (2)  the clean  up of abandoned hazardous
waste sites;  3)  elimination of used  tire piles  along  the U.S.-Mexico Border; and (4)
development of measures to  protect and improve air quality along the 2,000  mile border
region.  (Additional Border efforts  are  described in  the Infrastructure  Assistance: Mexico
Border Program Project Fact Sheet.)
  http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php
19 http://www.epa.gov/border2012/pdf/2012_english.pdf
20 Personal Communication, Emily Pimentel (Project Officer), EPA Region 9
                                       EPM - 142

-------
The Border 2012 Program will develop a bi-national policy to identify priority sites and to
clean up and restore to productive use the abandoned sites contaminated with hazardous
waste or materials, along the length of the Border.  In FY 2007, the Border 2012 Program
will focus on at least one hazardous waste site in each of the four geographic regions that
span the 2000 mile border.
                     2004)
After Partial Clean Up (September 2004)
                                       EPM - 143

-------
A major health and environmental hazard along the Border area are the vast tire piles that can
harbor vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever carried by mosquitoes,  and also
acute respiratory illness from uncontrolled fires. The goal is to eliminate these used tire piles by
2010.

More than a third of Mexico's disease burden is the result of environmental factors, the most
serious of which is air pollution21.  A  CEC study found that from 1997 to 2001, respiratory
ailments related to air pollution were the cause of death for at least half of the more than 2,800
children who died in the northern border city of Ciudad Juarez 22. The Border 2012 Program will
continue efforts to define baseline and alternative scenarios for emissions reductions along the
Border and estimates the impact on air quality and human exposure. Based on results  obtained
from defining baselines and scenarios, specific emission reductions strategies and air quality and
exposure objectives will be identified. The target date  for achieving full implementation of the
reduction strategies to achieve the desired objectives is 2012.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports EPA's objective to sustain, clean up and restore communities
and the ecological systems that support them, although no  specific performance measures exist
for the program project.

FY 2007 Change from 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$85.1)  This increase  reflects contributions to the Mexico Border 2012 program to
       reduce the number of used tire piles along the U.S.-Mexico Border and develop measures
       to protect and improve air quality.

    •   (+$226.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CWA; CAA; TSCA; RCRA; PPA; FIFRA; Annual Appropriation Acts.
21 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/mexenv.html
22 Romieu, Isabelle, et al., Health Impacts of Air Pollution on Morbidity and Mortality Among Children of Ciudad
Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico. Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Montreal. November 2003.


                                       EPM - 144

-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
                  EPM - 145

-------
                                                                   Information Security
                                            Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$4,745.6
$234.6
$4,980.2
14.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$3,751.0
$341.0
$4,092.0
14.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,562.1
$788.6
$6,350.7
15.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,811.1
$447.6
$2,258.7
1.5
Program Project Description:

The Information Security program protects the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of the
EPA's information assets.  The program: establishes a risk-based cyber security program using a
defense-in-depth approach that includes partnering with other Federal agencies and the states;
implements aggressive efforts to respond  to evolving threats and computer security alerts and
incidents,  and integrates information security into its day-to-day business; manages the Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) data collection and reporting requirements; and,
supports the  development, implementation and operations and maintenance of the security
documentation system ASSERT.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will  continue its technical and system analyses, evaluations, and assessments
to maintain the security of EPA's information.  The constant system and network  monitoring is
essential to  detect and identify  any potential  weaknesses  or vulnerabilities that  might
compromise EPA's information assets.  These proactive  efforts allow EPA to  develop cost-
effective solutions that extend EPA's long-term goal of building analytical capacity.  EPA will
also coordinate  information security  activities with  the  Homeland Security IT, Exchange
Network and  IT/Data  Management program requirements and where  possible  identify and
implement more efficient solutions.

In FY 2007, Information Security continues to be a critical factor in the effective management of
a Continuity  of Operations (COOP) Plan. The Information Security program will continue to
coordinate with the IT/Data Management to prepare the Agency for successful identification and
implementation of the necessary information management infrastructure, telecommunications,
and standard operating procedures to ensure that EPA can promptly  respond to emergency
situations. In  FY 2005 and early FY 2006,  EPA's  COOP Program  met the  challenge  of
                                      EPM - 146

-------
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita with support that included emergency response access to the web
and internet, IT, communications, and other critical services.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Output


Measure
Percent of Federal
Information Security
Management Act
reportable systems that
are certified and
accredited.
FY 2005
Actual


94


FY 2005
Target


75


FY 2006
Target


100


FY 2007
Target


100


Units


Percent


Work under this program supports multiple objectives.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$1,597.9) The increase will support development of the national Information Systems
       Security Line of Business (ISS LOB),  that will expand EPA's business processes and
       technical infrastructure to effectively provide information security products and services
       to EPA programs and  regions in two security areas: (1) FISMA Reporting and  (2)
       Situational Awareness and Incident Response.

    •  (+$213.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
       Included in  this increase is $124.3 for the  one FTE transferred from the IT Data
       Management program.

    •  (+1.0 FTE) This FTE increase reflects  the move of the ASSERT security tool from the
       IT Data Management program to the Information Security program as a complement of
       the Enterprise Information Systems Security (EISS) initiative.

Statutory Authority:

FISMA; GPRA; GMRA; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; FOIA; EFOIA.
                                      EPM - 147

-------
                                                                 IT / Data Management
                                            Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$84,371.1
$4,141.3
$108.0
$39.5
$17,734.0
$106,393.9
510.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$94,567.0
$4,173.0
$182.0
$31.0
$17,053.0
$116,006.0
486.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$96,807.2
$4,268.0
$175.9
$32.5
$17,120.4
$118,404.0
488.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,240.2
$95.0
($6.1)
$1.5
$67.4
$2,398.0
1.6
Program Project Description:

The EPM IT/Data Management program supports the development of the Agency's Enterprise
Architecture and  develops  analytical tools  (e.g., Environmental  Indicators) to ensure sound
environmental   decision-making.  The  program implements  the  Agency's  e-Government
responsibilities  as well as designs, develops and manages  the Agency's Internet and Intranet
resources  including the Integrated Portal.   In addition, the IT/Data Management  program
supports  the development,  collection, management, and analysis of environmental  data (to
include both point source and ambient data) to manage statutory  programs and to support the
Agency in strategic planning at the national, program, and regional  levels, and provides a secure,
reliable, and capable information infrastructure based on a  sound  enterprise architecture which
includes  data  standardization, integration,  and public access.   The program manages  the
Agency's Quality  System ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal
guidelines, and supports  EPM  information  technology  infrastructure,  administrative  and
environmental   programs,  and  telecommunications.  These  functions  are  integral to  the
implementation of Agency  information technology programs and systems like the Exchange
Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX, http://www.epa.gov/cdx) and Permit  Compliance
System  (PCS,  http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html)  Agency Offices rely on  the
IT/Data Management program and its capabilities to develop and implement tools for ready
access to accurate and timely data.  Recent internal partnerships include portal projects with the
Research and Development program and the Air and  Radiation program to access scientific and
program data.
                                      EPM - 148

-------
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA's Information Technology community will continue to focus on the Agency's
Technology Initiative and fulfilling the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) commitments.  The
Agency's Technology Initiative builds on efforts started in FY 2004 and FY2005 to enhance
environmental analytical capacity  for EPA, its  partners  and stakeholders.  The Initiative is
designed with the understanding that the majority of environmental data are collected by states
and  Tribes, not  directly by  EPA.  Ready access to real time quality environmental data and
analytical tools is  essential to making sound environmental decisions.  The Agency's IT/Data
Management program forms the core of this effort with its  focus on building and implementing
the Agency's Integrated Portal and Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS), developing
improved Environmental Indicators, and deploying  enterprise-wide IT infrastructure solutions.
The  ECMS, and EPA's enterprise-wide IT infrastructure solutions, combined with the Exchange
Network (e.g., Central Data Exchange, CDX), provide the foundation for improved information,
data access and sharing opportunities among the states, the  Tribes,  the public, the regulated
community, and EPA.

Feedback and results received during stakeholder meetings on EPA's FY 2003 "Draft Report on
the Environment"  identified  key  areas  for  data   collection, review and  analysis.   EPA's
Technology Initiative and its focus areas  work together to advance  data  analyses and  the
development of an analytical tool  kit, including environmental indicators, to address these
information needs.  These efforts will be reflected  in the next "Report on the Environment"
planned for release, with an electronic Report on the Environment capability in FY 2007.

In FY 2007 EPA's Integrated Portal activities continue  implementing identity  and  access
management solutions, integrating geospatial tools,  and linking the CDX.   The Portal  is  the
Technology Initiative's link to diverse data sets and  systems giving users the ability to perform
complex environmental  data analyses on data stored at other locations.  It  provides a  single
business gateway for people  to access, exchange  and integrate standardized local, Regional and
national environmental and public health data.

Using a collaborative process, the Agency will continue to implement the  ECMS project, an
enterprise-wide,  multi-media solution designed to manage and organize environmental data and
documents  for EPA, Regions, field offices and laboratories.  Previously fragmented data storage
approaches will  be converted into a single tool on  a standard platform which  is accessible to
everyone, reducing data and document search time and assisting in  security and information
retention efforts.

EPA's infrastructure program will continue to deliver secure information services to ensure that
the Agency  and its programs have  a full  range  of information technology  infrastructure
components (e.g., user equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application hosting, and remote
access) that make information accessible across the  spectrum of mission needs at all locations.
The program uses performance-based,  outsourced services to obtain the best solutions (value for
cost) for the range of program needs.  This includes innovative multi-year leasing that sustains
and renews technical services in a least-cost, stable manner as technology  changes over time
(e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance).
                                       EPM - 149

-------
In addition to supporting key components of EPA's Technology Initiative, IT/Data Management
will  continue  to  provide  regional  offices with critical  support for  hardware requirements,
software programming and applications, records management systems,  data base services, local
area network  activities, intranet web  design,  and desktop  support.   EPA's  environmental
information needs require the Agency to ensure that it is keeping pace with the states in the areas
of data collection, management and utilization. Additionally, this program will continue to focus
on information security  and the need for each regional office to have an  internal IT security
capacity. The regional offices will implement Agency information resource management policies
in  areas   such  as   data  and  technology standards,   central  data base   services,  and
telecommunications.  The regional offices will also continue to work on the implementation of
cost accounting procedures to capture in detail all  IT expenditures for EPA offices.   This will
enable the Agency decision makers to have easy access  to information  on the Agency's  IT
resources.

Information Technology continues  to  be a critical factor in the effective management  of a
Continuity of Operations  (COOP)  Plan. The IT/Data Management program,  along with the
information security program, continues to prepare  the Agency for successful identification and
implementation of the necessary  information management infrastructure,  telecommunications,
and  standard operating  procedures  to  ensure that EPA can  promptly respond to emergency
situations.   In  FY  2005 and  early  FY 2006,  EPA's COOP Program met the challenge  of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita with support that included emergency response access to the web
and internet, IT, communications, and other critical services.

EPA's e-Government participation and contributions continue in FY 2007 with the coordination,
development and implementation of the Business Gateway (http://www.epa.gov/smallbusiness/),
Geospatial One-Stop (http://www.epa.gov/nsdi/index.html), and e-Authentication. Key activities
ensure that access  to critical data (e.g., geospatial information, federal  regulations) is increased
through the Geospatial  One-Stop portal and the  Business Gateway  and  its Business Portal
providing   opportunities   for  collaboration  and  intergovernmental   partnerships,  reducing
duplication of data investments, and offering the public easy access to important federal services
for businesses.

IT/Data Management efforts  are  integral to the Exchange Network and Information Security
programs.   Together these programs work to design, develop and deploy  secure  systems and
analytical  tools to promote  sound environmental decision-making.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program supports multiple performance  objectives.  Currently, there  are  no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$1,096.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.  This
       increase also includes a payroll reduction of $124.3 for the one FTE transferred to the
       Information Security program.
                                       EPM- 150

-------
    •   (+$1,145.0) This  resource shift from the Exchange Network program to the IT Data
       Management aligns resources  with  the systems, functions and data that Enterprise
       Content Management System will be supporting.

    •   (-1.0 FTE)  This FTE decrease  reflects the move of the ASSERT security tool from the
       IT Data Management program to the Information Security program as a complement of
       the Enterprise Information Systems Security (EISS) initiative.

    •   (-2.9 FTE)  The decrease in FTE reflects resource efficiencies gained in  managing the
       Agency's IT infrastructure activities.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
CAA  and amendments; CWA and amendments; Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act; TSCA; FIFRA; Food Quality Protection Act; Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments;  Federal Food, Drug  and Cosmetic  Act; Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; Paperwork Reduction Act; FOIA;  Computer
Security Act; Privacy Act; EFOIA; EPAct.
                                     EPM- 151

-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory /
            Economic Review
                 EPM- 152

-------
                                                                    Administrative Law
                              Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$4,784.2
$4,784.2
32.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$4,607.0
$4,607.0
35.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,860.9
$4,860.9
34.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$253.9
$253.9
-0.5
Program Project Description:

This program provides  support to  both the Administrative  Law Judges  (ALJs) and the
Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). The ALJs preside in hearings and issue decisions in cases
initiated by EPA's enforcement program concerning those accused of environmental violations.
The  EAB issues  final decisions in  environmental adjudications,  primarily enforcement and
permit-related, that are on appeal to the Board.  ALJs and the EAB issue decisions under the
authority delegated by the Administrator.   These  decisions  establish  the  Agency's  legal
interpretation on the issues presented.  The EAB also makes policy determinations in the matters
before it, as necessary and appropriate to  resolve disputes.  In addition, the EAB serves as the
final approving body for proposed settlements of enforcement actions initiated by the Agency's
headquarters offices.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

By adjudicating disputed matters, the ALJs and EAB further the EPA's long-term strategic goals
of protecting public health and the environment.  The EAB will issue final Agency decisions in
environmental adjudications on appeal to  the Board.  These decisions are the end point in the
Agency's administrative enforcement  and permitting programs. The right of affected persons or
entities to appeal these decisions within the Agency is conferred by various statutes, regulations
and constitutional due process rights.  The Administrative  Law  Judges (ALJs) will preside in
hearings and issue initial decisions in  cases brought by EPA's enforcement program against
those accused of  environmental violations under various environmental statutes.  The Agency
has sought efficiencies in the process.  The ALJs have increased  their use of alternative dispute
resolution techniques  to facilitate the settlement of cases  and,  thereby,  avoided more costly
litigation.  The EAB and ALJs also use videoconferencing technology to reduce expenses for
parties involved in the administrative litigation process.
                                      EPM- 153

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance  objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-0.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (+$94.3) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (+$159.6) This increase will provide the updated equipment  and training necessary to
       continue the EAB and the ALJ efforts in dispute resolution and video conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA; FIFRA; CWA; TSCA; RCRA; SDWA; EPAct, EPCRA; as provided in
Appropriations Act funding.
                                      EPM- 154

-------
                                                         Alternative Dispute Resolution
                             Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$1,531.0
$980.4
$2,511.4
11.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$1,048.0
$975.0
$2,023.0
7.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,229.8
$887.2
$2,117.0
7.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$181.8
($87.8)
$94.0
-0.3
Program Project Description:

The  Agency's General  Counsel and  Regional  Counsel Offices will  provide  environmental
Alternative Dispute Resolution services.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the Agency  will provide conflict prevention and alternative dispute  resolution
(ADR)  services  to  EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices and external  stakeholders on
environmental matters.  The  national  ADR program assists  in developing effective ways to
anticipate, prevent and resolve disputes and makes neutral third parties - such as facilitators and
mediators - more readily available for those purposes.  Under EPA's ADR Policy, the Agency
encourages the use of ADR techniques to prevent and resolve disputes with external parties in
many contexts, including  adjudications, rulemaking, policy  development, administrative  and
civil judicial enforcement actions, permit issuance, protests of contract awards, administration of
contracts and grants, stakeholder involvement, negotiations and litigation.

Performance Targets:

Work under  this program supports  multiple objectives.  Currently,  there are  no performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in  Thousands):

   •   (+$24.2)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
                                      EPM- 155

-------
       (+$157.6) This increase will support contract support for the Agency's Alternative
       Dispute Resolution services.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
                                       EPM- 156

-------
                                                      Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
                              Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$10,905. 7
$10,905.7
64.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$10,575.0
$10,575.0
71.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,053. 7
$11,053.7
71.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$478.7
$478.7
-0.4
Program Project Description:

EPA's Civil  Rights  activities include  policy direction  and guidance on  equal  employment
opportunity, civil rights, affirmative employment, and diversity issues for Headquarters' program
offices, regional offices  and laboratories.  Programs include Title VI compliance and review;
intake and processing of discrimination complaints from  Agency employees and applicants for
employment under Title VII; implementation of processes and programs in support of reasonable
accommodation and Minority Academic Institutions (MAIs); and diversity initiatives, especially
those related  to issues of  ageism and sexual  orientation.   Program  functions  include
accountability for the implementation,  program evaluation  and compliance monitoring of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Titles VI, VII, IX), and legislative requirements and executive orders
covering civil rights, affirmative employment, disability, and MAIs. The program also interprets
policies and regulations, ensures compliance with Civil Rights laws, EEOC regulations, and
equal employment  initiatives, and upholds the civil rights  of employees  and  prospective
employees of the Government, as required by Federal statutes and executive orders.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA expects  to conduct compliance reviews of five recipient  agencies.  While the number of
complaints that allege discrimination by a recipient of EPA financial assistance varies annually,
over the past three years, there have been approximately 10 complaints per  year.  The Civil
Rights External Compliance Program expects to improve its processing of external complaints.
The Agency will:

    •  Work with the U.S. Department of Justice on the development of any non-discrimination
      regulations, guidance,  or findings of discrimination, and the U.S. Department of Health
      and  Human  Services on issues  regarding age discrimination, the U.S. Department of
      Education on  issues regarding discrimination on the basis of sex, and  other federal
                                      EPM- 157

-------
       agencies  that may simultaneously  receive  discrimination  complaints  from the same
       complainant regarding a particular recipient agency.

   •   Work to reduce the backlog of employment complaints  while completing all  new
       discrimination complaints within required time frames.

   •   Provide  training and  guidance to over 100  EEO  Counselors  in the Agency's regional
       offices.  The Agency will train EEO Officers in the Discrimination Complaint Tracking
       System (DCTS) and provide technical assistance as needed.

   •   Examine ways  to more effectively  and efficiently  reduce  the number of pending
       complaints, increase the number of compliance reviews conducted, and improve recipient
       agencies' civil rights programs through guidance and/or training.

   •   Monitor  and  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of the  reasonable  accommodation process.
       Continue to provide technical assistance to  managers,  supervisors, employees  and the
       designated Local Reasonable Accommodation Coordinators in the form of expert training
       and consultation by  the Northeast Regional  Application  Center (NRAC) to insure
       efficient implementation of the policy and procedures.

   •   Monitor the Agency's compliance with various statutes, EEOC regulations, EPA policy
       and procedures related to  the reasonable accommodation  of qualified applicants and
       employees with disabilities.

The Affirmative Employment and Diversity staff (AE&D) will provide programs that increase
the cultural awareness of minorities  and  women; highlight the accomplishments of EPA
employees  involved  in  ensuring  equal employment opportunity; develop  special emphasis
programs and initiatives that involve management, unions, and community groups;  develop  an
annual Affirmative Employment Plan; meet on a regular basis with external and union officials
to increase communication and relationships, and coordinate the development of recruitment and
retention strategies.

The MAI program will conduct information exchange sessions with Agency managers from each
region and  program  office; meet with  representatives  from  minority  colleges; introduce
representatives  from  minority colleges  to appropriate  Agency  personnel;  participate  on
interagency workgroups that support Federal assistance for minority colleges; and facilitate
constructive dialogues that will advance the goals of the MAI program.

As a result of these activities, the Agency's mission and cornerstone themes are supported by a
workforce that  is  motivated, treated in a fair and non-discriminatory  manner and produces
positive outcomes with respect to the Agency's goals.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there  are  no
performance measures specific to this program project.
                                      EPM- 158

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$478.7)  This increase for Civil Rights activities in FY 2007 includes an increase of
       $1,495.1 to payroll and cost-of-living costs, redirected from programmatic resources.

   •   (-0.4 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

Civil Rights Act of 1964, VII, as amended; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Section 13
of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972;  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Age Discrimination Act of
1975; Rehabilitation Act  of  1974, as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as
amended;  Older Workers  Benefit Protection Act of 1990, as amended; Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, as amended  EEOC Management Directive 715; Executive Orders
13163, 13164, 13078,  13087, 13171,  11478,  13125,  13096,  13230, 13256 February  12, 2002
(HBCUs),  13270  July 3,  2002 (Tribal  Colleges),  13339  May  13,  2004  (Asian  American
Participation in Federal Programs).
                                      EPM- 159

-------
                                                 Legal Advice: Environmental Program
                             Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$32,764.8
$722.8
$33,487.6
236.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$35,931.0
$755.0
$36,686.0
250.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
537,525.5
$690.8
$38,216.3
249.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,594.5
($64.2)
$1,530.3
-1.1
Program Project Description:

The Agency's General Counsel and Regional Counsel offices will provide legal representational
services, legal counseling and legal support for all Agency environmental activities.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, legal advice to environmental programs will include litigation support representing
EPA and providing litigation support in cases where EPA is a defendant as well as those cases
where EPA is not a defendant but may have an interest in the case. Legal advice, counsel and
support are  necessary  for  Agency  management and  program offices  on  matters  involving
environmental issues including, for example, providing interpretations of relevant and applicable
laws, regulations, directives, policy and guidance documents and other materials.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives. Currently, there are no performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$87.6) This increase covers higher contract costs for the Agency's LexisNexis/Westlaw
       contracts.   These are essential  electronic legal research  database  services that  are
       maintained for the benefit of all EPA legal staff, regional staff, administrative law judges,
       investigators, paralegals and law clerks.

    •   (+$1,506.9) This reflects increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
                                      EPM- 160

-------
    •   (-0.5 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
                                       EPM- 161

-------
                                                        Legal Advice: Support Program
                              Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six  (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$13,864.0
$13,864.0
87.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$13,206.0
$13,206.0
87.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,465.9
$13,465.9
85.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$259.9
$259.9
-1.3
Program Project Description:

The  General Counsel and  the Regional  Counsel offices will provide legal representational
services, legal counseling and legal support for all activities necessary for the operation of the
Agency.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, legal representational services, legal counseling and legal support will be needed for
all Agency  activities  necessary for the operation of the Agency (i.e.,  contracts, personnel,
information law, ethics and financial/monetary issues). Legal services include litigation support
representing EPA and  providing litigation  support in cases where EPA is a defendant as well as
those cases where EPA is not a defendant, but may have an interest in the case. Legal advice,
counsel and support are necessary for Agency management and  administrative offices on matters
involving  actions affecting the operation of the Agency,  including, for example,  providing
interpretations of relevant and applicable laws,  regulations,  directives,  policy and guidance
documents and other materials.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives.  Currently, there are no performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted  Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-1.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
                                      EPM- 162

-------
    •   (-$4.7) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll  and cost of living for
       existing FTE,  combined with a  reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
       costs.

    •   (+$202.6)   This  increase   covers  higher   contract   costs   for  the   Agency's
       LexisNexis/Westlaw contracts.  These are essential electronic legal research database
       services  that  are  maintained for the benefit  of all  EPA legal staff, regional staff,
       administrative law judges, investigators, paralegals and law clerks.

    •   (+$62.0) This increase will support travel for legal advice, counsel and support.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
                                        EPM- 163

-------
                                                       Regional Science and Technology
                              Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$3,424.8
$3,424.8
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$3,522.0
$3,522.0
3.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,520.7
$3,520.7
3.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1.3)
($1.3)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Regional Science and Technology (RS&T) program supports the purchase of equipment for
use by regional laboratories, field investigation teams, and mobile laboratory units, for meeting
requirements for laboratory  quality assurance and quality control. Regional laboratories provide
essential expertise in ambient air monitoring, analytical  pollution prevention, environmental
biology, environmental microbiology, and environmental chemistry. Centers of Applied Science
for specialty work have been established in these areas as well.  In recent years, EPA has made
significant strides toward improving data collection and analytical capacity to strengthen science
based decision making.  Funding  for necessary equipment is essential for continued progress
toward the Agency's long-term environmental protection goals.

The  RS&T  program supports all of the Agency's national programs and  goals,  especially
enforcement, by supplying  ongoing laboratory analysis, field sampling support, and Agency
efforts to build  tribal capacity for  environmental monitoring and assessment.  The RS&T
program also provides in-house expertise and technical capabilities in the generation of data for
Agency decision-making. RS&T organizations support the development of critical and timely
environmental data and data review activities in emerging situations.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Regional Science  and Technology  resources will support Regional  implementation of the
Agency's  statutory  mandates through: field operations for  environmental  sampling and
monitoring;  regional laboratories  for  environmental  analytical testing; quality  assurance
oversight and data management support; and environmental laboratory accreditation.

The  Agency  will  stay abreast  of rapidly changing  technologies (i.e.,  new   software,
instrumentation,  and analytical capability such as Polymerase Chain Reaction Technology) that
allow EPA to analyze samples more  cost effectively and/or detect lower levels of contaminants,
                                      EPM- 164

-------
and to assay new and emerging contaminants of concern, like endocrine disrupters, perchlorate,
arsenic, mercury, PCB congeners and flame retardants. In accordance with new policy directives,
the Agency will  enhance laboratory  capacity and  capability  to  ensure that its laboratories
implement critical environmental monitoring and surveillance systems, develop  nationwide
laboratory networks, and develop enhanced response, recovery and clean-up procedures.

The Agency recognizes the value of accreditation of environmental laboratories and continues to
work with  the  National  Environmental  Laboratory  Accreditation  Conference/Program
(NELAC/NELAP). These activities ensure continued confidence that our environmental testing
laboratories at the Federal, state, local, private and academic levels are qualified to produce data
supporting environmental compliance, at all levels within the regulatory community.

Laboratory equipment  such  as Standard  Reference  Photometers are used  to ensure that the
national network of ozone ambient  monitors is  accurately measuring ozone  concentrations in
support  of Air  program performance measures.   Nearly 60% of the analyses performed by
regional laboratories  support the cleanup  of uncontrolled or  abandoned hazardous waste sites
associated with  the Superfund program. Analytical support is also provided for identifying and
assessing risks associated with pesticides and other high risk chemicals.

Performance Targets:

Work under  this program supports  multiple objectives. Currently, there are no performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  ($15.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •  (-$16.9)  This represents laboratory cost savings resulting from the use of newly
      developed, more efficient laboratory software.

Statutory Authority:

CWA; CAA;  TSCA; CERCLA; SOW A; PPA; RCRA; FIFRA.
                                       EPM- 165

-------
                                                                 Regulatory Innovation
                              Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                               Objective(s): Communities

                                         Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
 Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$21,215.1
$21,215.1
110.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$21,511.0
$21,511.0
120.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,853.6
$25,853.6
116.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$4,342.6
$4,342.6
-4.0
Program Project Description:

Innovation, new ideas and creative approaches are critical to continued environmental progress.
Increasingly complex environmental  problems —  such as  the  continuing  accumulation  of
greenhouse gases, poor water quality, increasing urban smog, and the need for cost effective
solutions to national water infrastructure issues — call for EPA to develop and use a broader set
of cross media tools.  Additionally, shrinking state and Federal budgets make it necessary to find
new ways to leverage partnership opportunities with states, local communities, and businesses to
produce better environmental results at lower costs. EPA will continue to make sure that state,
local, and tribal governments, business, and the public meet Federal environmental requirements.
Through public recognition, incentives and help in overcoming  regulatory barriers, EPA will
continue to encourage widespread interest in environmental stewardship. The Agency will also
support and encourage efforts to improve environmental performance "beyond compliance" with
regulatory requirements, as a means to achieve long term environmental protection goals.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

State Innovation Grants (SIG):  These competitive grants provide  seed money to help states test
and adopt innovative environmental  protection  strategies,  such as permit streamlining and
environmental  management systems, as  well  as environmental  leadership programs that
encourage the use of innovative technologies for better environmental results, and demonstrate
improved efficiencies in environmental management. EPA anticipates up to 15 awards for SIG
proposals that apply innovation to State environmental permitting programs. Since 2002, EPA
has supported 22 projects through the State Innovation Grant Program.

National Environmental Performance Track: Performance Track recognizes and rewards private
and  public  facilities  that  demonstrate  strong  environmental  performance, beyond  current
requirements.  To provide incentives to business to participate, EPA continues to implement and
develop new  regulatory  incentives  at the state level. It will support and leverage state
environmental leadership  programs by  aligning Performance  Track with  at least 20 state
                                      EPM- 166

-------
programs. Performance Track will continue to provide direct assistance to States through State
Innovation Grants for their development and implementation of leadership programs.

In addition to its work with industry under the Performance Track Program: EPA will continue
to provide tools for voluntary programs to improve their ability to deliver effective results; work
with industry leaders in "lean manufacturing" to  integrate  environmental improvements and
enhance business efficiency and competitiveness;  and encourage the development of industry
ecology and sustainable development.  A new Corporate Leadership designation  recognizes
companies that participate with a large number of facilities and demonstrate environmental
excellence in other ways.

Environmental  Management Systems  (EMS):  An EMS is a  continual cycle of planning,
implementing,  reviewing  and  improving the  processes  and actions that an  organization
undertakes to meet its business and environmental goals. Most EMSs  are built on the "Plan, Do,
Check, Act" model. This model leads  to continual improvement. EPA will continue to provide
leadership and coordination with states and industry on  the use  of EMSs  to  protect the
environment. EMS implementation supports  the President's  Management Agenda goal of
improved  efficiency and performance in the Federal government. This is accomplished through
a formal process which ensures that result oriented goals are established, performance measures
are in place to determine if the desired  outcome is achieved, and changes are made as necessary.
In FY 2007, EPA will also support states in experimenting and evaluating innovative permitting
models that use EMSs.  (www.epa.gov/ems)

The  Environmental  Results Program,  based on  a  system created by  the  Massachusetts
Department  of  Environmental  Protection,  uses  innovative tools  to integrate  compliance
assistance, self-certification  and performance measurement.  These tools give  small business
owners/operators a better understanding of their regulatory requirements, flexibility in achieving
compliance,  and  opportunities  to  achieve higher levels of environmental results.  EPA is
facilitating the transfer of this  approach to other states  and environmental  applications.
(www. epa. gov/innovation/erp)

The   Sector   Strategies  Program  promotes  widespread   improvement  in  environmental
performance, with reduced administrative burden,  in 12 business sectors: agribusiness,  cement
manufacturing, construction, forest products,  iron and steel manufacturing,  paint and coatings,
ports, shipbuilding,  metal  finishing, die casting and meat processing.  In FY 2007, EPA will
design policy initiatives to establish more flexible, performance-based environmental protection
standards  for multiple sectors in all media. EPA will also create national  EMS implementation
programs in all participating sectors.

Under the Smart Growth program EPA provides tools, technical assistance, education, research,
and environmental data to help states and communities minimize  environmental  and  health
impacts and  evaluate  environmental  consequences of  various development patterns.   The
programs  help community  and government leaders better understand  how  they  can meet
environmental standards through innovative community design and supporting environmentally
friendly development patterns. EPA helps industry, transportation, architecture, construction, real
                                       EPM- 167

-------
estate (residential and commercial), and mortgage lending institutions to identify and remove
barriers to growth in ways that serve the economy, public health, and environment.
In FY 2007, EPA plans to build upon its work in outreach and direct implementation assistance.
Strategically, EPA  has identified  four areas as offering the greatest potential for environmental
returns: State and Local Governments, Standard-Setting Organizations, Federal Government, and
the Private Sector.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome



Outcome






Outcome

Measure
Reduce 3.7 billion
gallons of water use;
16.3 million MMBTUs
of energy use; 1,050
tons of materials use;
460,000 tons of solid
waste; 66,000 tons of
air releases; & 12,400
tons of water
discharges.
Reduce 3.5 billion
gallons of water use;
15. 5 million MMBTUs
of energy use; 1,000
tons of materials use;
440,000 tons of solid
waste; 66,000 tons of
air releases; & 12,400
tons of water
discharges.
Specific annual
reductions in six
media/resource areas:
water use, energy use,
solid waste, air
releases, water
discharges, & materials
use.
FY 2005
Actual













1

FY 2005
Target













6

FY 2006
Target






6








FY 2007
Target


4












Units


Media
Reductions



Media
Reductions






Media
Reductions

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$1,000.0)   Additional resources will  fund expanded program  implementation for
       Performance Track, through contracts, and grants to promote state incentives and growth
       of State-lead performance-based recognition programs.   Funds will also support  an
       increase in  innovation grant resources, made competitively available to states, to test,
                                      EPM- 168

-------
       adopt and evaluate innovative environmental protection strategies that aim to improve
       performance and cut costs.

   •   (+$1,891.4)  This increase will be used for fund grants and contracts for the Agency's
       manufacturing sector programs, and to restore funding  for the  Agri-business  sector
       program, an Administrator's priority sector.

   •   (+$1,451.2)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.

   •   (-4.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

As provided in Appropriations Act funding; CWA, Section 104(b)(3); CAA, Section 104(b)(3).
                                       EPM- 169

-------
                                        Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
                             Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$13,875.1
$13,875.1
89.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$16,551.0
$16,551.0
103.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$17,554.8
$17,554.8
103.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,003.8
$1,003.8
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program is  designed to strengthen EPA's policy analysis  of key regulatory  actions,
including underlying economic analyses, and  associated information management systems,  in
order to ensure that the Administrator and other senior EPA leaders have sound analyses for
decision-making.   Resources are  used to  develop  and analyze various  regulatory and non-
regulatory approaches; develop and evaluate policy options; identify priority problem areas; and
to target specific  areas of concern,  such as small businesses.  EPA works to  continually
strengthen the capacity and quality of its economic analysis, and reviews the Economic Analyses
(EAs) for all economically significant rules, to ensure their compliance with OMB's guidelines.
The  Regulatory and Economic program works  to  fill gaps in EPA's ability to quantify the
benefits of environmental regulations and policies. Another area of emphasis is to improve the
Agency's  internal  regulation development  tracking  system,  to  ensure  better  managerial
accountability. An increased effort will be placed on ensuring that Agency personnel understand
the impact of Executive Orders  and  Congressional mandates on  the regulatory  and policy
development processes.

Objectives of the  program include advancing the theory and practice of quality  economics,
policy analysis and risk analysis within the Agency; providing information on the full  societal
impacts of reducing environmental risks, including the costs and benefits of regulatory options;
supporting the development of regulatory and policy  alternatives, especially economic incentives
as an environmental management tool; confirming and maintaining the accuracy and consistency
of EPA's economic analyses to enhance environmental decision-making; and implementing and
coordinating processes and information systems to facilitate planning and management.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Program activities planned for FY 2007 include:
                                      EPM- 170

-------
       •   Participate  in  the development  of the Administrator's  priority  actions,  review
          economic and  risk analyses conducted across EPA  offices, and provide technical
          assistance when needed to help meet Agency goals. The Agency will also continue to
          chair the Small Business Advocacy Panels.

       •   Continue to conduct and support  research on methods to integrate ecological and
          economic models, and improve household surveys, to quantify the impacts and value
          to improvements in ecological services and functions. The Agency will also continue
          to establish effective  management systems,  in  order  to improve  the quality and
          consistency of EPA's economic and risk assessment studies.

       •   Continue the  Risk  Assessment  for Benefits  Analysis  project, demonstrating
          approaches  to adopt benefits analysis techniques.

       •   Continue to provide training on the Agency's action development process and the
          Agency's Economic Analysis Guidelines and  related requirements  (e.g.,  OMB
          Circular A-4).

       •   Continue to organize workshops on priority economic issues, i.e., benefits valuation,
          market mechanisms and incentives, treatment of uncertainties in risk and economic
          analyses, and   measuring  the effectiveness  and  benefits of information-based
          programs.    For   more    information:   on   these   workshops,   please   see
          http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html:               or
          http://vosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/WorkshopSeries.html.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports  multiple objectives. Currently, there are  no  performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$355.1) This  reduction reflects cost savings realized through the use of more efficient
       software and equipment for economic analysis

    •   (+$1,358.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6 (15 U.S.C.  2603, 2604, and 2605); CWA sections 304 and 308 (33
U.S.C. 1312, 1314, 1318, 1329-1330, 1443); SDWA section 1412 (42 U.S.C. 210, 300g-l);
RCRA/HSWA:  (33 USC  40(IV)(2761), 42  USC  82(VIII)(6981-6983));  CAA:  42  USC
85(I)(A)(7403, 7412, 7429, 7545, 7612); CERCLA:  42 USC 103(III)(9651);  PPA (42 U.S.C.
13101-13109); FTTA.
                                      EPM- 171

-------
                                                               Science Advisory Board
                             Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$4,660.8
$4,660.8
26.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$4,402.0
$4,402.0
22.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,615.7
$4,615.7
22.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$213.7
$213.7
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Science Advisory Board (SAB) uses non-EPA technical experts to ensure a balanced range
of technical views  from academia, communities, states, independent research institutions, and
industry through peer reviews of EPA's  products and technical  issues.   This  program also
includes costs for administering the SAB and two other statutorily mandated chartered Federal
Advisory Committees:  1) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and 2) Council
on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL).  These Advisory committees are charged with
providing  independent  advice  and  peer review  on scientific and  technical  aspects  of
environmental problems, regulations and research planning to EPA's Administrator.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the SAB will provide scientific and technical advice on about 20 key topical areas
related to:   1)  the technical basis of EPA  national  standards for air pollutants and  water
contaminants; 2) risk assessments of major environmental contaminants; 3) economic benefits
analyses of EPA's environmental programs; and 4) EPA's research and science programs.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports multiple  objectives. Currently, there  are no performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$68.4)  This decrease is the net effect of increases to payroll and cost of living increases
       for existing FTE,  combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
       costs.
                                      EPM- 172

-------
   •   (+$282.1) This reflects an increase for travel, teleconferencing, and meeting room costs
       that are necessary to accommodate a larger number of more diverse professionals at the
       meetings that the  SAB convenes to resolve issues brought before them

Statutory Authority:

Environmental Research, Development, and  Demonstration Authorization  Act, 42  U.S.C.  ง
4365; Federal Advisory Committee Act,  5  U.S.C.  App. C;  CAA  of  1977,  see 42 U.S.C.
7409(d)(2); CAA of 1990, see 42 U.S.C. 7612.
                                      EPM- 173

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
                  EPM- 174

-------
                                                              Acquisition Management
                                             Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$21,830.4
$337.0
$17,464.2
$39,631.6
343.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$23,265.0
$358.0
$19,727.0
$43,350.0
364.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,418.3
$360.8
$23,514.3
$49,293.4
357.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,153.3
$2.8
$3,787.3
$5,943.4
-7.6
Program Project Description:

Sound contract management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs.
EPM resources in this  program  support contract  and acquisition management  activities  at
Headquarters, regional offices, Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati offices.  EPA focuses on
maintaining a high level of integrity in the management of its procurement activities, and  in
fostering relationships with  state and local  governments,  to  support the implementation  of
environmental programs.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007 EPA plans to acquire and to begin implementing a new acquisition system, as the
current Acquisition Management System has reached the end of its useful life.  Staff increasingly
spend time making the system work, as opposed to using the system to accomplish their work.
The system is obsolete; and therefore an upgrade is  not feasible.  The new system  will provide
data on contracts that support mission oriented planning and  evaluation.  This will allow the
Agency to reach President's Management Agenda (PMA) goals, e-government requirements and
the needs of Agency personnel resulting in more efficient process implementation.  Some of the
benefits of the new system are: 1) program offices will be able to track the progress of individual
actions; 2) extensive querying and reporting capabilities will allow the Agency to meet internal
and external demands; and 3) the system will integrate with the Agency's financial  systems and
Government-wide shared services.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there  are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
                                      EPM- 175

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$2,000.0) This change reflects an increase to support the development and deployment
       of the Agency's new Acquisition Management System. A total of $4,000.0 is requested
       ($2.0M EPM and $2.0M Superfund) for  FY 2007. The  new Acquisition Management
       System is required because the existing system is obsolete and impedes efficiency.  The
       new  system will be  capable  of  integrating  with  the  GSA  Integrated Acquisition
       Environment (IAE).

   •   (+$208.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.

   •   (-$55.2) This  adjustment represents  cost savings  associated with streamlining of the
       Agency-wide training program for contract management officers.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's environmental statutes; annual Appropriations Act; FAR.
                                      EPM- 176

-------
                                               Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
                                             Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$68,045.9
$730.4
$20,620.3
$89,396.6
520.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$73,680.0
$1,010.0
$24,349.0
$99,039.0
548.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$83,548.1
$1,014.8
$25,540.8
$110,103.7
537.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$9,868.1
$4.8
$1,191.8
$11,064.7
-10.4
Program Project Description:

Activities  under the Central  Planning, Budgeting and Finance  program/project support the
management  of  integrated  planning,  budgeting,  financial  management,  performance and
accountability processes and systems to ensure effective stewardship of resources. Also included
is EPA's Environmental Finance Program that provides grants to a network of university-based
Environmental Finance Centers which deliver financial  outreach  service such  as technical
assistance, training, expert advice, finance  education and full cost pricing analysis to states, local
communities and small businesses. (See http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm for additional
information).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will continue efforts to modernize the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
The modernization  effort will  reduce  cost,  comply with Congressional  direction, and new
Federal financial systems requirements.   This work is framed  by the  Agency's  Enterprise
Architecture and will  make  maximum use of enabling technologies  for  e-Gov  initiatives
including e-Procurement, e-Payroll, and e-Travel.

EPA plans further improvements to its budgeting and planning system, financial data warehouse,
business intelligence tools and reporting capabilities.  These improvements will support EPA's
"green" score in financial performance on the President's Management Agenda scorecard by
providing  more  accessible  data  to  support  accountability,  cost  accounting,  budget and
performance integration, and management decision-making.

In FY  2007, EPA will  continue to strengthen its accountability and  effectiveness of operations
through improved coordination and integration of internal control assessments as required under
                                      EPM- 177

-------
Revised OMB Circular A-123.  Improvements in internal controls will further support EPA's
President's Management Agenda initiatives for improved financial performance.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple  objectives.  Currently, there are no performance
measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$352.6) This increase will further  support activities relating to the assessment and
       strengthening of internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to OMB Circular A-
       123, Management for Responsibility for Internal Control.

    •  (+$7,550.0)  This increase  continues the modernization process of  major  Agency
       financial systems  by funding  the Financial  Replacement System (FinRS)  Capital
       Investment.

    •  (+$1,389.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •  (+$580.8) This reflects an increased cost for Agency-wide Flexible Spending Accounts
       (FSA), as well as technical changes for other Agency-wide payroll costs.  FSA is an
       OPM required expense and this increase reflects increased participation in the program
       by Agency employees.

    •  (+$870.0) This reflects  full-year payroll costs related  to consolidation of financial
       services in 2005 and 2006.

    •   (-$875.2) This decrease reflects costs savings in IT and telecommunications resources.

    •  (-0.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

Annual  Appropriations  Act; Clinger-Cohen Act;  CERCLA;  Computer  Security  Act;  E-
Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPA's Environmental Statutes, and the Federal Grant and
Cooperative  Agreement Act; Federal  Activities  Inventory Reform Act; Federal Acquisition
Regulations, contract law and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46,
47); Federal  Manager's  Financial Integrity  Act (1982);  FOIA; GMRA  (1994); Improper
Payments Information Act; Inspector General Act of 1978 and Amendments of 1988; Paperwork
Reduction Act; Privacy Act; The Chief Financial Officers Act (1990); GPRA (I"3); Tne
Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5 United States Code; EPAct.
                                      EPM- 178

-------
                                                 Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
                                              Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$317,744.7
$8,892.1
$32,244.5
$982.9
$552.1
$65,156.8
$425,573.1
364.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$343,908.0
$8,511.0
$28,295.0
$894.0
$500.0
$69,667.0
$451,775.0
437.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$294,760.1
$70,239.5
$28,430.9
$916.8
$499.3
$73,944.7
$468,791.3
438.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($49,147.9)
$61,728.5
$135.9
$22.8
($0.7)
$4,277.7
$17,016.3
1.4
Program Project Description:

EPM resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Project are used to fund
rent, utilities, and  security,  and also to manage  activities and  support  services in  many
centralized  administrative  areas such  as  health  and  safety,  environmental  compliance,
occupational health,  medical monitoring,  fitness/wellness and  safety,  and  environmental
management functions at EPA. Resources for this program also support a full range of ongoing
facilities management services including:  facilities maintenance and operations; Headquarters
security;  space planning;   shipping  and receiving;  property  management;  printing and
reproduction; mail management; and transportation services.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with GSA and other private landlords
by  conducting  rent reviews and verifying that monthly  billing  statements are correct.  The
Agency also reviews space needs on  a regular basis.

These  resources also help  to improve operating efficiency and  encourage the use of new,
advanced  technologies and energy  sources.   EPA will continue  to direct resources towards
acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger cars and light trucks to meet
the goals  set by Executive Orders (EO)  1314923, Greening the Government through Federal
  Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3149.htm
                                       EPM- 179

-------
Fleet and Transportation Efficiency  and EO  1312324, Greening the Government through
Efficient Energy Management.  Additionally, the Agency will attain the Executive Orders' goals
through several  initiatives including comprehensive facility energy audits,  sustainable building
design in  Agency construction  and alteration projects,  energy savings performance contracts to
achieve energy  efficiencies, the  use  of off-grid energy equipment,  energy load  reduction
strategies, green power purchases, and the use of Energy Star products and Energy Star rated
buildings.

EPA will  provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order 13ISO25
"Federal  Workforce Transportation. "  EPA will continue the implementation of the Safety and
Health Management Systems to ensure a safe working environment. As a  result of an ongoing
review of indirect cost charging in FY 2007, the Agency is reviewing the  allocation of rent,
security and utilities costs among EPA's various appropriations.  The largest shift is to  the
Science and Technology appropriation, but other appropriations proportions have been adjusted.
These changes do not result in any overall funding difference.

In FY 2007, the Agency will  complete its Headquarters space consolidation project for  the
offices in  Crystal City, VA. The move to the new facility in Region 8 (Denver, CO) will begin.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports multiple objectives.  Performance information is included in
the Program Performance and Assessment section.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$61,836.3)  This is not a reduction to the overall program, but a shift to the Science and
       Technology  (S&T) (+$60,993.1)  and  Superfund  (+$843.2) appropriations  from  the
       Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) appropriation for  EPA's rent, security,
       and  utilities  costs.     This change  reflects   the   restructuring  of  cost  allocation
       methodologies.  In the  past, direct laboratory rent,  security,  and utilities have  been
       included  under the EPM appropriation.  This  methodology change  will better reflect
       actual costs for personnel with S&T funds.

   •   (+$7,912.5) this adjustment represents an increase in costs associated with rising utilities,
       resulting from increases in natural gas and oil prices as well as increased costs associated
       with security. The increase in security includes a base shift from Rent to Security, and
       represents the cost of  the Federal  Protective Service and Building  Specific Guard
       contracts previously included in GSA Rent/Lease bills. These costs will now be billed to
       EPA directly from the Department of Homeland Security.

   •   (+$3,221.3)  This change provides additional resources for the new Region 1 facility in
       Boston, MA, and the new Region 8 facility in Denver,  CO. These moves align with lease
       expirations and are required by GSA.
24 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3123.htm
25 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
                                        EPM- 180

-------
   •   (-$5,577.1)   This change  represents the expected  completion of  the  Crystal  City
       consolidation project at Potomac Yards.

   •   (+ $4,651.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (+$1,681.7)  This  increase will support continuing energy efficiency  and conservation
       projects, to allow the Agency to meet its FY 2007 energy reduction performance target.

   •   (+$798.3) Provides additional resources to cover basic facilities management services in
       EPA's ten regions.

   •   (+1.4 FTE) This FTE increase will support Agency environmental management systems
       and continuing energy conservation projects.

Statutory Authority:

FPASA; PBA; annual Appropriations Acts; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act; Executive Orders
10577 and  12598;  United States  Marshals Service,  Vulnerability  Assessment of Federal
Facilities Report; Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure
Protection).
                                       EPM- 181

-------
                                         Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
                                             Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$22,223.9
$3,109.3
$25,333.2
195.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$23,168.0
$3,060.0
$26,228.0
164.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$21,847.0
$2,920.8
$24,767.8
163.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,321.0)
($139.2)
($1,460.2)
-1.5
Program Project Description:

Grants and Interagency Agreements comprise over half of the Agency's budget. EPM resources
in this program support  activities related to the  management  of Financial  Assistance
Grants/Interagency Agreements (lAGs), and of suspension and debarment at Headquarters and
within Regions.  The key components of this program are ensuring that EPA's management of
meets the highest fiduciary standards, and that grant funding produces measurable environmental
results. This program focuses on maintaining a high level of integrity in the management of
EPA's assistance agreements, and fostering relationships with state and local governments to
support the implementation of environmental programs.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will achieve key objectives under its long-term Grants  Management Plan.
These objectives include strengthening accountability,  competition  and  positive, measurable
environmental outcomes, and aggressively implementing new and revised policies  on at-risk
grantees.  26    The  Grants Management Plan  has provided  a  framework for  extensive
improvements in grants management  at the technical  administrative  level, programmatic
oversight level and at the executive decision-making levels of the Agency.  EPA will continue to
reform grants management by conducting  on-site and pre-award reviews of grant recipients and
applicants, improving systems support, performing indirect cost rate reviews, providing Tribal
technical assistance,  and implementing its Agency wide training program for project officers,
grant specialists, and managers.
26 US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-R-03-001, April 2003. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/fmakeport.pdf
                                      EPM- 182

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple  performance objectives.  Currently, there  are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from the FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$1,603.8) This decrease is the net effect of increases  for payroll  and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

   •   (+$94.5) This increase will support  activities  for conducting  on-site  and pre-award
       reviews of grant recipients and applicants.

   •   (+$188.3) This change will  assist in  performing indirect cost  rate reviews, providing
       Tribal technical  assistance,  and implementing its Agency wide training program  for
       project officers, grants specialists, and managers.

   •   (-1.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's environmental statutes; Annual Appropriations Act; FGCAA Section 40;  CFR Parts:  30,
31,35, 40, 45, 46, and 47.
                                       EPM- 183

-------
                                                         Human Resources Management
                                              Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$46,795.7
$5.0
$5,250.8
$52,051.5
344.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$41,275.0
$3.0
$5,665.0
$46,943.0
297.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$40,202.5
$3.0
$5,270.2
$45,475.7
297.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,072.5)
$0.0
($394.8)
($1,467.3)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

Resources in this program support activities related to the provision of human capital and human
resources management services to the entire Agency. EPA supports organizational development
and management activities through Agency-wide and interagency councils and committees and
through participation in interagency  management improvement initiatives.   The Agency
continually  evaluates and  improves human  resource and workforce  functions,   employee
development, leadership development, workforce planning, and succession management.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA is committed to fully implementing "Investing in Our People II, EPA's Strategy for Human
Capital" 27, which was issued in December 2003 and reviewed in 2005.  As one result of that
review, the desired outcomes for each strategy were strengthened to focus on measurable results.
In FY 2007, the Agency  will continue its efforts to implement a Workforce Planning System that
will include: closing competency gaps in senior leadership positions; significantly reducing the
time to hire for senior executives; and reducing the overall number of vacancies for non-SES
positions processed beyond 45-days; and increasing the emphasis on the EPA Environmental
Intern Program and other innovative recruitment and hiring flexibilities that address  personnel
shortages in mission-critical occupations (MCOs).

In accordance with OMB Circular A-76 "Implementation  of the Federal Activities  Inventory
Reform Act of  199828  (Public  Law 105-270) (FAIR Act), the  Agency will  also build on
competitive sourcing principles to identify  the most efficient, cost  effective resources for
performing functions critical to the EPA mission.
27 US EPA Investing in OUR People II, EPA's Strategy for Human Capital. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oarm/strategv.pdf
28 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/fair2002notice4.html
                                       EPM- 184

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Percent to which
competency/skill gaps
are reduced (beginner
to intermediate) in
Mission Critical
Occupations.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target





FY 2007
Target


25


Units


Percent


Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Percent to which
competency/skill gaps
are reduced
(intermediate to expert)
in Mission Critical
Occupations.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target





FY 2007
Target


15


Units


Percent


Measure
Type


Output


Measure
Number of new hires
recruited through
EPA's Environmental
Intern Program in
Mission Critical
Occupations.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target





FY 2007
Target


100


Units


Percent


Measure
Type


Efficiency


Measure
Average time to hire
non-SES positions
from date vacancy
closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in
working days.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target





FY 2007
Target


45


Units


Days


                                   EPM- 185

-------
Measure
Type



Efficiency


Measure
For SES positions, the
average time from date
vacancy closes to date
offer is extended,
expressed in working
days.
FY 2005
Actual






FY 2005
Target






FY 2006
Target






FY 2007
Target



90


Units



Days


FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$1,779.8)  This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

    •   (+$184.9) This  increase will support activities for workforce planning and  succession
       management functions.

    •   (+$522.4) This  increase will support activities associated with employee development
       and leadership development programs throughout the Agency.

    •   (-0.1  FTE) This change reflects a decrease in EPA's workforce as part of a management
       strategy that will help us better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

Title V USC.
                                      EPM- 186

-------
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
              EPM- 187

-------
                                                               Pesticides: Field Programs
                                                         Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                                                                Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                         Objective(s): Protect Human Health

                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                         Objective(s): (no objective); Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$25,649.5
$25,649.5
129.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$24,516.0
$24,516.0
124.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$24,926.3
$24,926.3
122.5
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$410.3
$410.3
-2.0
Beginning in FY 2006, the portion of this program project's resources in Goal 2 shifted to Goal 4. For consistency, resources
have also been shifted in the above table for FY 2005.

Program Project Description:

The Pesticides Field Program is  one of the foundation components of the integrated National
Pesticide Program established by Congress in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA). In combination  with  the risk assessment and risk management actions  of the
registration and reregi strati on of pesticides, field activities are the frontline delivery mechanism
to ensure that safeguards, practices and capacity exist to achieve intended risk reduction.

State and Tribal Pesticide regulatory agencies,  in cooperation with EPA, implement regulatory
decisions  regarding pesticides throughout  the nation.  These decisions ensure that pesticides are
used legally and safely, thereby ensuring that the Agency meets its  statutory requirement to
protect public health and the environment.

The field programs utilize technical assistance, resource  management, risk  communication,
outreach and education, and partnership efforts with states,  Tribes, growers, farm  workers, and
families to effectively  implement programs such as Certification and Training (C&T), Worker
Protection (WP), the Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP), Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship (PESP) and the Tribal Program.  These programs apply a geographically-targeted
approach where risk management decisions are made close to the source and involve the regions,
states, growers, consumers, and public interest groups.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency  will  continue to  stress safe pesticide use  through national  leadership and
coordination for regional, state  and Tribal capacity to implement pesticides regulatory decisions
in the field. In addition, EPA will provide incentive grants to demonstrate effective applications
for  safe pest management practices, make regulatory and policy decisions, develop guidance
packages  and  training/educational materials, organize national meetings/workshops to explain
policies and regulations and educate  pesticide users, provide technical assistance, and coordinate
                                        EPM- 188

-------
with other Federal agencies.  For example, the program has developed posters and brochures
promoting pesticide safety through the "Read the Label First" campaign, produced educational
materials targeted to Spanish and Asian language audiences, and provided core study manuals
for certified pesticide applicators.

In FY 2007, EPA will provide locally based technical assistance and guidance to states and
Tribes on pesticide program implementation.  Issues addressed will include newer/safer products
and  improved  outreach  and education.    Technical  assistance  will  include  workshops,
demonstration projects, briefings, and informational meetings in areas including pesticide safety
training and use of lower risk pesticides.

Certification and Training/Worker Protection

EPA will work with stakeholders to identify and prioritize key concerns and issues that must be
addressed, support ongoing worker protection programming, and provide an enhanced focus on
special concerns for children.  EPA guidance and direction for state  and Tribal implementation
will be provided in FY 2007. Because it is essential that pesticide users be properly informed so
they can make appropriate choices for the use of pesticides, training, education and outreach, the
cornerstones of all field programs, will be pursued aggressively.   Development and distribution
of support materials and training  and follow-up, which are critical to ensuring that pesticide
regulatory  decisions are properly implemented, will also continue.  States will continue to
develop, reproduce and distribute training materials.  The  resulting increased  awareness and
workers' ability to understand and avoid pesticide hazards will allow individuals to play a key
role in their own health and safety.

Tribal

EPA guidance and policy direction to Tribes on pesticide issues affecting Native Americans will
continue through a sound, effective and integrated approach.  EPA will  review software and
other risk assessment tools to capture the unique Tribal exposure risks.  Assistance in organizing
national and  regional  workshops/meetings to provide Tribal  awareness  and understanding of
regulatory  requirements and pesticide hazards will continue.  EPA will  provide  training  on
managing pesticides and pesticide  risks matched to  Tribal needs.  Agency support of the Tribal
Pesticide Program Council, a Tribal  voice  in  determining national  pesticide  policies,  and an
instrument which brings Tribal pesticide issues  to Federal  attention, will remain a priority. The
Agency will also continue open, consistent communications with Tribes, directly and through the
Regional Tribal Operations Committees, to communicate Tribal pesticide concerns.

Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP)

EPA  will  continue to protect threatened  or  endangered species  from  pesticide use, while
minimizing regulatory  burdens on pesticide users. EPA will use sound  science to assess the risk
of pesticide exposure to listed  species and will continue efforts with partners and stakeholders to
improve information databases. As pesticides  are reviewed, updated and improved, databases
will  help  ensure consistent consideration  of endangered species.   EPA  will implement use
limitations through appropriate label statements, referring  pesticide users to  EPA-developed
                                       EPM- 189

-------
Endangered Species Protection Bulletins.   These bulletins will contain  maps of pesticide  use
limitation areas necessary to ensure EPA's compliance with the Endangered Species Act and will
be enforceable labeling under FIFRA. EPA will continue providing outreach materials keeping
localities informed on the latest pesticide information for protection of listed species. EPA will
also provide guidance, assistance and resources to states and Tribes for implementation of these
new pesticide regulatory decisions.   Because of the unique  nature of enforcement through
Bulletins and the specific geographic scope of pesticide use limitations that may be necessary,
implementation  of this  enforceable program will  demand  intensified Regional  assistance.
Regional  support will include  developing  and reviewing  customized state-initiated  plans,
providing educational/informational and other outreach materials, coordinating with Federal  and
state lead agencies, and coordinating the review of Bulletins which will show  the geographic
scope  of pesticide use limitations for specific  pesticides necessary  to  protect specific  listed
species.

Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP)

EPA will provide technical assistance, incentive  grants and demonstration projects to help both
agricultural and non-agricultural users  of  pesticides  adapt safer,  and often new pest control
practices.   The Agency will  also organize  and deliver pest management educational programs
and  information for producers, consumers,  and other stakeholders. The Agency will continue
promoting the use of safer alternatives to traditional chemical  methods of pest control, including
reduced  risk  pesticides,  to  further  reduce  risk.   Partnerships  emphasizing  environmental
stewardship and incorporating pollution   prevention  strategies will  also contribute  to risk
reduction.
  Performance  Assessment:   The Pesticides
  Field Program underwent  PART review  in
  calendar year  2004  and received a rating  of
  "results not demonstrated."   Using the logic
  model process, the Agency is developing new,
  output-oriented  performance measures.  EPA
  has consulted  with  State and Tribal partners
  throughout the  development process, and the
  Pesticide  Program Dialogue Committee,  the
EPA  will encourage integration and adoption of
Integrated Pest Management  (IPM)  in schools to
reduce  children's  exposure   to  pesticides,  yet
maintain  effective  and   efficient  pest  control.
Updating the website, distribution of publications,
awarding of IPM grants, offering of workshops and
courses,  and  providing guidance  and  assistance
through universities and national associations will
  programs  federal  advisory  committee,  is        .     ...  ,   T-™ A    -11     *.-         j-  A-
       .,    .  .   .,         ,                remain critical.  EPA will  continue coordination
  currently reviewing the proposed measures.
                                           with other Federal Agencies  which  support  IPM
                                           practices.  Additionally, the Agency will continue
fostering the managed  use  of an array  of biological,  cultural, mechanical, and  chemical pest
control methods to achieve the best results with the least adverse impact to the environment.

Over  170  PESP members  have committed to reducing the  potential  risks  associated  with
pesticide use.  Roughly $4.5 million in PESP  grants has funded over 100 projects, including
promoting  reduced risk pest  control  practices  for  crops  and  promoting  integrated  pest
management in schools.
                                        EPM- 190

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives.  Currently there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$1,259.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (+$291.2)  This increase will  support worker protection, certification and training,
       endangered species, environmental stewardship, and tribal activities.

    •   (-$1,140.5)  Reductions  in environmental stewardship, coordination with other federal
       agencies, and grants to farmer networks and growers are based on the program's inability
       to demonstrate results. The decrease also reflects the FTE reduction to the groundwater
       program and related PC&B following a redirection of responsibilities.

    •   (-2 FTE)  This change  reflects a reduction to the groundwater program following a
       redirection of responsibilities.

Statutory Authority:

PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; ESA; FQPA.
                                       EPM- 191

-------
                                                 Pesticides:  Registration of New Pesticides
                                                         Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                                                 Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                        Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$39,321.6
$2,473.1
$41,794.7
401.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$41,604.0
$2,463.0
$44,067.0
327.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$39,767.6
$2,766.1
$42,533.7
327.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,836.4)
$303.1
($1,533.3)
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA's Pesticide Registration  Program licenses  pesticides for use, ensuring  they present a
reasonable certainty of no harm to human health and the environment.   The Agency makes
licensing  decisions about new pesticides only after extensive  review and evaluation of studies
and data on human health and ecological effects.29 As part of the process, the Agency analyzes
data and,  for food-use pesticides, makes tolerance decisions for each crop or crop grouping  (or
"use") the registrant requests for the pesticide. The Pesticide Registration program gives priority
to accelerated processing of reduced risk pesticides which may substitute for products already on
the market, thus giving farmers and other pesticide users new tools that  are  safer for human
health and the environment. The resulting benefits to the nation include worker protection, public
health assurance, a safer and abundant food supply, and increased protection of the environment
from pesticide risk.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
During FY 2007, EPA will continue to review
and  register new  pesticides,  new  uses  for
existing  pesticides,  and  other  registration
requests  in  accordance with Food  Quality
Protection    Act   (FQPA)   standards    and
Pesticide   Registration   Improvement    Act
(PRIA)  timeframes.    The  Agency   will
continue to process these registration requests,
with special consideration given to susceptible
populations,  especially children.  Specifically,
the Agency will focus special attention on the
foods commonly eaten by  children,  to reduce
identifies potential concerns.
   Performance   Assessment:     The  Pesticides
   Registration program underwent PART review  in
   calendar  year  2002 and  received  a rating  of
   "adequate."  Using the logic model process, the
   Agency  is   developing   new,   output-oriented
   performance measures.  EPA has consulted  with
   State   and  Tribal   partners   throughout  the
   development  process, and  the Pesticide Program
   Dialogue Committee, the program's federal advisory
   committee, is  currently  reviewing the  proposed
   measures.
pesticide exposure to children where the science
29FIFRA Sec 3; FIFRA Sec 4 (i) (5)
                                        EPM- 192

-------
EPA  will  engage the  public, scientific  community  and other  stakeholders in our  policy
development and implementation to encourage a reasonable  transition for farmers and others
from the older, more potentially hazardous pesticides to the newer pesticides which have been
registered using the latest scientific information available.  The Agency will continue to update
the pesticide review and use policies to ensure compliance with the latest scientific methods.
EPA will also continue its emphasis on accelerating the registration of reduced risk pesticides,
including biopesticides,  in  order to provide  farmers and  other  pesticide users with  new
alternatives.

In FY 2007, the  Agency, in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), will continue to work to ensure that minor use registrations receive appropriate support
and that needs are met for reduced risk pesticides for minor use crops.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficency
Measure
Percent reduction in
review time for
registration of
conventional
pesticides.
FY 2005
Actual
-7%
FY 2005
Target
7%
FY 2006
Target
10%
FY 2007
Target
5.4%
Units
Reduction
Measure
Type

Output

Measure
Percentage of
agricultural acres
treated with reduced-
risk pesticides.
FY 2005
Actual

13%

FY 2005
Target

8.7%

FY 2006
Target

9%

FY 2007
Target

10.0%

Units

Acre-
Treatments

Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent reduction in
terrestial and aquatic
wildlife mortality
incidents involving
pesticides
FY 2005
Actual
0%
FY 2005
Target
11%
FY 2006
Target
14%
FY 2007
Target
20
Units
% reduction
Some of the PART measures for this program are program  outputs, which, when finalized,
represent the program's statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace
are safe for human health and the environment.

The "acre-treatments" measure tracks the use of reduced risk pesticides, that is, those that reduce
the risks to human health and nontarget organisms, and reduce the potential for contamination of
other media or other valued environmental resources.  Extracted data are weighted and a multiple
regression procedure is used to adjust for known disproportionalities and compared with USDA
and state acreage estimates to ensure consistency.
                                       EPM- 193

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$889.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.

    •   (+$476.5)  This  increase will support product registration,  amendments, registrations,
       tolerances,  experimental use  permits  and emergency  exemptions  for all  pesticides,
       including antimicrobial and biologically-based.

    •   (-$3,202.0)  This reflects a  reduced workload upon completion of  the  backlog of
       registration  actions.   The  decrease includes reductions  to  registration  actions for
       conventional pesticides, Section 18s, reduced risk pesticides and antimicrobial pesticides.

Statutory Authority:

PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA; ESA.
                                       EPM- 194

-------
                                  Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides
                                                         Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                       Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$49,074. 7
$2,471.1
$51,545.8
460.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$57,458.0
$2,480.0
$59,938.0
462.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$51,814.6
$2,820.4
$54,635.0
458.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($5,643.4)
$340.4
($5,303.0)
-4.0
Program Project Description:

The Agency ensures that pesticides, when used  according to the label, result in a reasonable
certainty of no harm to human health and that they do not present an unreasonable adverse effect
on the environment. EPA uses various means, including risk mitigation measures such as label
changes and modification in the ways pesticides are applied (use of protective equipment, farm
worker reentry  level  changes,  application rates and  frequency,  etc.),  regulatory  decisions,
voluntary actions encouraged through partnerships, education, and outreach to provide benefits
such as public health safety, safe and abundant food, worker safety, and protection of land and
other media from pesticide contamination.

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) also requires that EPA establish a process for
periodic review of pesticide registrations with a goal of completing the process every  15 years,
which  will  replace the  Reregistration process.   The registrations will be reviewed to ensure that
they include appropriate risk  reduction  measures  and that  decisions are based on current
scientific  data,  risk  assessment methodologies and  program policies.   EPA will  begin
implementing this program in FY 2007. In 2004, EPA worked with stakeholders to develop the
program parameters for the Registration Review program and piloted the program.  The pilot
determined the latest risk assessments available for the pesticide, considered whether  additional
data or assessment updates were required, and laid the groundwork for developing the economic
analysis.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
During  FY 2007, the Agency will focus its
reregi strati on resources to support meeting the
2008       FQPA/Pesticide      Registration
Improvement Act (PRIA)  statutory deadlines
(26 non-food-use conventional chemical REDs
and 12 antimicrobial REDs); implementing the
Registration  Review  program;  conducting
post-RED  activities and continuing product
Performance  Assessment:     The  Pesticides
Reregistration program underwent PART review in
calendar year 2004 and  received  a rating of
"Adequate."   Using the  logic model process, the
Agency  is   developing  new,   output-oriented
performance  measures.   EPA has consulted with
State   and   Tribal   partners   throughout  the
development process, and  the Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee, the program's federal advisory
committee,  is  currently  reviewing  the proposed
measures.
                                        EPM- 195

-------
reregi strati on.  EPA will have completed issuing food use Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions
(REDs) and related tolerance reassessments by August 3, 2006 and plans to complete issuance of
non-food use REDs  by 2008.

In FY 2007, EPA plans to complete a cumulative 96 percent of all REDs.  Pesticide uses that
don't meet the  safely standards will  be restricted  or  possibly  even cancelled in order to
sufficiently  reduce  their potentially harmful exposures.   To  establish  the new Registration
Review program required by FQPA, EPA  will issue the final rule in  2006, with program
implementation beginning in 2007.  As outlined in the proposed rule, EPA will post registration
review schedules and provide a baseline for expected pesticide case dockets to be opened for the
next three year cycle and for decisions expected over the next  several years. The Agency will
begin making registration review decisions in 2007.

As the  Reregi strati on/Tolerance Reassessment program approaches  completion, the FQPA-
required/PRIA-emphasized program to review all registered pesticides on a 15-year cycle will
perpetuate the Agency's goal of ensuring that pesticides in the marketplace continue to meet the
latest   health   and   safety   standards.     Resources  from   completed   activities   in
Reregistration/Tolerance  Reassessment  will be rechanneled  into  the  Registration  Review
Program, as well as product reregi strati on and post-RED activities.  Registration review will
operate  continuously,  encompassing all  registered pesticides. The  scope  and  depth  of the
Agency's reviews will be tailored to the circumstances, so reviews will be commensurate with
the complexity of the issues currently associated with each pesticide.

Also  in  2007,  EPA  will   address  post-RED activities  vital  to  effective  "real world"
implementation of the RED requirements.  These activities include review of label amendments
that incorporate onto the product labels the mitigation required  in the REDs; proposed and final
product cancellations;  implementation  of memoranda   of  agreements  designed  to  provide
fast/effective risk reduction;  product reregistration; preparation and tracking  of data call-ins
(DCIs); review of study submissions and revision of risk and benefits assessments in the REDs;
issuing  proposed and final tolerance rulemakings to implement the  changes in tolerances and
revocations required in the REDs,  and responding to lawsuits on existing REDs.  Although not
highly visibile activities, they are essential to effective implementation of mitigation measures
called for in the REDs and for achievement of long-term public health  protection goals and
objectives.

Additionally, in FY  2007, the Agency will continue to review antimicrobials for reregistration in
order to meet the deadlines set by  FQPA and PRIA for the Reregistration Program. EPA will
continue to address concerns regarding  the efficacy  of public health products  used  to  kill
microorganisms  in hospitals, schools, restaurants, and homes. EPA will continue to ensure that
efficacy tests for antimicrobial products are reliable and  reproducible and that internal controls
ensure the integrity of data submitted by registrants.

In the performance  of our mandate to protect the environment,  EPA will continue to use sound
science  in pesticide  reviews and to include stakeholder and scientific community feedback in our
policies and  decisions.  Efforts with  stakeholders through the Pesticide  Program Dialogue
Committee (PPDC) and the  Committee to Advise  on Reassessment  and Transition (CARAT)
                                       EPM- 196

-------
will  continue to provide transparency in decision-making and a fuller understanding of the
implications for growers, producers and the public.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type

Output

Measure
Cumulative percent of
Reregistration
Eligibility Decisions
Completed.
FY 2005
Actual

82.3%(504)

FY 2005
Target

00 TO/
oo.Z /o

FY 2006
Target

92.7%

FY 2007
Target

96%(588)

Units

Decisions
(Cum)

Measure
Type

Efficency

Measure
Reduction in time
required to issue
Reregistration
Eligibility Decisions.
FY 2005
Actual

3.5%

FY 2005
Target

7%

FY 2006
Target

10%

FY 2007
Target

12%

Units

Reduction

Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent reduction in
terrestial and aquatic
wildlife mortality
incidents involving
pesticides
FY 2005
Actual
0%
FY 2005
Target
11%
FY 2006
Target
14%
FY 2007
Target
20%
Units
% reduction
Some  of this  program's PART  performance measures are outputs representing statutory
requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the
environment, and  when  used in accordance with the packaging label present a  reasonable
certainty of no harm. While program outputs are not the best measures of risk reduction, they do
provide a means for reducing risk in that the program's safety  review  prevents  dangerous
pesticides from entering the marketplace.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$391.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (+$276.8)   This increase will  support activities including  contracts, grants, expenses,
       travel, IT and telecommunications for registration review, reregi strati on of non-food use
       REDS, post-RED activities and special reviews.

   •   (-$5,150.7)  Reflects the completion of tolerance reassessments and a reduction to the
       Reregi strati on/Registration Review program's contracts  for study reviews.

   •   (-$1,161.4) Reflects a reduction to non-food use review and reregi strati on activities.
                                       EPM- 197

-------
   •  (-4.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce as part of a management
      strategy that will help us better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA.
                                      EPM- 198

-------
                                                        Science Policy and Biotechnology
                                                        Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
         Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks; Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$1,961.5
$1,961.5
8.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$1,694.0
$1,694.0
6.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,754.0
$1,754.0
6.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$60.0
$60.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The  Agency will  continue  providing  scientific and  policy  expertise and coordinating EPA
interagency  and international efforts as well as facilitating the sharing of information related to
core science policy issues  concerning  pesticides and  toxic  chemicals.   Biotechnology  is
illustrative of the work encompassed by this program. Many offices within EPA regularly deal
with biotechnology issues, and the coordination among affected offices allows for coherent and
consistent scientific policy from a broad Agency perspective. Internationally, EPA will continue
participating in a variety of activities related to biotechnology and is fully  committed to and
engaged  in   international dialogues.  The  Biotechnology  Team  will  continue  to assist  in
formulating  EPA and United States positions on biotechnology  issues, including representation
on United States delegations to international meetings when needed. Such international activity
is coordinated with the Department of State.

The  Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), operating under the rules and regulations of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, will continue to  serve as the primary external independent scientific
peer review  mechanism for EPA's pesticide programs.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA estimates  that the SAP will  be asked  to complete approximately 14 reviews in FY 2007.
The specific topics to be placed on the FIFRA SAP  agenda are typically confirmed a few months
in  advance of each session and usually include difficult, new or controversial scientific issues
identified in the course of EPA's pesticide program activities.  In FY 2007, topics may include
issues related to biotechnology, chemical-specific risk  assessments, novel exposure and hazard
models,  cumulative  risk  assessment  models  and  ecological  probabilistic  assessment
methodologies.

EPA will continue to play a lead role in evaluating the  scientific and technical issues associated
with plant-incorporated  protectants based on  plant  viral coat proteins. EPA will also,  in
conjunction  with an interagency workgroup, continue  to maintain and further develop the U.S.
Regulatory  Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website.  The site focuses  on the  laws  and
regulations governing agricultural products of modern biotechnology and includes a searchable
                                       EPM- 199

-------
database of genetically engineered crop plants that have completed review for use in the United
States.30

In addition, a number of international activities will continue to be supported by EPA, including
representation on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Working
Group on the Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology and Task Force on the
Safety of Food and Feed.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives.  Currently there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

Work under this program supports the Enhance Science and Research and Chemical, Organism,
and Pesticide Risks objectives, specifically, work done  in  EPA's Pesticide and Pollution
Prevention  and Toxics  programs.     The programs  supported include Registration of New
Pesticides and Re view/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides.  Science Policy and Biotechnology
activities such as the SAP, a scientific peer review mechanism, assist in meeting its targets for
measures under those program/projects including Register safer chemicals and biopesticides, and
Tolerance Reassessments.

The work in the Science Policy program also supports efforts in the Toxic Substances: Chemical
Risk Review and Reduction program.  Science  coordination efforts  under  Science Policy and
Biotechnology assist in meeting its target for the Number of chemicals or organisms introduced
into commerce that pose unreasonable risks to workers,  consumers, or the environment through
Scientific Advisory Panel meetings and letter reviews.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$55.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.

   •   (+$4.1)  This increase will provide additional support for contracts and grants.

Statutory Authority:

FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA; TSCA.
30 http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/
                                       EPM - 200

-------
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery
                  Act (RCRA)
                     EPM-201

-------
                                                                RCRA:  Corrective Action
                             Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
                                                    Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                                 Objective(s): Restore Land

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$36,575.0
$36,575.0
251.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$39,396.0
$39,396.0
270.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$40,372.3
$40,372.3
266.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$976.3
$976.3
-3.8
Program Project Description:

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)  requires EPA implement a hazardous
waste  management  program  for the purpose of  controlling the generation,  transportation,
treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes.  An important element of this program is
the requirement that facilities  managing hazardous waste  clean up past releases.  This program,
which  is largely implemented by authorized states, is known as the Corrective Action Program.
Although the states31  are the primary implementers  of  the Corrective Action Program, EPA
Regional staff are also the lead at a significant number  of facilities undergoing corrective actions.
Key program  implementation  activities  include:  development  of technical  and  program
implementation  regulations, policies, and guidance and conducting corrective action activities
including assessments, investigations, stabilization measures, remedy  selection, and remedy
construction/implementation.  For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction/.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
                                                         In the Agency's FY 2003-FY 2008
                                                         Strategic  Plan,  EPA  introduced
                                                         new  program goals for corrective
                                                         action that focus  EPA and state
                                                         efforts on moving  facilities from
                                                         stabilization to final remedies.  By
                                                         the end  of FY 2008,  EPA intends
                                                         to select remedies at 30 percent of
                                                         the highest priority  facilities and
                                                         declare construction complete at 20
percent of the highest priority  facilities.  To accomplish these  ambitious  goals, the Agency
worked with the states to update its baseline of 1,968 highest priority  facilities and  to develop
annual targets for tracking achievements from FY 2006 through FY 2008.
Performance Assessment:  RCRA Corrective Action was initially
assessed under PART in 2003 and received an overall rating of
"Adequate" from OMB's PART review.   During the FY 2003
PART, EPA developed a new efficiency measure for the RCRA
Corrective Action Program. The measure is total number of final
remedy components  constructed  at RCRA Corrective  Action
facilities per Federal,  state and private sector costs. This measure
will show, over time, an increase in the number of final remedy
components constructed per the costs related to the cleanup and
oversight of cleanurj of RCRA facilities in FY 2006.
31 This includes both those states authorized for corrective action and those not authorized for corrective action
through work sharing agreements with their EPA Regional offices.
                                        EPM - 202

-------
Consistent  with EPA's  emphasis on land revitalization, ensuring sustainable future uses for
RCRA corrective action facilities is considered in remedy selections and in the construction of
those remedies.  In addition, the Agency will work in partnership with the states to coordinate
cleanup program goals and direction.  The Agency also will develop training that will include
selecting and completing final remedies.  This training will be presented to Regional and state
RCRA Corrective Action staff during FY 2007.  These activities are key  aspects of improving
the program's efficiency.

During FY 2007, the Agency will be working with its state partners to continue developing and
implementing program improvements that will help meet this ambitious challenge. EPA and the
states will  continue to develop and implement approaches for selecting and constructing final
remedies at operating facilities that are protected as long as the facility remains active.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Percentage of RCRA
CA facilities with
current human
exposures under
control (using 2005
baseline).
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target


82


FY 2007
Target


89


Units


percent


Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
Percentage of RCRA
CA facilities with
migration of
contaminated
groundwater under
control (using 2005
baseline).
FY 2005
Actual







FY 2005
Target







FY 2006
Target



68



FY 2007
Target



75



Units



percent



EPA will continue to track the human exposures environmental indicator.  At the end of FY
2005, human exposures to toxins were controlled at 1,649 facilities.  In FY 2007 EPA expects
that human exposures will be controlled at over 1,750 high-priority RCRA facilities.  This would
represent completed controls at 89 percent of the baseline facilities.  The 2008 goal is to achieve
this indicator at 95 percent of the 1,968 baseline facilities. EPA will also continue to track the
migration of contaminated groundwater environmental indicator, with a target of 76 percent of
baseline facilities in FY 2007.  The 2008 goal is to achieve this indicator at 80 percent of the
1,968 baseline facilities.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$1,309.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
                                       EPM - 203

-------
   •   (-$333.4) This reduction reflects program improvements and progress and a focus on the
       highest priority facilities.

   •   (-3.8 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

Solid Waste Disposal Act  (SWDA), Section  8001 as amended,  Resource Conservation  and
Recovery  Act (RCRA)  of 1976 as amended; Public Law-94-580, 42  U.S.C.  6901 et seq.
Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-276,  112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
                                      EPM - 204

-------
                                                           RCRA:  Waste Management
                            Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
                                                  Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                              Objective(s): Preserve Land

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$67,842.9
$67,842.9
443.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$65,793.0
$65,793.0
453.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$67,887.3
$67,887.3
443.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,094.3
$2,094.3
-10.5
Program Project Description:

The primary focus of the Waste Management Program is to provide national policy directed by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to reduce the amount of waste generated and to
improve the  recovery  and  conservation  of materials  by focusing on a hierarchy  of waste
management options that advocate reduction, reuse, and recycling over treatment and disposal; to
prevent dangerous releases to the environment from both  non-hazardous and hazardous waste
management facilities; and to reduce emissions from hazardous waste combustion, and manage
waste in more environmentally beneficial and cost-effective ways.

The Waste Management Program  continues to evolve to address the challenges of the  21st
century.   New  waste  streams  from  new industrial  processes  are being  evaluated,  and
technological advances and innovative methods of conducting business in the waste management
arena are being assessed. There is an increased focus on reuse and recycling, particularly the safe
beneficial  use of industrial  byproducts as a preference  to  disposal.  EPA has  many  major
components that are essential to  safe waste management and the protection of human health  and
the environment.  Moreover, the program is engaged in regulatory and other reform  efforts to
improve the efficiency of the program (for example, e-manifest and e-permitting projects) and to
provide incentives for increased recycling. EPA actively participates in waste management  and
resource conservation efforts internationally.

Through the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), the  program works with  industry, states,
and environmental groups to explore new ways to reduce materials and energy use by promoting
product and  process redesign and increased materials and  energy  recovery  from  materials
otherwise requiring disposal.  However, not all materials can be reduced, reused,  or recycled and,
therefore, some wastes must be safely treated and disposed. Thus, EPA and the states maintain
the critical  health and environmental protections provided  by the base "cradle  to grave" waste
management system envisioned by RCRA. (http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2005, EPA finalized the standardized permit rule, which facilitated the development of e-
permitting.  In FY 2007, the program will continue to work in partnership with  the states to
                                      EPM - 205

-------
incorporate  e-permitting  tools  to  encourage  and help  states to expedite  and simplify the
permitting process; and to provide better public access to permitting information.  During FY
2007, the Agency will continue to work to identify the best manner in which to  develop an
electronic manifest system. EPA will  also continue its active participation in international waste
management efforts.

In F Y 2007, EPA plans to complete the draft of proposed regulations to allow gasification of oil-
bearing hazardous secondary materials from  petroleum refining into  clean fuels and basic
chemicals, thereby  vastly  expanding the  reuse of materials currently  managed as waste.
Gasification of waste materials  will allow the capture of a significant amount of energy  from
waste materials that previously were treated and disposed of, thus turning a waste problem into
an energy solution.

The Agency will continue its regulatory reform efforts in FY 2007 with work on the definition of
solid waste  and encouraging safe  recycling of targeted waste streams.   Specific examples of
regulatory relief will include finalizing regulations promoting the  recycling of solvents, metals,
and petroleum catalysts.  We expect that savings from EPA's burden reduction rule will also
contribute to an improvement in efficiency.  In FY 2007, EPA also will finalize regulations that
will simplify  and  improve hazardous waste management in  college  and university laboratory
settings,  and that  will remove barriers to the  use of aluminum in automobile manufacturing,
allowing for increased fuel efficiency due to lighter cars.

EPA will continue  its state-of-the-practice bioreactor landfill work. Bioreactor landfills are
supported by industry because of the expected rapid stabilization which leads to rapid settlement
and possible  recovery  of air space.  Studies  will determine  if bioreactors  will increase the
practicality of gas to energy conversion.  Industry anticipates a greater potential for reducing
long-term costs  with bioreactors.  In FY  2007, EPA  will  apply the  results of its  work in
developing technical guidance and/or best practices to support industry  and state regulatory
agencies in designing, operating, and overseeing safe bioreactors.
The Agency also will work to reduce risks from industrial non-hazardous waste, also known as
Industrial Subtitle  D waste.  Manufacturing facilities generate and dispose  of  7.6 billion tons of
industrial non-hazardous waste each year.32  EPA will continue to work with interested parties to
apply the voluntary "Guide for Industrial Waste Management" which provides  facility managers,
state and tribal regulators and interested public with recommendations and tools to better address
the management of land-disposed non-hazardous industrial waste.   The program will expand its
successful voluntary Coal Combustion Partnership Program (C2P2) to include  industrial material
recycling and use C2P2 as a model  to foster the safe beneficial  use of other industrial  non-
hazardous waste streams, such as foundry sands and construction  and demolition debris.  C2P2
will continue  to work  toward the goal of increasing  the  beneficial use of coal  combustion
:Data for 1982 from "Screening Survey of Subtitle D Establishments.  Draft final report. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, December 1987. "Nonhazardous Waste:  Environmental Safeguards for
Industrial Facilities Need to Be Developed." Report to the Chairman,  Subcommittee on Transportation and
Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. April 1990
                                        EPM - 206

-------
products to a rate of 50% by 2011, as measured by the American Coal Ash Association annual
survey.  The most recent data from the 2004 annual  survey show  coal  combustion product
beneficial use has increased to 40% from a 2001 baseline of 31%.
During FY 2007, the Waste Management Program will continue working with the Department of
Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the  Department of Homeland Security to
prepare for possible terrorist or natural disaster events and threats to the food chain. EPA will
work to expand information on technologies  and tools for use in  decontamination/disposal
operations related to terrorist events and natural disasters.
Providing  grant funds, training, and technical assistance  to Tribes  and Tribal organizations to
solve solid waste problems and reduce risk from exposure of improperly disposed hazardous and
solid waste also is a priority for the Agency in FY 2007.  Of the over 560 Federally-recognized
Tribes in this country, up to 44% have no waste management program and 24% use open dumps
and open burning as their primary disposal methods for solid wastes.  In fact, there are over
1,400 open dumps on Tribal lands, of which 110 are considered high-threat open dumps. The
Waste Management Program's goals are to increase the number of Tribal plans to address solid
waste management issues and reduce Tribal reliance on open dumps and backyard burning as
solid waste management practices.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Annual increase in the
percentage of RCRA
hazardous waste
management facilities
with permits or other
approved controls.
FY 2005
Actual


3.1%


FY 2005
Target


2.8%


FY 2006
Target


2.5%


FY 2007
Target


2.4%


Units


percentage
pts.


In FY 2007, EPA will  coordinate efforts with the states to increase the number of RCRA
hazardous waste management facilities with approved controls by 2.4 percent over the FY 2006
level.  EPA will continue to assist the states as  needed in getting  permits or other approved
controls in place.  The most complex facilities remain requiring states  to spend more resources
per facility.  In FY 2007 EPA will focus efforts to help states in overcoming barriers,  particularly
with regard  to different  types of facilities that are  difficult to permit  on where  emissions are
difficult to control,  such as boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs), Subpart X, and large, complex
Federal facilities.

The permits  universe has been updated for the 2006-2008 cycle. The  new facilities on the permit
track have been added and the facilities not on the permit track have been  omitted.  For permit
renewals,  a  new universe and reporting system has been developed to track updated controls.
Accomplishments toward this goal will be reported in the 2006-2008 cycle.

This program was included in the PART review of the RCRA Base, Permits and Grants Program
for FY 2006 which received an overall rating of Adequate. During  the PART, EPA developed
an efficiency measure that will show, over time, the RCRA facilities under control  (permitted)
                                      EPM - 207

-------
per the total permitting costs.  Included in these costs will be estimates of the permitting costs of
the regulated entities plus appropriated dollars for the program, based  on  a three year rolling
average.  The baseline is currently under development, and the program anticipates reporting this
information in FY 2007.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$1,259.7)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (+$834.6) This increase will be used to fund industrial process analyses to support work
       in providing incentives for increased recycling (e.g., solvents, metals and other targeted
       waste streams) through regulatory reform, as well as the safe, beneficial use of industrial
       byproducts  as a preference to disposal.  This funding will provide technical support to
       states in incorporating e-permitting tools to expedite and simplify the  permitting process.

   •   (-10.5 FTE) This  reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that will
       help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.   This also reflects a
       redirection of FTE for Energy Policy Act activities.

Statutory Authority:

Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), Section 8001, as amended, Resource  Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 as amended; Public Law-94-580, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
                                       EPM - 208

-------
                                               RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
                            Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
                                                  Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                 Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land

                                         Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
 Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$10,878.7
$10,878.7
68.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,825.0
$11,825.0
75.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,235.1
$12,235.1
74.4
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$410.1
$410.1
-1.2
Program Project Description:

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directs EPA to promote a reduction in
the amount of waste generated and to improve recovery and conservation of materials through
reducing, reusing, and recycling.  The Waste Minimization and Recycling program implemented
through the Resource  Conservation Challenge (RCC) emphasizes national policy development
and leadership to reduce the generation and environmental impacts of materials from businesses,
industries, and communities by fostering adoption of more efficient, sustainable, and protective
policies, practices, materials, and technologies. These policies are based on a hierarchy of waste
management options that advocate reduction, reuse, and recycling over treatment and disposal.
The program focuses its efforts on reduction,  reuse,  and recycling by building on partnerships
with other Federal agencies; state, Tribal,  and local governments; business and industry;  and
non-governmental organizations.  These voluntary partnerships provide information sharing,
recognition, and assistance to improve practices in both public and private sectors.

The RCC contributes to  implementation of the President's Climate Change  Action Plan  and
provides  information  to   assess  and   track  progress  in   reaching  national   goals.
http://www.epa.gov/rcc.

The program implements  waste minimization activities that diminish chemicals of most concern
to human health  and  the environment.  This approach involves relating chemicals to waste
streams and seeks to  reduce not only the  volume of wastes, but also the toxicity  of wastes.
Reduction of priority chemicals in waste streams eliminates some of the risk when a waste is
mismanaged and released to the environment, where it could persist, bio-accumulate, or be toxic
to humans or to the environment. A goal of reducing chemicals in wastes also will lead to safer
chemical substitutions and  processes upstream, and eliminate  occupational exposures to the
chemicals of concern.
                                      EPM - 209

-------
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Municipal Solid Waste

Under the RCC, EPA  will concentrate efforts in FY 2007 on attaining the national  goal  of
recycling 35 percent of municipal solid waste (MSW) by 2008. These efforts will incorporate
the FY 2007 annual measures of  85.2 million  tons of municipal solid waste  diverted and
maintaining a daily per  capita waste generation rate of 4.5 pounds per person.

EPA  will concentrate  efforts on  three  large-volume  waste categories  with  the  greatest
opportunity for recycling:  (1) paper  (over 35 percent of MSW);  (2)  organics (food and yard
waste combine to over  23 percent of MSW); and (3) packaging and containers (over 10 percent
of MSW). These three commodity streams, which represent between 60 percent and 70 percent
of the municipal solid waste stream, are key areas on which EPA must focus resources to achieve
the national 35  percent recycling goal.  EPA is working with a variety of stakeholder groups
involved  in  paper,  organics,  and  packaging  and containers to  identify  and  implement
collaborative efforts to increase the recycling of these materials.

EPA's Waste Wise program, now in its twelfth year, has over 1,400 partners and 250 endorsers.
Between  1994 and 2005, WasteWise partners reported  diversion of  more than 29.6 billion
pounds of material  from the waste stream through donation and reuse activities.  They  also
reported recycling nearly 174.8 billion pounds of materials.  EPA estimates that, as a result of
Waste Wise's  assistance,  24  million metric tons  of carbon equivalent were reduced in 2004,
equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from 2.57 million cars.

Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste

Under the RCC, EPA also will continue to pursue collaborative efforts to increase the safe reuse
and  recycling of industrial byproducts, with resultant benefits  of reduced  greenhouse gas
emissions and energy savings. By working with manufacturers, utilities, government agencies,
and transportation and building construction companies, the RCC Industrial Materials Recycling
(EVIR)  effort  is  currently  focusing  on  three  industrial  non-hazardous  waste  streams:
  Performance Assessment: The program was initially
  assessed under PART in 2004 and received an overall
  rating of "Adequate" from OMB's PART review.  EPA
  is identifying new baselines and establishing ambitious
  annual targets  for  existing  municipal solid waste
  recycling, priority chemical waste minimization,  and
  permitting measures.  The  program is identifying  new
  measures related to municipal solid waste  diversion
  from landfills and recycling, reuse of both construction
  and  demolition debris and  coal ash  products.   In
  addition, EPA is developing an efficiency measure for
  the  municipal  solid waste  portion  of the waste
  minimization program.
                                                    •   Coal Combustion Products
                                                    •   Construction and Demolition Debris
                                                    •   Foundry Sand.

                                                 The  Construction Initiative is a  voluntary
                                                 Federal,  state, and private  sector outreach
                                                 collaboration   effort   to   promote   the
                                                 environmentally safe and sound recycling of
                                                 industrial materials at  the largest,  most
                                                 significant   upcoming    building    and
                                                 transportation construction  projects.   This
                                                 initiative  encourages the recycling  of all
three EVIR priority materials at developing construction projects. In FY 2007,  EPA will move
                                        EPM-210

-------
toward achieving its goal of increasing the recycling rate of industrial materials by attaining
commitments  from the developers and  owners  of  building and transportation  construction
projects to use these materials instead of virgin resources.

Priority Chemicals in Waste

In FY 2007, through the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP), the Agency
will continue to reduce priority chemicals in wastes. The NPEP partners have established goals
committing to reduce program priority chemicals  in wastes by over 1.4 million pounds and to
reduce hazardous chemicals  in general by  over  2.6 million pounds.  EPA will continue to
promote  the  growth of the  NPEP, building on the  successes achieved  by over 70  existing
partners. In addition to enrolling new partners, EPA will seek new commitments from existing
partners.

Industry has made significant progress in reducing priority chemical releases and their presence
in waste. Reported releases have dropped by 53 percent from 147 million pounds in 1991, to 69
million  pounds in 2001.   EPA has set goals  of  reducing 31 priority list chemicals from  all
industrial wastes by 10 percent by 2008 (from a 2001 baseline).

E-Waste

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to address the nation's growing electronics waste stream through
partnerships with private  and public  entities  such as Plug-In To eCycling and the Federal
Electronics Challenge (FEC). Since its launch of Plug-In To eCycling in 2003, EPA has agreed
to participate with more than 19 members in the manufacturing and retail sectors.  Through Plug-
In, more than 60.2 million pounds of consumer electronics have  been collected.   In FY 2005,
Plug-In partners continued to sponsor  collection  events, helping to raise  consumer  awareness
about electronics reuse and recycling and increase the number of electronic  devices collected.
Partners sponsored over 237 events, collecting approximately 15 million pounds.

Also, the FEC grew  beyond the  pilot stage  and officially  enrolled 81  Challenge partners,
representing 12 Departments/Agencies.  So far, the agencies who have committed to the program
represent over 80 percent of Federal agency purchasing power for IT equipment. By  the end of
FY 2007, the goal for the FEC  is to have at least 250 partners  and/or have  500,000 federal
employees covered under the FEC. Environmental targets for the end of FY 2007 include:  3.8
million pound reduction in solid waste; 218,000  pound reduction in hazardous waste; energy
savings of 85,000 megawatt hours; and $6.96 million in cost savings.

EPA also will be initiating a "Mercury Roundup" to promote the voluntary early retirement of
devices containing mercury.  EPA will issue a formal challenge and request to major industrial
facilities in FY 2006, urging mercury elimination.  Partners will commit to do the following:

   •   Inventory mercury sources in their facilities and evaluate non-mercury alternatives
   •   Establish purchasing policies and educate staff
   •   Collect existing mercury for recycling
                                       EPM-211

-------
By FY 2007, EPA expects to have identified mercury challenge partners and be able to quantify
reduction commitments.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of tons of
municipal solid waste
diverted.
FY 2005
Actual
data lag
FY 2005
Target
81
FY 2006
Target
83.1
FY 2007
Target
85.2
Units
million tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Daily per capita
generation of
municipal solid waste.
FY 2005
Actual
data lag
FY 2005
Target
4.5
FY 2006
Target
4.5
FY 2007
Target
4.5
Units
Ibs. MSW
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Number of pounds
reduced (in millions) in
generation of priority
list chemicals from
2001 baseline of 84
million pounds.
FY 2005
Actual





FY 2005
Target





FY 2006
Target


1.2
million


FY 2007
Target


0.6
million


Units


Pounds


This program was included in the PART review of the RCRA Base, Permits and Grants Program
and received an overall rating of Adequate.  During the PART, EPA developed an efficiency
measure  that will show, over time, the total reduction of priority chemicals contained  in
industrial waste streams per Federal and private sector cost. In FY 2006, EPA will identify and
confirm the quality of data sources  produced in the private sector to use with  this efficiency
measure in FY 2007. In addition, EPA is developing a second efficiency measure related to the
solid waste recycling/reduction component of this program. This measure will incorporate MSW
and costs to recycle those wastes.  The program is in the final analysis stage of work on this
measure and expects to have the new measure in place for FY 2007.

FY 2007 Change  from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$1,138.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (-$728.1)  This reduction reflects a concentration of program effort on the three large-
       volume waste categories - paper, organics, and packaging and containers.

    •   (-1.2 FTE)  This change reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
                                      EPM-212

-------
Statutory Authority:

SWDA; Section 8001 as amended; RCRA of 1976, as amended; Public Law 94-580, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq. VA and HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act; Public Law 105-276;
112 Stat, 2461,2499(1988).
                                    EPM-213

-------
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                    EPM-214

-------
                                          Toxic Substances:  Chemical Risk Management
                                         Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                      Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$8,462.3
$8,462.3
48.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$9,008.0
$9,008.0
53.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
57,736.5
$7,736.5
52.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,271.5)
($1,271.5)
-1.1
Program Project Description:

EPA has established national programs to promote reductions in use and safe removal, disposal
and  containment of certain  prevalent,  high-risk  chemicals  that  were introduced into the
environment before their risks were known.  These chemicals include polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), mercury, and asbestos/fibers. This program focuses on providing assistance to Federal
agencies and others with responsibility for ensuring proper disposal of PCBs, eliminating the use
of medical devices  containing mercury, and implementing statutory requirements  to address
asbestos risks in schools.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Navy to develop a national approval for the reefing of
ships and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) to dispose of its fleet of obsolete ships which
contain equipment using PCBs.  In addition,  the Agency will continue to work with the
Department of Defense to approve the disposal via incineration of PCBs in nerve agent rockets.
The focus of activity in 2007 will be to continue monitoring compliance with the conditions of
the PCB disposal approvals.

EPA will  continue to ensure  that PCB waste is properly stored and disposed, and that  PCB
remediation sites are cleaned up correctly.   Specific activities include advising the regulated
community on PCB remediation, reviewing  and acting on PCB  disposal applications,  and
overseeing PCB permitted storage and disposal facilities.

EPA will provide technical  assistance to Congress to support the development of legislation to
facilitate the U.S. ratification  of the Stockholm  Convention, which was signed by the U.S. on
May 23, 2001 and which entered into force without U.S. ratification on May  17, 2004. Upon
ratification, EPA will, among other requirements, take action towards the elimination of PCBs in
certain equipment by 2025.
                                      EPM-215

-------
Mercury

EPA will explore opportunities to  partner with others  to reduce the quantity  of mercury in
products  and  the associated  municipal  waste  streams.    For  enhancing  mercury  risk
communication, the Agency will develop tools for educating  different audiences  about the risks
of eating mercury-contaminated fish and wildlife. EPA's Hospitals for a Healthy Environment
(H2E)  Program, working to eliminate mercury-containing products in health care facilities, will
transition to industry.

Asbestos/Fibers

EPA will continue its  scientific research on asbestos. The Agency will continue its outreach and
technical assistance for the asbestos program for schools, in coordination with other Federal
agencies,  states,   the  National  Parent-Teachers Association,  and  the  National  Education
Association.

EPA will also continue to provide oversight and regulatory interpretation to delegated state and
local asbestos demolition and renovation programs, respond to tips and complaints regarding the
Asbestos-in-Schools Rule, respond to public requests for assistance, and help asbestos training
providers to comply with the Model Accreditation Plan requirements.  For more  information,
visit www. epa. gov/oppt.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports EPA's objective to prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical,
and genetically engineered biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
Currently, there are no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$39.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (+$137.1)   This change will  support EPA's role in assisting MARAD and DOD in their
       work to safely decommission naval vessels  and incinerate retired weapons containing
       PCBs.

   •   (-$500.0)   This reflects  disinvestment in EPA's Sustainable Futures Program,  which
       promotes voluntary  pre-screening of new chemicals by companies before  they are
       submitted   to  the  Agency  under  the  Pre-Manufacture Review   (PMN) Program.
       Performance is  expected to be maintained,  however, by  transferring  to industry
       responsibility  for providing necessary training  in  the use  of EPA's  chemical  risk
       screening tools. Resources are redirected to the lead risk reduction program.

   •   (-$947.6)  This reflects disinvestments in  components of the Persistent Bioaccumulative
       Toxics Initiative, including all EPA funding for the Hospitals for a Healthy Environment
       (H2E) Program and EPA's efforts to promote the premature retirement and safe disposal
                                       EPM-216

-------
      of PCB-contaminated  electrical equipment.   There will  be no performance impacts
      associated  with the reduced  funding for the H2E Program because  the American
      Hospitals Association will take on increased responsibility for managing this successful
      initiative. EPA's performance  targets for retirement and EPA's performance targets for
      safe disposal of PCB-containing capacitors and transformers are reduced to zero. While
      EPA's long-term goal for this PCB  performance measure  will not be  achieved, the
      program will continue its role in permitting and monitoring the safe disposal of PCBs at
      disposal facilities.

   •  (-1.1 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce as part of a management
      strategy that will help us better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

TSCA; ASHAA; AHERA; AIA.
                                      EPM-217

-------
                                 Toxic Substances:  Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
                                          Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                       Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$45,781.1
$45,781.1
246.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$46,542.0
$46,542.0
245.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$44,637.0
$44,637.0
244.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,905.0)
($1,905.0)
-0.9
Program Project Description:

This program spans the full range of EPA activities dealing with review of new and existing
chemicals,  including the High Production Volume Challenge (HPV) and Voluntary Children's
Chemical Evaluation (VCCEP) Programs.  These activities focus on reviewing and, as necessary,
reducing the health and environmental risks of new chemicals introduced into the United States
marketplace  as  well  as  chemicals already in commerce.  The program works to prevent
unreasonable risks from new chemicals,  reduce  chronic  human health risks from  industrial
releases, and increase the efficiency of risk reduction efforts.

2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

New Chemicals Program
In FY 2007, EPA will continue its successful
record of preventing the entry of chemicals that
pose  unreasonable risk  of injury  to human
health or the environment into the U.S. market.
Each  year  EPA's  New Chemicals  Program
reviews and manages the potential  risks from
approximately  1,700  new  chemicals  and 40
products  of  biotechnology  that  enter  the
marketplace.  To measure  performance under
this   program,  EPA  adopted  a  long-term
GPRA/PART  measure in  its 2008  Strategic
Plan      establishing   a  "zero   tolerance"
performance standard for the number of new
chemicals  or microorganisms  introduced  to
commerce that pose an unreasonable risk to workers, consumers or the environment.  In response
to a  PART  recommendation,  EPA   is introducing in  FY  2007  a  corresponding  annual
performance GPRA/PART  measure that more specifically quantifies the goal of allowing no
chemicals into commerce that pose unreasonable risk.
Performance   Assessment:     EPA's   Existing
Chemicals and New Chemicals Programs underwent
PART review  in FY 2002 and again in FY 2003.
The  Existing   Chemicals  Program received an
"adequate" rating. EPA's New Chemicals Program
received  a "Moderately Effective" rating.   The
PART reviews recommended that EPA develop
efficiency measures for both programs.  The Agency
is fulfilling these recommendations by introducing
two new efficiency  measures and accompanying
targets in the  FY 2007 Budget Justification and
Request: Cost of Post-Focus Meeting Action on Pre-
Manufacture Notices; Cost  of Developing Proposed
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs).
                                       EPM-218

-------
Nanoscale Materials

EPA is developing  a  stewardship program for new and existing nanoscale materials that are
subject to TSCA requirements.  Information from this program will enable the public to gain a
better understanding of risk-related issues and will allow EPA to obtain further experience in the
evaluation of such  substances.   Please see "Existing Chemicals Program,"  below,  for more
information on EPA's approach to evaluating and managing chemicals already in commerce at
TSCA's enactment.

Existing Chemicals Program

The Agency anticipates a significant amount of activity in 2007 centered on the  receipt of data
pursuant to the Toxic  Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Rule (IUR) during the
latter part of 2006. A large number of 2006 IUR reports will be submitted in electronic format,
but there will be a significant number of paper reports that will need to be entered into the IUR
database manually.  Additionally, the Agency will improve connectivity with other databases
using IUR identifiers such as the Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) number. The CAS appears
in most chemical-specific databases and is the internationally-recognized standard  method for
identifying chemicals.

In FY  2007, EPA will continue its efforts to assess and, if indicated, manage risks associated
with brominated flame retardants (BFRs) which are used  to enhance fire  safety in furniture,
fabrics, plastics, consumer electronics and wire insulation.  EPA is engaged with stakeholders to
evaluate  the efficacy and potential risks of new alternative flame  retardants, in order to assure
that lower risk products are available to meet the important public safety need for flame retardant
products.  EPA will evaluate and implement perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) risk management
actions, as indicated by  the  results of ongoing risk assessment and testing under  enforceable
consent agreements.   In  2007,  final reports are due on results  from  the  fluoropolymer and
fluorotelomer  incineration  testing  Enforceable  Consent  Agreements  (EGAs),  and  EPA's
Research and Development program will continue telomer biodegradation testing.  Additionally,
the final Perfluoralkyl   Sulfonates (PFAS)  Significant  New  Use  Rule  (SNUR)  will  be
promulgated.   Also, the Agency recently began discussions with a  cadre  of U.S. companies
involved in the fluorochemical manufacturing, processing and user industries  to commit to:

   •   Reduce the releases of PFOA and its precursors to the environment; and

   •   Continue to improve  global understanding of the toxicity,  fate, and current and historic
       exposure of humans and the environment to these chemicals.

The GPRA/PART long-term and annual performance measures for the Existing Chemicals
program  target  an annual percent reduction in a relative risk index for chronic human health
associated with environmental  releases of industrial chemicals  in commerce, as calculated  by
EPA's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model.  All of EPA's activities in the
Existing  Chemicals  Program contribute to achievement of these  annual and long-term goals,
which  were  first  introduced in  EPA's 2008  Strategic Plan in  response to the  2004 Existing
Chemicals PART.
                                      EPM-219

-------
High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to focus its efforts on making basic screening level hazard data
on high production volume chemicals available to the  public. The data will be available and
searchable through EPA's High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS).  EPA will be
in the process of screening data submitted under the HPV Challenge Program and identifying
chemicals of potential concern that may require additional work, currently anticipated to involve
5 to 10 percent of screened chemicals.  Additionally, EPA will be working to accommodate the
submission of health and safety data on chemicals identified through the  recently announced
industry-led Expanded High Production Volume Challenge Program (EHPV).

EPA will continue its participation in the international Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) Screening Information Data Set  (SIDS) program along with other
OECD member countries. EPA plans to complete the review of 50 chemicals and initiate review
on at least 15 more.

Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP)

In FY 2007, EPA will continue its review of chemicals that may pose risks to children. Using
the information  gathered  from the interim evaluation  of VCCEP,  EPA will  work  with
stakeholders to adjust the program to most efficiently target VCCEP to meet its goals.

Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs)

AEGL values are used by first responders in dealing with chemical emergencies.  In FY 2007,
EPA's Acute Exposure Guideline Level (AEGLs) program plans  to develop Proposed AEGL
values  at the  rate  of 24  additional  chemicals  per year.   Following  September 11,  2001,
investment in AEGL extramural funds  in the Homeland Security:  Preparedness, Response and
Recovery Program/Project have supported acceleration of AEGLs  development, with annual
performance targets increasing from 15 to 24 additional chemicals per year.

EPA has developed  a new GPRA/PART efficiency measure for the AEGL program that will
enable the Agency to track changes from year to year in the cost it incurs per chemical for which
a proposed AEGL  data set is developed.   EPA costs are  adjusted to reflect the estimated
percentage of resources spent on proposed AEGLs. The measure is tied to proposed, rather than
final, AEGL data sets for these reasons:
   •  Proposed values are suitable for many purposes;
   •  Actions through the proposal stage of the AEGL development process are largely under
      EPA's control, whereas actions  to finalize AEGLs are controlled more by the National
      Academies of Science; and
   •  The program's annual  and long-term outcome measures are based on development of
      proposed AEGL values.

For more information, please visit www.epa.gov/oppt.
                                      EPM - 220

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Output

Measure
Cumulative number of
chemicals with
proposed, interim,
and/or final values for
Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels
(AEGL).
FY 2005
Actual


70%

FY 2005
Target


52%

FY 2006
Target


145

FY 2007
Target


163

Units


Total
Chemicals

Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Reduction in the
current year
production-adj usted
risk-based score of
releases and transfers
of toxic chemicals.
FY 2005
Actual


0%


FY 2005
Target


2%


FY 2006
Target


3%


FY 2007
Target


3%


Units


% RSEI rel
risk


The Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) measure demonstrates EPA's  ability to deal
with threats of chemical terrorism and assist with Homeland Security. EPA's efficiency measure
target for FY 2007 calls for a two percent cost savings to be achieved.  The target is measured as
a two percent reduction in EPA's cost per  chemical for which a proposed AEGL data set is
developed. This reduction goal assumes a FY 2006 baseline value of $34,857, using projected
cost data for that fiscal year.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+$611.5)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •  (+$222.9)   This increase will  support EPA's implementation of a new voluntary
      stewardship program  for new and  existing substances that  are nanoscale materials.
      Information from this program will enable the public to gain  a better understanding of
      risk-related issues and will allow EPA to obtain further experience in the evaluation of
      such substances.

   •  (-$500.0)  This reflects disinvestment in EPA's  Sustainable Futures  Program, which
      promotes voluntary pre-screening of new chemicals by  companies  before they  are
      submitted  to  the  Agency  under  the  Pre-Manufacture  Review (PMN) Program.
      Performance is  expected  to be  maintained,  however, by  transferring to industry
      responsibility  for providing  necessary  training in the use  of  EPA's  chemical risk
      screening tools. Resources are redirected to the lead risk reduction program.

   •  (-$2,239.4) This  decrease will return the FtPV program to its previous  planned pace for
      making basic screening  level  hazard  data obtained through the FtPV Challenge Program
                                      EPM-221

-------
      on new emerging high  production volume chemicals available  to the public and  in
      screening those data to identify chemicals of potential concern that may require additional
      work.   The pace for those two activities was accelerated in FY 2006 in response  to
      increased Congressional appropriation  beyond  the level  requested in the FY  2006
      President's Budget.

   •  (-0.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce as part of a management
      strategy that will help us better align resources,  skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

TSCA.
                                       EPM - 222

-------
                                                                    Endocrine Disruptors
                                          Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$8,696.4
$8,696.4
18.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$8,767.0
$8,767.0
15.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$7,985.4
$7,985.4
14.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($781.6)
($781.6)
-1.5
Program Project Description:

 The Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) establishes policies, procedures and rules
for implementing the endocrine effects screening authorities of the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)  and  Safe Drinking  Water  Act  (SDWA).   The program  evaluates  and validates
approximately a dozen scientific test methods for routine, ongoing use in evaluating pesticides
and other chemicals to determine their potential for adverse health or  environmental effects by
interfering with normal endocrine system function.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the  EDSP  will complete the
validation of three assays that will identify
the ability of chemicals to interact with the
endocrine system,  and submit the results for
scientific  peer  review.   The Agency  will
generate  and  release  a  list  of  the  first
chemicals to be tested in the program.  EPA
will continue  to  move  forward  on  the
validation of  in-depth,  longer-term  assays
that can confirm the ability of chemicals to interact with the endocrine system and  which will
provide information that can be used in risk assessment.  This effort will leverage international
interest in validation of endocrine disrupter assays where possible to minimize costs incurred by
the U.S.  and to maximize international  harmonization of test  guidelines while maintaining
scientific integrity.

The EDSP  also expects  to release the Regulatory  Framework of the  Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program in FY 2007. All of these activities further the goal of protecting communities
from the harmful effects  of substances  in the environment which may adversely affect health
through specific hormonal effects.
Performance Assessment:  The Endocrine Disrupter
program underwent PART evaluation in calendar year
2004 and received a rating  of "Adequate."   The
assessment found that the program is free of major
design flaws, has a clear purpose, and is reasonably
well-managed.  The Agency is  working to improve
program performance measures, and to better articulate
research and development priorities.
                                        EPM - 223

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative number of
screening assays that
have been validated.
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target
11
FY 2007
Target
14
Units
Assays
This program's performance measures are outputs that represent the progress toward completing
the validation of endocrine test methods. The measures track progress through each stage of the
process rather than reporting only the end product.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$56.1\-1.5 FTE)  This  decrease reflects a change in EPA's  workforce as  part of a
       management strategy that will help us better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (+$42.9) This increase will support activities including contracts, grants, and expenses
       for endocrine disrupter activities.

   •   (-$768.4)  This reduction  reflects  a  shift  to other Agency priorities and will delay
       validation of two assays while evaluation efforts continue to move forward.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA; CERCLA;  SARA; OP A; SOW A; CAA;  CWA; TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; EPCRA; ODA;
PPA.
                                      EPM - 224

-------
                                          Toxic Substances:  Lead Risk Reduction Program
                                           Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                                                  Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                        Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$13,280.9
$13,280.9
79.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$10,162.0
$10,162.0
83.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,367.6
$11,367.6
82.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,205.6
$1,205.6
-0.7
Program Project Description:

EPA's Lead Risk Reduction Program alleviates the threat to human health - particularly to
young children - posed by  exposure to lead-based  paint and other sources  of lead  in  the
environment.   The  Agency is working to maintain  a  national infrastructure  of trained  and
certified lead remediation  professionals; establish  hazard control  methods and  standards to
ensure that homeowners and others have  access to safe, reliable and effective methods to  reduce
lead exposure;  and provide  information to housing  occupants so  they can  make informed
decisions about lead hazards in their homes.

EPA's Strategic Plan includes a strategic  target for  reducing the  number of  childhood lead
poisoning cases to 90,000 by 2008, from approximately 400,000 cases in 1999/2000.  This target
was set at a level designed to support achievement of the interagency goal calling for elimination
of childhood lead poisoning by 2010 set by the President's Task Force on Environmental  Health
and Safety Threats to Children.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
   Performance Assessment:  The Lead program provides human
   health standards,  abatement  program  national  oversight and
   certification and training, notification standards, and public outreach
   and education for lead  hazards.  The program underwent its first
   PART in FY 2005, receiving  a Moderately Effective  rating.   In
   response to the PART, EPA is introducing a new long-term measure
   and annual results measure (Percent difference in the geometric mean
   blood level in low-income  children 1-5 years old as compared to the
   geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5 years  old), and a
   new efficiency measure (Annual percentage of  lead-based paint
   certification and refund applications that require less than 40 days of
   EPA  effort  to process) in the  FY 2007 Budget  Justification and
   Request.    In  FY  2007, EPA  will be  implementing PART-
   recommended Improvement Plans to  improve the consistency  of
   grantee and regional accountability mechanisms, ensure a clear link
   between program goals and resource allocations, and target program
   resources and activities on populations that face a significant risk of
   being exposed to lead.
EPA     is     developing     a
comprehensive program, which
will be ongoing  through  FY
2007,  to  address  lead  hazards
created by  renovation,  repair
and painting activities in homes
with  lead-based  paint.    The
program  will  be  focused  on
promulgating a final regulation
to   address   lead-safe   work
practices     for     renovation,
remodeling     and    painting
activities.
                                         EPM - 225

-------
The Agency will continue to conduct limited education and outreach to the public on the hazards
of lead-contaminated paint, dust and soil; implement existing lead hazard reduction regulations;
and provide technical and policy assistance  to states, Tribes, and other Federal agencies.  In
addition, EPA will continue to provide support  for the National  Lead Information  Center to
disseminate information primarily in electronic form.  The Lead Risk Reduction Program has a
companion  STAG  program, "Lead Categorical  Grant."  See the Categorical Grant: Lead
program project fact sheet for more information.  Taken together, these programs contribute to
common  strategic  targets  and  annual  performance  goals.    For  more  information, visit
www. epa. gov/oppt.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Efficiency


Measure
Annual percentage of
lead-based paint
certification and refund
applications that
require less than 40
days of EPA effort to
process.
FY 2005
Actual



69%


FY 2005
Target



60%


FY 2006
Target



71%


FY 2007
Target



72%


Units



Certif/Refund


Measure
Type


Outcome

Measure
Percent difference in
the geometric mean
blood level in low-
income children 1-5
years old as compared
to the geometric mean
for non-low income
children 1-5 years old.
FY 2005
Actual




FY 2005
Target




FY 2006
Target


29%

FY 2007
Target


29%

Units


Percent

Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of cases of
children (aged 1-5
years) with elevated
blood lead levels
(>10ug/dl).
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target
216,000
FY 2007
Target
199,000
Units
children
Remaining number of cases of children (aged 1 to 5 years) with elevated blood lead levels (>10
ug/dL)

This annual performance measure tracks the number of children aged 1 to 5 years with elevated
blood lead levels (> or = 10 ug/dL).  Data is collected from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).  NHANES
is recognized as the primary database in the United States for national blood lead statistics.  Data
                                       EPM - 226

-------
is collected on a calendar year basis, and released to the public in two-year data sets.  In 2005, the
CDC updated  1999/2000 estimates released in 2003 using a four-year data set (1999-2002), to
provide a larger sample size.

1999-2000 NHANES data released in January of 2003  estimated 434,000 children with elevated
blood lead levels, a steep reduction of the estimate of more than 900,000 cases in the early 1990s.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) updated the 2003 estimate in May of 2005 using a four-
year data  set,  1999 to  2002,  to provide a larger sample  size to increase the reliability of the
estimate given the declining number of children with lead poisoning33.  The revised estimate for
the 1999  to 2002  period is 310,000  cases of children with elevated blood  lead  levels,
demonstrating continued progress towards EPA's 2008  Strategic Target to reduce  such incidence
to  90,000  cases and the national goal to virtually  eliminate childhood lead poisoning by 2010.
However,  the revised CDC estimate also showed a slower rate of progress, reflecting increased
challenges associated with reaching the remaining vulnerable populations.

Budget reductions enacted in FY  2005 and FY 2006 required decreases to annual performance
targets to  9,000  cases  of  elevated blood  levels per year.  EPA's budget request for FY 2007
includes a $1.2  million increase  for the  Lead Program, with a corresponding  increase in the
annual performance target from 9,000 to 17,000 cases reduced per year.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$635.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (+$570.0) This  increase will support implementation of the anticipated final Lead-Based
       Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting rule. This also reflects  a redirection  of resources
       from the  chemical  risk review and reduction program.  Resources will support lead risk
       reduction education and outreach.

   •   (-0.7 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce as part of a management
       strategy that will help us better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

TSCA.
33 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 27, 2005.


                                       EPM - 227

-------
                                                          Pollution Prevention Program
                                         Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                      Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                         Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
 Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$15,889.3
$15,889.3
87.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$16,621.0
$16,621.0
87.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$21,292.4
$21,292.4
86.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$4,671.4
$4,671.4
-0.7
Program Project Description:

The Pollution Prevention Program is one of EPA's primary tools for encouraging environmental
stewardship  by  the  Federal  government,  industry, communities,  and  individuals,  both
domestically  and globally.  The  program  employs  a combination of collaborative  efforts,
innovative programs, and technical assistance and education to support stakeholder efforts to
minimize and prevent adverse  environmental  impacts.   For  more information,  please visit
http://www.epa.gov/p2/.

EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan established a number of long-term strategic targets for EPA's
pollution prevention program:

   •   Promoting "green" Federal government operations in purchases of more environmentally
       friendly products and services from a baseline year of 2002;

   •   Ensuring  that all Federal agencies have defined EPP programs,  have policies in place,
       and expand their purchases of available "green" products and services; and

   •   Reducing pollution by 76 billion pounds, conserving 360 billion BTUs of energy and 2.7
       billion gallons of water, and achieving  environmentally-related business cost savings of
       $400 million from 2003 levels (targets expanded from original Green Chemistry Program
       PART  measures  to  reflect results  to  be  achieved  by  all  P2  programs  in  this
       Program/Project).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Following the 2003 New Chemicals PART, the program embarked on an ambitious evaluation of
performance measures resulting in considerable improvement to the existing suite of measures.
                                      EPM - 228

-------
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Program:

The goal  of this program is  to have  the Federal government serve as a model to  others for
environmental stewardship. In FY 2007, EPA will continue to provide leadership to implement
EPP efforts in partnership with other Federal agencies, notably to continue to implement and
measure  benefits of the Federal  Electronics Challenge,  promote  the use of the Electronics
Products Environmental Assessment  Tool  (EPEAT),  a  procurement tool designed  to  help
institutional purchasers compare and select desktop  computers, laptops and monitors based on
environmental attributes; enhance guidance to the Federal building  community on model green
construction specifications; provide tools and guidance to Federal purchasers on green janitorial
products and services;  and continue  partnership with the National Park Service  to  "green"
operations      at     national      parks.          For      more    information,     visit
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/about/about.htm.

Green Suppliers Network:

Through this  program, EPA partners with large manufacturers to help small  suppliers  identify
opportunities  to "lean and green" their operations, thus  saving money and preventing pollution.
The Green Suppliers Network will continue to partner with the National Institute of Standards
and  Technology (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, expanding the service
offerings for the participating  suppliers  to include health and  safety and energy  efficiency
assistance.  For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/p2/programs/gsn.htm.

Green Chemistry:

This program emphasizes the development of new chemistries that reduce cost, eliminate the
need for potentially dangerous processes, and eliminate or reduce hazardous waste and end-of-
pipe controls. The Green Chemistry Program (GCP) will continue to administer the Presidential
Green Chemistry Challenge and will focus on the development  of environmentally  preferable
substitutes for chemicals of concern such as brominated flame retardants used  in flexible foam,
perfluorinated acids, and other chemicals which are persistent in the environment and  capable of
accumulating  in  animal,   fish,   and  human tissue.     For  more  information,  visit
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemi stry/.

Design for the Environment/Green Engineering:

This program promotes opportunities for pollution prevention and stewardship in the design and
use of chemical products and formulations.  The Design for the Environment (DfE) Program will
continue collaborating with industry and non-governmental organizations to reduce risk  from
chemicals.  The program will encourage  the use of voluntary best practices to reduce risks to
workers and communities now exposed to significant levels of diisocyanates (the leading cause
of occupational asthma).  DfE will work with EPA's Air Program to integrate best practices into
local source regulations.

DfE will leverage partnerships with the electronics, wire and cable, polyurethane foam, chemical
product  formulation,  and  furniture industries  to  help   move  these  industries toward the
                                       EPM - 229

-------
manufacture, processing and use of safer chemicals, to reduce the potential product liabilities
that  these  industries face,  and to  reduce  the  potential for risk to human health and the
environment.  DfE partnerships will help these industries move away from substances that are
considered health and environmental hazards, including lead, chromium, diisocyantates, and
certain flame retardants,  and to ensure the transition to alternative chemical substances that are
lexicologically safer.  DfE partnerships  also promote the adoption of work place practices that
reduce or eliminate the use of and/or exposure to hazardous substances.

EPA  expects these new  partnership targets to produce  measurable  results,  such  as  the
replacement of approximately  18.7 million pounds of flame retardants and as much  as 176
million pounds  of  lead per year  with  safer alternatives.   In FY  2007, the  related Green
Engineering  Program will  continue partnerships with  industries,  states, regions and other
interested parties to apply  green  engineering approaches on specific industrial projects and
continue to identify and leverage resources  with  other interested  organizations.  For more
information,                visit                http://www.epa.gov/dfe/               and
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/greenengineering/index.html.

The  related  Green  Engineering  Program  will  continue partnerships with industries, states,
regions and other interested parties to apply green engineering approaches on specific industrial
projects and continue to identify and leverage resources with other interested organizations. For
more           information,           visit          http ://www. epa. gov/dfe/           and
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/greenengineering/index.html.

EPA is requesting an additional $1.5 million in FY 2007 for contract support to address key
environmental impacts in the electronics  lifecycle by:

   •   Convening a cross-Agency, cross-media effort to explore alternative flame retardants for
       printed wiring boards, with a goal of reducing use of chemicals of concern by  over 330
       million pounds per year.
   •   Developing a new industry-requested Green Chemistry Program that would focus the
       creativity  of industry  on  finding solutions to  priority  emerging chemical issues  in
       electronics.
   •   Making EPEAT  the recognized standard  internationally  and expanding its  reach  to
       leverage the purchasing power beyond government to other institutional purchasers.
   •   Engaging electronic manufacturers  to green their  supply  chain  through  the Green
       Suppliers Network Program.

EPA is requesting an additional  $500,000 in FY 2007 for contract support to expand efforts to
apply pollution prevention techniques in protecting sensitive populations from chemical risks,
specifically the serious issue of children's environmental health in schools.  EPA will provide
comprehensive,  easily  accessible information and  guidance to  schools  on how to  reduce
potentially harmful exposures to pollutants in schools.

EPA is also requesting an additional $2.8 million in FY 2007 for contract support for expanded
work by the Green  Suppliers Network, Environmentally Preferable  Products, Design  for the
Environment,  and Green Chemistry Challenge Programs to promote source reduction as the
                                       EPM - 230

-------
preferred approach for reducing pollution, accelerating progress towards these program's long-
term strategic targets.

Performance Targets:

The  only PART-approved performance measures associated with  the  Pollution Prevention
Program are those associated with EPA's Presidential Green Chemistry Awards Program, which
was included in the 2002 and 2003 New Chemicals Program PART. This program promotes the
research, development, and implementation of innovative chemical technologies that accomplish
pollution prevention in a scientifically sound and cost-effective manner.  To accomplish these
goals, the Green Chemistry Program recognizes and supports chemical technologies that reduce
or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances during the design, manufacture, and
use of chemical products and processes.

The  Pollution Prevention Program  is planning to expand upon this  set of PART-approved
performance measures in future PART assessments to target and document a broader range of
the program's environmental benefits and to increase the ambitiousness  of future targets  by
integrating  results contributions from additional program components included in the Pollution
Prevention  Program/Project, including the Green Supplier Network, Design for the Environment,
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing,  Hospitals for a Healthy Environment,  and Regional
Technical Assistance programs.  Work under this program supports pollution prevention and
innovation.  Currently,  there are no PART performance  measures specific to this program
project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$150.8) This decrease is the net effect of  increases for payroll and  cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation  of base
       workforce costs.

   •   (+$1,500.0)    This increase will  support a new EPA initiative  to address  key
       environmental  impacts in the electronics life  cycle by exploring alternative flame
       retardants for printed wiring  boards, reducing use of chemicals  of concern by over 330
       million pounds per year;  finding  solutions to  priority  emerging chemical issues in
       electronics,  such as mercury in flat panel backlights and  perfluorinated chemistries in
       wire and cable;  expanding the  reach  of the  Electronics Products  Environmental
       Assessment Tool (EPEAT) to leverage the purchasing power beyond government to other
       institutional purchasers and making EPEAT the recognized standard internationally; and
       engaging electronic manufacturers to green their supply chains.

   •   (+$500.0) This reflects additional support for  the Schools Initiative under the Sensitive
       Populations Initiative.  Resources will apply environmental management system (EMS)
       approaches  to  a broad range of environmental issues in schools, including cleanout
       efforts to remove toxic chemicals.
                                       EPM-231

-------
   •   (+$2,822.2) This increase will support expanded work by the Green Suppliers Network,
       Environmentally Preferable Products, Design for Environment and Green Chemistry
       Challenge Programs to promote source reduction as the preferred approach for reducing
       pollution, accelerating progress towards these program's long-term strategic targets.

   •   (-0.7 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce as part of a management
       strategy that will help us better align resources,  skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

PPA: TSCA.
                                       EPM - 232

-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /
                    UST)
                   EPM - 233

-------
                                                                          LUST / UST
                                  Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
                                                  Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$6,459.2
$10,146.4
$16,605.6
112.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$7,763.0
$10,514.0
$18,277.0
114.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,713.7
$10,590.1
$22,303.8
131.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$3,950.7
$76.1
$4,026.8
17.2
Program Project Description:

EPA works with states, Tribes and Intertribal Consortia to prevent, detect, and correct leaks into
the environment from  Federally-regulated underground  storage  tanks  (USTs) containing
petroleum and hazardous substances. Achieving significant improvements in release prevention
and detection requires a sustained emphasis by both EPA and its partners.  Potential adverse
effects from the use of contaminants of concern (e.g., methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether, or MTBE) in
gasoline further underscores EPA's  and the states' emphasis on promoting compliance with all
UST requirements.  EPA provides technical information,  forums for information exchanges and
training opportunities to  states,  Tribes  and  Intertribal  Consortia to  encourage  program
development    and/or     implementation     of    the     UST     program     (see
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/20comply.htm and http://www.epa.gov/OUST/20tnkprf.htm).

The states are the primary enforcers of the UST program requirements.  EPA has  adopted  a
decentralized approach to UST program implementation by building and  supporting strong state
and local programs.  Although EPA is responsible for implementing the UST program in Indian
country, the Agency is working with Tribes to strengthen their own UST programs.  EPA uses its
EPM funding in the UST program primarily to improve compliance. EPA will use EPM funds to
carry out EPA's  responsibilities under the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005
(USTCA), which was enacted as  Title XV, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. For
statutory reasons, in FY 2007, appropriations from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Trust Fund  will not be  available  to  EPA to implement the release prevention and
detection provisions in the USTCA.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will begin implementation of the release prevention activities required by the
USTCA. These activities include conducting inspections  and implementing grant guidelines for
implementing fuel deliveries at noncompliant UST facilities. As specified in the USTCA, EPA
is required to conduct on-site inspections in  Indian country and in Idaho (where EPA is the lead
agency) of all tanks not inspected  since 1998. EPA will also implement the UST Tribal strategy
developed in FY 2006 in Indian Country.
                                      EPM - 234

-------
EPA will continue to work with states and industry to improve UST systems performance based
on the results of the UST systems evaluation work, e.g., causes of leaks to dispensers.  The
Agency will also continue to monitor UST systems performance and assess certain aspects of the
performance of UST systems in more detail.

To help states and Tribes implement the UST prevention program, EPA will provide web-based
training modules that  address  topics  such as cathodic  protection,  leak  detection,  spill
containment,  and overfill protection components of the UST system.  The training modules at
http://www.epa.gov/swerust 1 /virtual.htm will provide UST inspectors with core and advanced
knowledge on how to inspect an UST system.

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to promote cross-media opportunities, e.g., targeted public health
protection  through  the UST and  Source  Water Protection Programs,  support for  core
development  and implementation of state and Tribal UST programs; strengthening partnerships
among stakeholders; and providing technical assistance, compliance assistance, and training to
promote and  enforce UST facilities' compliance.  The  Agency and states will continue to use
innovative compliance approaches, along with outreach and education tools, to bring more tanks
into compliance and to prevent releases, saving over $100,000 in cleanup costs for each release
prevented.  EPA also will provide guidance to encourage the  use of new technology to enhance
compliance.  For example, the presence of MTBE in gasoline increases the importance of
preventing and rapidly detecting releases, since MTBE contamination can increase cleanup costs
by 25% to more than 100%.

EPA has the primary responsibility for implementation  of the UST Program in Indian Country.
Grants under P.L. 105-276 will continue to help Tribes  develop the capacity to administer UST
programs.  For example, funding is used to support training for Tribal  staff, educate owners and
operators in Indian Country about UST requirements, and maintain information on USTs located
in Indian Country.

EPA provides technical information, forums for information exchanges and training
opportunities to states, Tribes and Intertribal Consortia to encourage program development
and/or implementation of the UST program. See http://www.epa.gov/OUST/20comply.htm and
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/20tnkprf.htm

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of confirmed
UST releases
nationally.
FY 2005
Actual
7,421
FY 2005
Target
<10,000
FY 2006
Target
<10,000
FY 2007
Target
<10,000
Units
UST releases
                                      EPM-235

-------
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Percent increase of
UST facilities that are
in significant
operational compliance
with both release
detection and release
prevention (spill,
overfill, and corrosion
protection
requirements).
FY 2005
Actual


2


FY 2005
Target


+1


FY 2006
Target


+1


FY 2007
Target


+1


Units


percent


At the end of FY 2005, EPA exceeded its goal of a one percent increase of UST facilities in
operational compliance with both release detection and release prevention (spill, overfill, and
corrosion protection) requirements by achieving a two percent increase (from 64 percent at the
end of FY 2004 to 66 percent at the end of FY 2005) of the estimated universe of approximately
246,650 UST facilities. 34 In FY 2007, through its compliance activities, the program will strive
to maintain the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to 10,000 or fewer. The actual
number of confirmed releases in FY 2005 was 7,421.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-0.4  FTE) This reflects a change in EPA's workforce management  strategy that will
       help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •   (+18.1 FTE)  This increase  is to implement Energy Policy Act  activities  including
       regulatory and guidance activities.

    •   (+$2,364.4) Increase for payroll for additional FTE to implement the Energy Policy Act.

    •   (+$1,586.3)  This  increase  is  to  implement Energy Policy  Act activities  including
       regulatory and guidance activities.

Statutory Authority:

Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Reauthorization
Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle I); Section 8001(a); Tribal Grants:  PL 105-276.
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum, FY 2005 Semi-Annual End-of-Year Activity Report,
from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division
Directors, Regions 1-10, dated December 15,2005. http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca 05 34.pdf
                                       EPM - 236

-------
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
            EPM - 237

-------
                                                                 Great Lakes Legacy Act
                                                        Program Area: Water:  Ecosystems
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                 Objective(s): Ecosystems
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$13,946.6
$13,946.6
0.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$28,989.0
$28,989.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$49,600.0
$49,600.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$20,611.0
$20,611.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Great Lakes Legacy Act Program cleans up contaminated sediments in the 31 U.S. or bi-
national Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs).  The Great Lakes Legacy Act targets resources
to clean up contaminated sediments, a significant source of Great Lakes toxic pollutants that can
impact human health via the bio-accumulation of toxic  substances  through  the  food chain.
Contaminated sediments are the cause of or significantly contribute to as many as 11 of the 14
impairments  to beneficial  uses  (including  restrictions  on fish consumption due  to  high
contaminant levels in fish tissue) in AOCs.35 A quantitative estimate of the impact on fish tissue
contamination is not available, however sediment remediation activities will contribute to the
reduction of PCBs and other contaminants by removing significant  quantities of contaminants (or
by capping to reduce biological availability to contaminants).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the fourth year of the program, EPA expects to support four to six  projects for
remediation.   These projects will result in cleaning up of some half million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments over the  expected 6 month to 2 year project lifetime.  As part  of  each
Legacy Act sediment remediation project,  a long-term monitoring program will be instituted,
partly to monitor ecological recovery.  In  FY 2006 EPA  will  issue Great Lakes Legacy Act
program regulations, which  will outline how resources will be used and projects prioritized to
remediate contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes AOCs.
Legacy Act information is posted  to http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediment/legacy/index.html.
35 International Joint Commission - Sediment Priority Action Committee, Great Lakes Water Quality Board. 1997.
OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO SEDMENT REMEDIATION in the Great Lakes Basin.
httv://-www.iic.orz/vhv/vublications/html/sedrem.html.
                                       EPM-238

-------
                     Volume of Sediment Remediated via Great
                              Lakes Legacy Act Program
                                        (as of 12-05)
                     450,000
                S,
                D
                O
                I
                
-------
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Cubic yards (in
millions) of
contaminated sediment
remediated in the Great
Lakes, (cumulative
from 1997)
FY 2005
Actual


3.7 M


FY 2005
Target


2.9 M


FY 2006
Target


4.0 M


FY 2007
Target


4.5 M


Units


Cubic yards


Sediment remediation in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes in recent years has varied from
134,000 cubic yards in 1997 to 975,000 cubic yards  in 2003, with year-to-year variances of
3,000 cubic yards to 800,000 cubic yards.37 The amount of remediation in a given year has been
largely dependent on the possibility of enforcement actions in various EPA programs. With the
Great Lakes Legacy Act, EPA now has a program in place that can make steadier progress
toward addressing the 75 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments at 31 sites in Areas of
Concern.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$20,610.2)  The increase will support additional sediment remediation projects under
       the Legacy Act, allowing for four to six projects and remediation of some 200,000 cubic
       yards of contaminated sediments.

Statutory Authority:

2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act (Great Lakes Legacy Act); CWA; Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of  1990; Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000;
North American Wetlands Conservation  Act; WRDA; 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act;
1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1978 GLWQA; 1987 GLWQA; 1987 Montreal Protocol on
Ozone Depleting Substances; 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Binational
Toxics Strategy; and US-Canada Agreements.
37 USEPA-Great Lakes National Program Office. Sediment Remediation. Available from
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/sediments/remediateb.html.
                                       EPM - 240

-------
                                          National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
                                                         Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                  Objective(s): Ecosystems
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$25,902.3
$25,902.3
49.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$23,773.0
$23,773.0
57.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$18,417.2
$18,417.2
57.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($5,355.8)
($5,355.8)
-0.4
Program Project Description:

The goal of this program is to  restore the  physical, chemical, and biological integrity  of the
Nation's estuaries and coastal watersheds by protecting and enhancing water quality and living
resources.  Major areas of effort include: supporting  coastal watersheds to address threats to the
health of estuaries and coastal waters; supporting continued implementation of Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) for the 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs);
encouraging cooperative efforts between Nonpoint Source Programs (e.g., under CWA Section
319) and other programs to develop and implement coastal ecosystem protection/enhancement
strategies;  and  supporting monitoring of estuarine, coastal  and  marine waters.   For  more
information, visit http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
The resources in FY 2007 will support EPA's goal of
improving  aquatic ecosystem health of our national
estuaries and  protecting additional acres of habitat.
EPA will undertake the following activities in support
of coastal watershed protection and restoration:
Performance Assessment:  The National
Estuary Program  was  included in the
Oceans and Coastal Program PART review
in FY 2005 and received  a rating of
adequate. The purpose of the program is to
integrate the control of water pollution from
land-base sources and vessels to improve
the  overall health of ocean and coastal
ecosystems.    The  program  provided
performance measures, including one long-
term,  three  annual,  and  one  efficiency
                                                     measures.
EPA, working with  state and  local  partners, will
continue  to  develop  the  third  National  Coastal
Condition Report (NCCR), which is due in FY 2007.
The   NCCR   is  the  first   statistically   significant
measurement of U.S. water quality on  a nationwide scale.
In addition, EPA will support monitoring of estuarine waters using such tools as the O^FBOLD.
This ocean survey vessel supports monitoring and assessment needs in NEPs, and coastal states
along the Pacific, Gulf and Atlantic coasts.

EPA will  develop and disseminate  tools and resources for local land use decision-makers that
will  provide the information on potential water quality impacts necessary to plan for growth,
minimize  the  adverse  impacts of development, and anticipate the  cumulative environmental
                                        EPM-241

-------
impacts  of growth.   EPA will continue partnership  with National  Ocean and  Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to specifically address coastal communities.

EPA will also continue to work with coastal environmental managers, Federal partners, and other
decision-makers  to  evaluate  and  address  the  impacts  to water quality from atmospheric
deposition of contaminants and assist these stakeholders and the general public.  Air deposition
is a significant  source of nutrients in  the Mississippi River basin, contributing to hypoxic
conditions in the Gulf of Mexico.  EPA has a  lead role in the five-year reassessment of the
Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico,
which will continue in FY 2007.
38
EPA  will produce  on-line  finance  planning modules,  traditional  workshops,  and  on-site
assistance to help coastal watersheds managers find the best way to finance estuary and coastal
protection projects.  Within the NEP, EPA plans to implement key activities39 under its flagship
watershed protection effort  to help  address the growing threats to  the Nation's  estuarine
resources. These activities include:
•   Supporting continuing efforts of all 28 NEP estuaries to implement their CCMPs to protect
    and restore estuarine resources;
•   Providing more focused support for several priority needs,  including problems of invasive
    species, coastal population growth, air deposition of pollutants such as mercury and nitrogen,
    and nutrient over-enrichment;
•   Supporting estuary efforts to achieve NEP habitat restoration and protection goal of  250,000
    additional acres by 2008.  In FY 2007, EPA and  its partners will protect or restore an
    additional 75,000 acres of habitat; and
•   Providing targeted support to special ecosystems, including those with statutorily-authorized
    protection programs such as the Long Island Sound.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Program dollars per
acre of habitat
protected or restored
FY 2005
Actual
533
FY 2005
Target
515
FY 2006
Target
510
FY 2007
Target
505
Units
Dollars
 United States., Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient
Task Force. Action Plan of Reducing. Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Washington. D.C.. 2001.
39 The means and strategies outlined here for achieving Sub-objective 4.3.1 must be viewed in tandem with the means and
strategies outlined under Goal 2, Objective 2, Sub-objective 2.2.2, Improve Ocean and Coastal Waters. Sub-objective 2.2.2
contains strategic measures for EPA's vessel discharge, dredged material management, ocean disposal, and other ocean and
coastal programs, which are integral to the Agency's efforts to facilitating the ecosystem scale protection and restoration of
natural areas.
                                         EPM - 242

-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Acres protected or
restored in NEP study
areas, (incremental)
FY 2005
Actual
103,959
FY 2005
Target
25,000
FY 2006
Target
25,000
FY 2007
Target
75,000
Units
Acres
EPA exceeded its FY 2005 target for habitat acres protected or restored by the NEPs and their
partners, for several  reasons.  They include increased community interest and involvement in
protection and restoration, and the enhanced  capacity of EPA and its partners to collect and
report on data depicting protection and restoration achievements.  NEP habitat activities often
depend  on program partners and the extent to which these partners can and will participate in
these habitat efforts can vary year-to-year.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands)

•   (-$5,774.7) This reduction reflects elimination of congressionally directed funding in 2006
    ($4,926.4), along with a reduction to base program resources.

•   (+$418.9)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

•   (-0.4 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
    will  help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

1990 Great Lakes  Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes  and Lake Champlain Act;  CWA;
Estuaries and  Clean Waters Act of 2000; Protection,  and  Restoration Act  of 1990;  North
American Wetlands  Conservation Act; WRDA;  1909  The Boundary Waters  Treaty; 1978
GLWQA; 1987  GLWQA; 1987  Montreal Protocol on Ozone  Depleting  Substances; 1996
Habitat  Agenda;  1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy; Coastal Wetlands
Planning; and US-Canada Agreements.
                                       EPM - 243

-------
                                                                              Wetlands
                                                        Program Area: Water:  Ecosystems
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                 Objective(s): Ecosystems
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$20,126. 7
$20,126.7
149.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$19,416.0
$19,416.0
147.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$20,992.2
$20,992.2
147.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,576.2
$1,576.2
-0.1
Program Project Description:

Wetlands improve water quality, recharge water supplies, reduce flood risks, provide fish and
wildlife habitat, offer sites for research and education, and support valuable fishing and shellfish
industries.  EPA's Wetlands Protection Program  relies on partnerships with other programs
within EPA, other Federal agencies, state, Tribal,  and, local governments, private landowners,
and the general public to improve  protection of  our  nation's valuable  wetland resources.
Working with other Federal agencies and directly with states, Tribes, and local programs, EPA
ensures a sound and consistent approach to wetlands protection.

Major activities of the Wetlands Protection Program include Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
404 wetlands regulatory program;  development and dissemination of guidance, informational
materials,  and scientific tools to improve management  and public understanding of wetland
programs and  legal requirements;  and managing  financial  assistance to states and Tribes to
support development  of strong wetland protection programs. EPA works  with other Federal
agencies to implement the  provisions of Section  404 of the CWA to protect wetlands, free-
flowing streams, and shallow waters. EPA also works in partnership with state, Tribal, and local
agencies and non-governmental organizations to conserve and restore wetlands and associated
river corridors through watershed planning approaches, voluntary and incentive-based programs,
improved scientific methods, information and  education, and helping to build the capacity of
state,    tribal        and    local    programs.        (For    more   information,   visit
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/.)

FY 2007 Activities and  Performance Plan:

Since 1989, the national goal under the Clean Water Act Section 404  program administered by
the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA has been no net loss of wetlands.  In December 2003, the
Administrator of EPA and the Assistant Secretary of the Army reaffirmed this Administration's
commitment to the goal  of "no net loss".   Then in 2004 in his Earth Day address, the President
announced  a renewed effort  to  move beyond a policy of no-net loss to  achieve an overall
increase in the Nation's wetland resources over the  next five years. To achieve this goal, the
Administration is working through  six Federal agencies to restore,  improve, and protect at least
three  million acres of wetlands  by 2009.  A range of approaches including public,  private,
                                       EPM - 244

-------
regulatory, and non-regulatory initiatives and partnerships are necessary to restore, improve, and
protect the Nation's wetlands

In FY 2007, EPA will work with its state and Tribal partners to develop and implement broad-
based and integrated monitoring and assessment programs that improve data for decision-making
on wetlands within watersheds, address significant stressors, and report on condition and geo-
locate wetlands on the landscape. EPA will work to achieve national gains in wetland acreage by
implementing an innovative partner-based wetland and stream corridor restoration program.  The
Agency,  working  with  the  Army  Corps  of Engineers  and  other  partners,  will  continue  to
implement the Administration's Mitigation Action Plan and the joint Corps-EPA Mitigation Rule
and to build our  capacity to measure wetland  condition, in addition to  measuring wetland
acreage.40 EPA's  support will help avoid or minimize wetland losses and provide  for full
compensation  for  unavoidable losses of wetland functions, through wetlands  restoration and
enhancement using tools such as mitigation banking.  Wetland and stream  corridor restoration
will  remain a focus  for regaining lost aquatic resources. EPA will continue to administer
Wetlands Program Development grants,  with a continued focus in FY 2007  on state/Tribal
wetlands environmental outcomes,  as  well as the  strengthening of state and  Tribal wetland
programs to protect vulnerable wetland resources.

EPA is working closely with the Army Corps of Engineers to develop and implement wetlands
and barrier island restoration projects along the Gulf Coast to help ensure an improved  level  of
protection from hurricanes.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
Annually, in
partnership with the
Corps of Engineers and
States, achieve no net
loss of wetlands in the
Clean Water Act
Section 404 regulatory
program
FY 2005
Actual



Data lag



FY 2005
Target



No Net
Loss



FY 2006
Target



No Net
Loss



FY 2007
Target



No Net
Loss



Units



Acres



Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Working with partners,
achieve a net increase
of wetlands
FY 2005
Actual
Data lag
FY 2005
Target
100,000
FY 2006
Target
100,000
FY 2007
Target
100,000
Units
Acres/year
40 United States. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan.
Washington, D.C., 2002. www.MitigationActionPlan.gov
                                       EPM - 245

-------
New data on the status and trends of the nation's wetlands from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Wetlands Inventory will be available in the Service's Status and Trends report
due out in spring 2006. Meanwhile, information describing progress toward the broader wetland
goals, identified by the President is available.  A report titled "Preserving America's Wetlands,
Implementing the President's Goal"  (CEQ,  April  (2005)41, indicates that since  April 2004,
federal  agencies and their partners took actions to restore, create, protect or improve 832,000
acres of wetlands in the U.S. This reflects total acres of restoration improvement and protection
efforts and not the actual net change in total national wetlands acres.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$38.0) This increase reflects additional support for wetlands protection activities,
       including efforts to better assess  the condition  of wetlands  and  to  improve  the
       effectiveness of mitigation activities.

    •   (+$50.0) This increase  will be used by EPA's Region 10 to support local environmental
       activities in Alaska,  such as technical assistance to industry in developing applications for
       wetland permits.

    •   (+$1,388.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (-1.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •   (+$100.0)   This increase  provides  payroll  for EPA's  Region  10 support for  local
       environmental activities in Alaska, such as technical assistance to industry in developing
       applications for wetlands permits.
    •   (+1  FTE)  This  increase  provides   FTE  for EPA's  Region 10  to  support  local
       environmental activities in Alaska, such as technical compliance assistance to industry in
       developing applications for wetlands permits.

Statutory Authority:

1990 Great  Lakes Critical  Programs Act; Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act;  CWA; 2002
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection,  and Restoration Act of 1990; Estuaries and Clean Waters
Act of 2000; North American  Wetlands Conservation Act; WRDA;1909 The Boundary Waters
Treaty;  1978 GLWQA; 1987 GLWQA; 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S.  Great Lakes
Binational Toxics Strategy;  and US-Canada Agreements.
41 United States. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).  Conserving America's Wetlands. Implementing the
President's Goal. Washington, D.C., Coastal America, 2005. www.coastalamerica.gov


                                       EPM - 246

-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
                   EPM - 247

-------
                                                                  Beach / Fish Programs
                                            Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
                                                               Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                        Objective(s): Protect Human Health
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$3,723.7
$3,723.7
9.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$3,156.0
$3,156.0
7.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,653.9
$2,653.9
7.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($502.1)
($502.1)
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program supports the Agency's  efforts to protect people from contaminated  recreational
waters and contaminated fish and shellfish.  Recreational waters, especially beaches in coastal
areas and  the  Great Lakes,  provide  recreational  opportunities for  millions  of  Americans.
However, swimming in some recreational waters, or eating locally caught fish or shellfish, can
pose a risk of illness as a result of exposure to microbial pathogens or other pollutants.
Fish & Shellfish Programs
The Fish  and Shellfish Programs  provide  sound science, guidance, technical assistance, and
nationwide information to  state,  Tribal,  and  Federal  agencies  on the  human health  risks
associated with eating locally caught fish/shellfish with excessive levels of contaminants.  The
Agency pursues the following activities to support this program: 1) publishing criteria guidance
that states and tribes can use to adopt health-based water quality standards, assess their waters,
and establish permit limits;  2)  developing  and disseminating sound scientific risk assessment
methodologies and guidance that states  and tribes can use to sample, analyze, and assess fish
tissue in support of waterbody-specific or regional consumption advisories, or a determination
that no  consumption advice  is necessary; 3) developing  and disseminating guidance that states
and tribes can use to communicate the risks of consuming chemically contaminated fish; and 4)
gathering, analyzing, and disseminating  information to the public and health professionals that
enable informed decisions on when and where to fish, and how to prepare fish caught for
recreation and subsistence.

Mercury contamination in fish and shellfish is a special concern and the EPA and the FDA have
issued a joint advisory concerning  eating fish and shellfish.  Mercury contamination offish and
shellfish occurs locally as well as in ocean-caught fish and at higher levels causes adverse health
effects,  especially in children and infants.

Beaches Program

The Beaches Program protects  human health by reducing exposure to contaminated recreation
waters.  Agency activities include:  1) issuing guidance to improve beach monitoring and public
                                       EPM - 248

-------
notification programs, including effective strategies to communicate public health risks to the
public; 2) developing and disseminating sound scientific risk assessment methods and criteria for
use in evaluating recreational water  quality, prioritizing beach waters for monitoring, and
warning beach users of health risks or closure  of beaches; 3) promulgating Federal water quality
standards where a state or tribe fails to adopt  appropriate standards to protect coastal and  Great
Lakes recreation waters; and 4) providing publicly accessible Internet-based information  about
local  beach  conditions  and  closures.   (See  http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ for  more
information.)

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will:
Fish/Shellfish Programs:

    •   Continue to  work with the Food and Drug Administration  (FDA)  and public  health
       agencies to develop and distribute outreach materials related to the joint guidance issued
       by  the EPA and the FDA for mercury in fish  and shellfish and assess the public's
       understanding of the guidance;

    •   Continue to work with the FDA to investigate the extent and risks of contaminants in
       fish, including the potential need for  advisories  for  other pollutants,  and to distribute
       outreach materials;

    •   Continue to strengthen its support to states in their monitoring of mercury in fish;

    •   Continue to release the summary of information on  locally issued fish advisories and
       safe-eating guidelines. This information is provided to EPA annually by states and tribes;
       and

    •   Initiate a study to develop improved  monitoring techniques for  shellfish waters.  The
       study will  be conducted in concert with the FDA and NOAA (National Oceanic and
       Atmospheric Administration) with the  goal of developing unified methodologies across
       agencies.

Beaches Program:

    •   Work with states and tribes to implement the latest, scientifically defensible pathogen
       criteria for freshwaters; and

    •   Continue to work with coastal and Great Lakes states,  territories, and tribes to  adopt
       water quality standards that are as protective of human  health as EPA's most current
       water quality criteria for pathogens.
                                        EPM - 249

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Percent of the shellfish
growing acres
monitored by states
that are approved or
conditionally approved
for use
FY 2005
Actual


Data
unavailable


FY 2005
Target


80


FY 2006
Target


91


FY 2007
Target


91


Units


% Areas


Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
Percent of water
miles/acres, identified
by states or tribes as
having fish
consumption advisories
in 2002, where
increased consumption
offish is allowed.
FY 2005
Actual



0



FY 2005
Target



1



FY 2006
Target



1



FY 2007
Target



2



Units



%
Miles/Acres



EPA's objective of improving the percentage of water miles/acres where increased consumption
of safe fish is allowed has been difficult to achieve. Most fish consumption  advisories are
attributable to mercury and/or PCBs, both of which are bioaccumulative toxins. This means that
even after the source of the mercury or PCBs has been lessened or eliminated, the fish continue
to retain the contaminants in their systems for years afterward.  Consequently, even though EPA
has taken actions to reduce mercury air emissions, the primary cause of mercury in fish, it will
take several more years before we can reasonably expect to see the results of these actions, such
as lowered mercury levels in fish. On the other hand, we are tracking changes in recommended
meal  frequency advisories to account for instances  where advisories  are  modified  to allow
greater consumption.  This improved data  source may be  able to demonstrate incremental
progress in reducing advisories in instances where water quality has improved.

Other measures also demonstrate progress. The percentage of shellfish growing acres monitored
by states that are approved or conditionally approved for use is not expected  to change from the
current rate of 91%, which  exceeds  the 2008 goal of 85%.  EPA expects  to see a continued
increase in the percentage of beach season days that coastal and Great Lakes beaches  are open
and safe for swimming as states continue their implementation  of the BEACH Act program.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-$455.6) This reflects a reduction for the fish tissue study, which will be completed in
      2006.
                                      EPM - 250

-------
   •   (-$46.5)  This decrease is  the net effect  of increases for payroll and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

Statutory Authority:

CWA; BEACH Act of 2000.
                                       EPM-251

-------
                                                               Drinking Water Programs
                                             Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
                                                               Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                        Objective(s): Protect Human Health
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$94,559.1
$3,326.0
$97,885.1
582.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$95,656.0
$3,092.0
$98,748.0
588.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$99,121.0
$3,243.1
$102,364.1
583.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$3,465.0
$151.1
$3,616.1
-4.7
Program Project Description:

This program is based on the multiple-barrier approach to protecting public health from unsafe
drinking water.  Under  this  approach, EPA  protects public health through:  source  water
assessment and protection programs; promulgation of new or revised, scientifically sound and
risk-based  National  Primary  Drinking  Water Regulations  (NPDWRs); training, technical
assistance,  and financial  assistance  programs  to enhance systems' capacity  to  comply with
existing and new regulations; and the national implementation of NPDWRs by state and tribal
drinking water  programs through  regulatory,  non-regulatory,  and  voluntary programs and
policies  to ensure   safe drinking  water.    (See  http://www.epa.gov/safewater/  for  more
information.)

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Safe drinking water and clean  surface waters are critical to protecting human health.  Over 260
million Americans rely on the  safety of tap water provided by water systems that  are subject to
national drinking water standards.42  In support of the 2008 goal that 95 percent of the population
served by community water systems  will receive drinking water that meets all of the health-
based  standards,  EPA will  continue  in FY 2007 to protect  sources  of  drinking water from
contamination;  develop new and revise existing drinking water standards;  support states, tribes,
and water systems in implementing standards; and promote sustainable management of drinking
water infrastructure.  Due to these efforts, by the end of FY 2007, the Agency will have ensured
that 94 percent of the population served by community water systems, and 93 percent of the
population served by  community water systems in Indian country,  receive drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based standards.

Drinking Water Standards:

In FY 2007, EPA will:
42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED),
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html
                                       EPM - 252

-------
   •  Continue to support efforts related to the drinking water regulatory framework including:
      the development of the 3rd Contaminant Candidate List (CCL); completion of regulatory
      determinations for the 2nd CCL; and  on-going review of existing  National  Primary
      Drinking Water Rules (NPDWRs);

   •  Promulgate short term changes to the Lead and Copper Rule, based on the comprehensive
      review conducted in 2004-2005;

   •  Begin to develop revisions  to  the  Total  Coliform Rule  (TCR) in  coordination with
      stakeholders and  in consideration  of the upcoming National Academy of Science's
      recommendations;

   •  Collect data and  develop  methodologies  to  inform future risk management strategies
      including  the  collection  of occurrence  data  under  the Unregulated  Contaminant
      Monitoring Rule and the  development of analytical  methods for evaluating emerging
      contaminants;

   •  Continue to collaborate with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other
      EPA programs to determine public health protection effects of risk management strategies
      for drinking water contamination, including waterborne diseases; and

   •  Develop a final rule on drinking water provided by interstate carriers (airplanes).

Drinking Water Implementation:

In  FY   2007, the  Agency  will  implement   requirements  for  the  newly  promulgated
Cryptosporidium  (Long Term  2  Enhanced Surface  Water  Treatment  Rule  or  "LT2"),
Disinfection (Stage 2 Disinfectants and  Disinfection Byproducts Rule or "Stage 2"), and Ground
Water Rules.  EPA will also assist states in implementing public health requirements for high-
priority  drinking  water contaminants  including  the arsenic  standard.   In order to facilitate
compliance with these new rules, as well as existing rules, EPA will:

   •  Continue to provide guidance, training, and technical assistance on the  implementation of
      drinking water regulations to states,  tribes, and utilities.   EPA plans face to face  and
      webcast training sessions on LT2/Stage 2  in 2007, plus training on the Ground  Water
      Rule.   EPA will  also continue its  monthly webcast training on existing   rules  and
      activities;

   •  Work directly with systems to ensure that  they submit Initial  Distribution System
      Evaluation (IDSE) plans for Stage  2 in  states  that  are not doing early LT2/Stage  2
      implementation (subset of a universe of over 4,000 systems);

   •  Develop new, easily  accessible tools to assist states and  water systems, including an
      interactive learning CD for Total Coliform Rule (the rule with the most violations);
                                       EPM - 253

-------
   •  Ensure on-site reviews  of the operation,  condition, and  management of public water
      systems as required by regulations;
   •  Provide technical, managerial, and financial assistance to small systems to improve their
      capacity to consistently meet regulatory requirements, enhance performance, and reduce
      costs;

   •  Promote consumer awareness of the safety  of drinking water supplies through training for
      states and systems on the Consumer Confidence Report Rule and work with the National
      Drinking Water Advisory Council to improve the readability and content of the  public
      education language required under the Lead and Copper Rule;

   •  Develop risk communication guidance to support states and water systems;

   •  Focus on training and assistance on  the  use of cost-effective  treatment technologies,
      proper  waste disposal,  and compliance with high priority contaminant requirements,
      including monitoring under the arsenic rule and rules controlling microbial pathogens and
      disinfection byproducts;

   •  Continue to  work with  states to improve  data completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and
      consistency through: training on data entry,  error correction, and regulatory reporting;
      conducting data verifications  and  analyses;  and  implementing  quality  assurance and
      quality control procedures to identify missing, incomplete, or conflicting data under the
      data reliability action  plan.  In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Information System
      (SDWIS) will support the new national repository for data on the underground injection
      control program as well as drinking water data related to interstate carriers (airplanes).

Sustainable Infrastructure:

EPA  provides affordable, flexible financial  assistance through  the  Drinking Water  State
Revolving Fund.  To help states and municipalities address their drinking water infrastructure
needs, the Agency will:

    •   Continue to implement its sustainable infrastructure initiative in partnership with drinking
       water utilities. EPA and its partners will identify  leaders in the utility  industry who have
       established best practices  in asset management, innovations, efficiency, and who  are
       interested in employing watershed-based approaches to managing water resources; and

    •   Work  closely with states, utilities,  and  other  stakeholders to  develop  a  strategy  to
       facilitate the voluntary adoption of these best practices.

The Partnership  for  Safe Water - a voluntary activity by  which primarily  large systems
implement effective practices aimed at mitigating microbes and pathogens in drinking water -
will serve as a model for this initiative.

Source Water Protection:
                                        EPM - 254

-------
EPA will continue to support state and local efforts to protect source waters by identifying and
addressing significant sources of contamination.  These efforts could be an integral part of the
utility efforts in the sustainable infrastructure leadership initiative.  With assistance from many
Federal  programs,  states will be working  with community  water systems to identify  and
implement voluntary measures  to prevent,  reduce,  or eliminate threats  of contamination to
sources of drinking water. In FY 2007, the Agency will:

    •   Work with national, state, and local stakeholder organizations and other Federal agencies
       to manage significant sources of contamination identified in the source water assessments
       through broad-based  efforts  and  establish  a sustainable infrastructure for prevention
       activities at the state and local levels;

    •   Continue to support  source water protection efforts by: providing  training,  technical
       assistance, and technology transfer capabilities to states and localities; and facilitating the
       adoption of Geographic Information  System (GIS) databases to support local  decision-
       making;

    •   Work with states and tribes to educate and assist operators of all classes of underground
       injection control wells; collaborate with industry and stakeholders to collect and evaluate
       data on high priority endangering shallow injection wells; and explore the best approach
       to managing these shallow wells and for otherwise protecting underground sources of
       drinking water; and

    •   Focus on how to manage potential new waste streams that will use underground injection,
       including residual waste  from desalination and other drinking water treatment processes
       and carbon capture and storage.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type




Outcome



Measure
Percent population
served by community
water systems in
compliance with
health-based drinking
water standards.*
*This measure is a
long-term PART
measure for the
Drinking Water
programs under the
STAG appropriation.
This program is
scheduled for an initial
PART review in FY
2006.
FY 2005
Actual




88.5



FY 2005
Target




93



FY 2006
Target




93



FY 2007
Target




94



Units




% population



                                        EPM - 255

-------
   The vast majority of the nation's community water systems will provide drinking water that
   meets all health-based standards, progress in line with EPA's 2008 target of 95%.

   EPA continues to work to achieve this target and to accurately reflect the many public health
   benefits, such as reducing acute illnesses linked to microbiological contaminants or longer-
   term health problems related to exposure from contaminants, that are achieved through safe
   drinking water.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$2,044.6)  To advance implementation  of drinking water standards to protect human
       health by  increasing  implementation support for new rules (Long Term 2 Enhanced
       Surface Water Treatment Rule, Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule,
       and Ground Water Rule) and for increased scientific and technical analyses to  support
       development of the Total Coliform Rule revisions.

   •   (+$15.0) This increase will  be used in EPA's Region 10 to support local environmental
       activities  in  Alaska,  such  as permitting  and compliance monitoring of Underground
       Injection wells.

   •   (+$1,405.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (-4.7 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

SOW A; CWA.
                                       EPM - 256

-------
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
                EPM - 257

-------
                                                                       Marine Pollution
                                                   Program Area: Water Quality Protection
                                                              Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                        Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$13,114.0
$13,114.0
47.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$12,212.0
$12,212.0
43.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,462.4
$12,462.4
43.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$250.4
$250.4
-0.2
Program Project Description:

   The goals of the marine pollution programs are to ensure marine ecosystem protection
   through adequate controls on point-source and vessel discharges, and management of ocean
   dumping and other sources of pollution, such as marine debris and invasive species/harmful
   algal blooms.  Major areas of effort include:

   •   Establishing water quality controls for point source dischargers;
   •   Developing and implementing regulations and technical guidance to  control  pollutants
       from vessels and issuing permits for materials to be dumped in ocean waters;
   •   Designating,  monitoring,  and  managing  ocean  dumping  sites  and  implementing
       provisions of the National Dredging Policy and the Plan for Dredging NY/NJ Harbor;
   •   Establishing and conducting beach monitoring for marine debris and promoting public
       awareness of causes, effects, and controls for marine debris through public  education
       programs;
   •   Monitoring and assessment of coastal and ocean waters including assessment of potential
       impacts on water quality at ocean dumping sites and wastewater outfalls, and monitoring
       other areas such as the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico; and
   •   Working with a wide variety  of stakeholders  to  develop, provide, and implement
       watershed management  tools, strategies  and plans  for coastal ecosystems,  including
       dredged material management plans for coastal ports, in order to restore and maintain the
       health of coastal aquatic communities on a priority basis.  For more information, visit
       http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/index.html.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Coastal and ocean waters are environmentally and  economically  valuable to the Nation.  To
protect and improve water quality  on a watershed basis, EPA will focus its work with states,
Tribes, interstate agencies, and others on improving the quality of our valuable ocean  resources.
The health of ocean and coastal waters and progress in meeting the strategic targets will be
tracked through periodic issuance of a National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR), a cooperative
project with other Federal agencies. The next NCCR will be issued in 2007.
                                       EPM - 258

-------
In 2007, the OSV Bold, EPA's ocean research vessel, will support monitoring and assessment
needs in EPA coastal Regions and coastal states, and will service the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of
Mexico. It will work on the Pacific Coast over the next several years.  The OSV Bold is also
expected to support the  following  types of activities: collection  of environmental  data from
several  offshore areas for use in their designation of dredged material disposal sites (such as in
Long Island  Sound); periodic  environmental monitoring of 10-20 of the  79 existing ocean
disposal sites; the monitoring of 5 to 10 offshore waste disposal sites or wastewater outfalls;  and
monitoring of significantly impacted or important coastal waters  such  as the Gulf of Mexico
hypoxic zone and Florida coral reefs.
                             Key marine pollution program efforts in 2007 focus on  ocean
Performance Assessment: The   ^  ^^ waterg and arฃ ^^ to imprOving these waters.
Oceans  and  Coastal Program                                           r     ฐ
                             EPA's efforts will  focus on enhancing regulation of pollutant
                             discharges from  vessels.   If  appropriate,  EPA  will  propose
                             wastewater  discharge  standards  for  cruise ships operating in
                             Alaskan waters; and cooperate  with the Department of Defense
                             (DOD) to develop discharge standards for all Armed Forces (i.e.,
                             DoD and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)) vessels.  EPA will manage
                             the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
                             Ocean Dumping Program (including dredged material).
underwent the PART for the first
time in FY 2005 and received a
rating of adequate.   The purpose
of the program is to integrate the
control  of water pollution from
land-base sources and vessels to
improve the  overall health of
ocean  and coastal ecosystems.
The     program     provided
performance measures, including
one long-term, three annual, and   ^ co_chair Qf ^ National  Dredging Team (NDT)  EPA will
one efficiency measures.              .       .                    ,   .     , ,T_;_ .   .    .     ,
                             continue to implement the recently issued NDT Action Agenda
for the Next Decade.  Efforts will continue to target invasive species in coastal areas, including:
prevention,  education and  outreach, early  detection  and rapid response, monitoring, applied
research, and leadership and coordination. Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
the  USCG, the Agency will  assist in its efforts to develop ballast water discharge standards,
specifically developing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  EPA will also work with the
USCG  regarding the International Ballast  Water Standards  Convention  under International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).

EPA will implement the Best Management Practices Guidance for Clean-up of Vessels Proposed
for  Use as Artificial Reefs.  The Navy/Maritime Administration (MARAD) anticipates  many
more vessels are needed to become artificial  reefs and will need to follow the Guidance. EPA's
role will be to  participate in the clean-up  plans for each  vessel and inspection.   EPA also
contributes to the health of coral reefs by participating on the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, and
assisting in the development of biological assessment  methods and biological criteria for use in
evaluating coral reef health  and associated water quality.  Additionally, the  OSV Bold will
continue to support water quality monitoring efforts  in the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and support monitoring efforts in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

EPA will  continue to support international marine pollution control.  The Agency will ensure
that U.S. policy  and procedures are consistent with the London Convention of 1972 (i.e.,  ocean
dumping treaty)  and its 1996 protocol; and chair the Scientific Group of the London Convention.
One current issue being  addressed is sequestration of CO2  in the sub-seabed.  EPA will also
                                       EPM - 259

-------
actively participate in meetings of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of MARPOL
to develop US-friendly, international standards and guidance within the MARPOL Convention.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
National Coastal
Condition Report
(NCCR) score for
overall aquatic
ecosystem health of
coastal waters
nationally (1-5 scale).
FY 2005
Actual

2.70


FY 2005
Target

2.7


FY 2006
Target

2.7


FY 2007
Target

2.8


Units

Scale score


The NCCR is the first statistically-significant measure of U.S. water quality on a national scale
and it provides a "snapshot" of the ecological health of coastal  ecosystems at a national and
regional scale.  The NCCR is based on data gathered by various Federal, state, and local sources
using a probability design that allows extrapolation to represent all coastal waters of a state,
region, and the entire US.  The NCCR ratings or scores are based on an evaluation of a number
of indicators of coastal condition in each region of the country, including water quality, coastal
habitat loss, and fish tissue contaminants. The information on coastal  ecological  condition
generated by the NCCR can be used by resource managers to target water quality actions wisely,
and effectively manage those actions to maximize benefits.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   ($328.1) Increase will support monitoring and assessment of ocean and coastal waters,
       including determining ecosystem impacts on water quality at ocean dumping sites, and
       monitoring other areas such as the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

   •   (-$77.7) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living increases
       for existing FTE,  combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
       costs.

   •   (-0.2 FTE)   This decrease reflects  a change in EPA's workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations Act (PL 106-554); Clean Vessel Act; CWA; CZARA of
1990; FIFRA; MPPRCA of 1987; MPRSA; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004, Section 3516; NEPA, Section  102; NTS A of 1996; NAFTA; Ocean Dumping Ban  Act of
1988; OAPCA;  PPA; RCRA;  SOW A;  Shore Protection  Act of 1988; TSCA;  WRDA; and
WWWQAof2000.
                                      EPM - 260

-------
                                                                 Surface Water Protection
                                                    Program Area: Water Quality Protection
                                                                Goal: Clean and Safe Water
     Objective(s): Protect Human Health; Protect Water Quality; Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$186,745.5
$186,745.5
1,110.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$189,212.0
$189,212.0
1,115.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$191,587.2
$191,587.2
1,103.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,375.2
$2,375.2
-12.3
Program Project Description:

The EPA Surface  Water Protection Program,  under the Clean  Water Act (CWA),  directly
supports efforts to  protect, improve and restore the quality of rivers, lakes,  and streams. EPA
works with  states to make  continued progress toward the clean water goals identified in the
Strategic Plan by implementing core  clean water  programs,  including innovations that apply
programs on a watershed basis, and accelerating efforts to improve water quality on a watershed
basis.

EPA  works with states, interstate  agencies, tribes  and others in key  areas, including: water
quality  criteria and standards, effluent guidelines,  cooling water intake regulations, analytical
methods,  water  quality assessment and  monitoring, national  water quality  data  systems,
watershed management planning,  Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), nonpoint pollutant sources, and effectively managing
infrastructure assistance programs.  EPA  is also responsible for producing the Clean Water
Needs Survey,  and management  and  oversight of the  Clean Water State Revolving  Fund
(CWSRF).
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

This program  enables  states to implement
key  CWA programs that will restore  and
improve the  quality of rivers, lakes  and
streams  which  will  allow the Agency to
achieve  the  long-term  national  goal  of
restoring  the  quality  of  25  percent  of
impaired waters by  2012.   Water Quality
criteria and standards provide  the  scientific
Performance Assessment:  In FY 2005, the Surface
Water Protection Program underwent the PART for
the first time and received a rating of adequate.  This
program is  the  primary  tool  for  restoring and
maintaining  water quality.   The  program  tracks
progress and results through one long-term, outcome
performance  measure, five annual measures, and one
efficiency measure in the PART spreadsheet measure
tab.
and regulatory foundation for water  quality
protection programs under the CWA.  The standards are used to define what waters are clean and
what waters are impaired, thereby, serving as benchmarks for decisions about allowable pollutant
loadings into waterways. (For more information see http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/)
                                        EPM-261

-------
In FY 2007, EPA will continue to implement the Strategy for Water Quality Standards and
Criteria, developed in cooperation with states. The water quality criteria and standards program
will focus on directly supporting regional offices,  states and tribes to: continue to develop and
adopt ambient water quality criteria for chemical pollutants, pathogens, and nutrients; continue to
act on water quality standards submissions in a timely fashion; establish the highest attainable
uses in water quality standards; and strengthen the  scientific foundation on which to manage the
water quality standards program. EPA will work with our state and local partners to implement a
standardized approach  to help identify sources of contamination at Great Lakes beaches. EPA
will work with our state and Tribal partners to help them develop standards that are "approvable"
under the Act, including providing advance guidance and technical assistance where appropriate
before the standards are formally  submitted to EPA. EPA expects that 85% of state and Tribal
submissions will be approved in 2007.

In FY 2007, EPA will  continue the water quality monitoring initiative that began in 2005, and
will provide $7,120,700 for probability-based, statistically-valid assessments.  EPA will provide
technical support to states and other partners participating in a national statistically-valid survey
of lakes.  EPA  will support states in the implementation of their comprehensive monitoring
strategies, including development of efficient scientifically-valid tools to assist states and tribes
in monitoring and assessment of their waters.  EPA will also partner with states to implement the
water quality exchange (WQX) data management system that will leverage Federal enterprise
architecture tools to facilitate sharing and use of monitoring data collected by states, tribes, EPA
and other Federal agencies  and the public.   Together these efforts  will provide the data and
information needed to  help ensure CWA program effectiveness  and  sound management of the
nation's waters.

In 2007, EPA will  continue working with  states, interstate agencies,  and tribes to foster  a
watershed approach as  the guiding principle of clean  water programs.    In watersheds where
water quality standards are  not attained, states will be developing TMDLs,  a critical tool for
meeting water restoration goals. Watershed plans  and  TMDLs will focus pollution control and
restoration efforts for impaired waters on a range  of pollutant sources, including point sources
and nonpoint sources.  The states and EPA have made significant progress in the development
and approval of  TMDLs (cumulatively over 18,000 completed through FY 2005) and expect to
maintain the current pace of more than 3,000 TMDLs per year.

Protection and restoration of water quality on a watershed basis through state watershed plans
require a careful assessment of the sources of pollution, their  location and setting within the
watershed, their  relative  influence on water quality,  and their  amenability to preventive  or
control methods.  The national nonpoint source program is also a key program for addressing the
nation's remaining water quality problems.  In FY 2007 EPA will provide program  leadership
and technical support in the following key areas:

•  Creating, supporting, and promoting technical  tools that are  needed by states to  accurately
   assess water quality  problems,  sources,  and  causes; analyzing potential  solutions; and
   implementing those solutions;

•  Implementing a new web-based tool to support watershed planning;
                                       EPM - 262

-------
•  Conducting sanitary surveys to better protect Great Lakes Beaches;

•  Enhancing accountability for results in improving water quality by beginning implementation
   of a new (to be completed in FY 2006) Oracle-based Grants Reporting and Tracking System
   (GRTS)  tracking system for the Nonpoint Source (Section 319) grants program.   The
   tracking  system will track all 319-funded watershed projects and pollutant load reductions
   achieved by each project, as well as enhance EPA's ability to track successful remediation of
   impaired waters and relate this information to other data management systems;

•  Focusing on  the  development and dissemination  of tools to  promote  Low Impact
   Development (LID), thereby preventing new nonpoint sources of pollution; and

•  Continuing coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to  ensure that Federal
   resources,  including grants  under  Section  319 and Farm Bill  funds,  are managed in a
   coordinated way to maximize water quality  improvement in impaired waters and protection
   in all others.

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to implement and support the core water quality programs that
control point source discharges.   The NPDES program requires point source dischargers to be
permitted  and requires pretreatment programs to control discharges from  industrial  and other
facilities to the Nation's wastewater treatment  plants.  This program provides a management
framework for the protection of the Nation's waters through the prevention of discharges  of
billions of pounds of pollutants.  In 2007 EPA will focus on several key strategic objectives for
the NPDES and effluent guideline programs:

•  Use the results of the "Permitting for Environmental Results Strategy" to ensure the quality
   of the NPDES program and focus limited resources on priority permits that have the greatest
   benefit for water quality;

•  Implement wet weather point source control programs, including the storm water program;

•  Implement the permit program for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO);

•  Advance program innovations, such as watershed permitting and trading;

•  Implement strategies to improve management of pretreatment programs;

•  Issue a preliminary plan that describes the CWA-mandated biannual review of industrial
   categories without effluent guidelines  to determine if changes are warranted; and

•  Take final action on effluent regulations for discharges from Drinking Water Treatment and
   Supply facilities from Airport Deicing Operations and from Vinyl Chloride manufacturing.
New CAFO rules were developed in 2003, and revisions will be finalized in 2006 in response to
the 2nd Circuit Court ruling. EPA will work with states and tribes to implement the final rule to
assure that CAFOs that discharge are  covered by NPDES permits, and that smaller  animal
                                      EPM - 263

-------
feeding operations have the tools and information needed to prevent discharges.  In addition,
EPA expects that  100% of NPDES programs will have current Phase I and II  storm water
permits including  industrial general permits,  construction  general permits, and  municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) general and individual permits. EPA will work with NPDES
authorities to ensure that 90% of all permits and 95% of priority permits are current.

The Agency will continue to work with its partners to facilitate the voluntary adoption of best
management practices in wastewater asset management, innovations,  and efficiency with the
long-term goal of sustainable wastewater utilities that are able to maximize the value  of clean
water by improving system performance at the lowest possible cost.  Water use efforts include
the water-efficiency market enhancement program, which will give consumers a reference tool to
identify and select water-efficient products.  The market enhancement program was launched in
2006 with the recognition of irrigation training programs that can improve water-efficiency in
landscape irrigation, and pilot programs focusing on residential bathroom retrofits in two cities.
Specifications  are  currently in development for water-efficient toilets, faucets, and irrigation
controllers. Concurrently, criteria for water-efficient new homes are being developed to serve as
a benchmark and spur water-efficiency in construction of new homes. The intent of the  program
is to reduce national water and wastewater infrastructure needs  by reducing  projected water
demand and wastewater flows allowing deferral or downsizing of capital projects.

The CWSRFs (see the CWSRF program/project description) provide low interest loans to help
finance wastewater treatment facilities and other water quality projects.  Policy and oversight of
the fund is  supported by this program.  In managing this program, EPA continues to work with
states to meet several key objectives:

•  Funding projects designed as part of an integrated watershed approach;

•  Link projects to environmental results through the use  of water quality  and public health
   data;

•  Maintaining the excellent fiduciary condition of the funds; and

•  Continuing to support states efforts in developing integrated priority lists to address nonpoint
   source pollution and  estuary protection and wastewater projects.

The Agency will continue the work needed for completion of the 2008 Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey.  In FY 2007, this work will include final testing and deployment  of an upgraded web
data entry system, and integration of clean watershed needs survey database elements with other
agency databases.  The Agency also will provide oversight and support  for the  nearly 3100
congress!onally mandated projects related to water  and wastewater infrastructure as well as
management and oversight of grant programs, such as the Section 106 grants, the U.S-Mexico
Border, and Alaska Native Village programs.
                                       EPM - 264

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
Annual percentage of
waterbody segments
identified by States in
2000 as not attaining
standards, where water
quality standards are
now fully attained
(cumulative).
FY 2005
Actual



8



FY 2005
Target



2



FY 2006
Target



5



FY 2007
Target



9



Units



%
Miles/Acres



A key performance measure for the Surface Water Protection program is the percentage of water
body segments, identified by States in 2000 as not attaining standards,  where water quality
standards are now attained.  EPA will work with state partners to develop  and implement plans
to meet our goal of 9% of these waters attaining standards.  Reaching this outcome is dependent
on coordinated efforts to monitor and assess the  status and trends  of water quality and on
continuing EPA and  state work to  implement core Clean Water Act programs.  EPA  will
continue to work with states to reach our goals for development of TMDLs on a pace consistent
with national guidance, timely reissuance of high-priority NPDES permits, approval of new or
revised water  quality  standards,  and  increasing  the  percentage  of waters assessed using
statistically valid surveys.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$2,060.0) This reduces EPA and state CWA activities to restore and improve the quality
       of the Nation's rivers, lakes, and  streams on a  watershed  basis to fund other  higher
       priority activities.

   •   (+$105.0) This increase will be used by EPA's Region  10 to  support local environmental
       activities in Alaska, such as reviewing state water quality standards, NPDES permitting
       activities, and acting as a consultant on Endangered Species assessments.

   •   (+$200.0)   This  increase provides  payroll  for EPA's  Region  10  to  support local
       environmental  activities in Alaska, such as providing  technical assistance to states on
       developing water quality standards, NPDES permitting activities and Endangered Species
       activities.

   •   (+2.0 FTE) This  increase FTE for EPA's  Region 10 to support local environmental
       activities in Alaska, such as providing technical assistance to states in developing water
       quality  standards, NPDES permitting activities and Endangered Species activities.

   •   (+$4,130.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (-14.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
                                      EPM - 265

-------
Statutory Authority:




CWA.
                                     EPM - 266

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency

           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                      Environmental Program and Management

Acquisition Management	2, 5,175,176
Administrative Law	2, 5,153
Air Toxics	1, 2, 7, 8,12,15,19, 22, 25, 27, 30, 55
Air Toxics and Quality	1, 2, 8,12,15,19, 22, 25, 27, 30
Alternative Dispute Resolution	2, 5,155,156
Beach /Fish Programs	3, 6, 248
Brownfields	1, 2, 32, 33, 85
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	2, 5,177
Chesapeake Bay	69, 70, 71
Children and Other Sensitive Populations
  Agency Coordination	2, 4,108
Civil Enforcement	1, 2, 42, 44, 46, 47, 49, 52, 55, 56, 58, 62, 64, 67,139
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance	2, 5,157
Clean Air. 1, 8, 9,10,12,15,17,19, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 36, 55, 94,102,104,123,125,126,137,
  172
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs	1, 8, 9
Clean Diesel Initiative	1
Clean Water	50, 52, 55, 67, 69, 76, 82, 84, 85,138, 240, 243, 244, 245, 246, 261, 264, 265
Climate Protection Program	1, 2, 35, 36, 39
Commission for Environmental Cooperation	2, 4,133,144
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)	3, 85, 86
Compliance. 1, 2, 33, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66,
  94, 111, 114,115,119,129,134,137,139,148,157,166,172, 209, 228, 234
Compliance Assistance and Centers	1, 2, 42,139
Compliance Incentives	1, 2, 42, 44, 46, 47, 49, 52, 55, 56
Compliance Monitoring	1, 2, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 55, 56
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations	2, 4, 111
Congressionally Mandated Projects	3
Corrective Action	202,203
Criminal Enforcement	1, 2, 58, 59
Decontamination	3
Drinking Water	3, 6,118,128,151, 223, 252, 253, 254, 255, 263
Drinking Water Programs	3, 6, 252
Endocrine Disrupter	3, 6, 223
Endocrine Disrupters	3, 6, 223
Energy Policy Act Implementation	1, 2
Energy Star	2, 36, 39,180
Enforcement	1, 2, 3, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 111, 139
Enforcement Training	1, 3, 44, 47, 52, 56, 58, 61, 62
Environment and Trade	2, 4,135
                                    EPM - 267

-------
Environmental Education	4,109,114,124
Environmental Information 92, 99, 111, 114,116,122,146,148,153,155,157,160,162,164,
  170,172,175,177,179,182,184
Environmental Justice	1, 3, 56, 63, 64, 66
Environmental Protection / Congressional Priorities	3
Exchange Network	2, 4,116,117,127,128,146,148,149,150,151
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	2, 5,179
Federal Stationary Source Regulations	1,12
Federal Support for Air Quality Management	1,10,15
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program	1, 2,19
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management	2, 5,182
Geographic Program
  Chesapeake Bay	1, 3, 69
  Great Lakes	1, 3, 73
  Gulf of Mexico	1, 3, 77
  Lake Champlain	1, 3, 80
  Long Island Sound	1, 3, 82
  Other	1,3,85
  Puget Sound	3
Geographic Programs	1, 3, 68, 69, 73, 77, 80, 82, 85, 89
Great Lakes	3, 6, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 84, 238, 239, 240, 243, 246, 248, 249, 250, 262, 263
Great Lakes Legacy Act	3, 6, 76, 238, 239, 240
Gulf of Mexico	77, 78, 89, 242, 258, 259, 260
Homeland Security.. 1, 3, 4, 25, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99,125,146,180,181, 207, 220, 221
  Communication and Information	1, 3, 92
  Critical Infrastructure Protection	1, 3, 94
  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	1, 3, 4, 97
  Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	1, 4, 99
Human Resources Management	2, 5,184
Indoor Air	1, 4,101,102,103,104,105,137
  Radon Program	1, 4,102
Information Exchange / Outreach	2, 4,107,108, 111, 116,119,122,125,127,129
Information Security	2, 4, 92,117,118,128,146,147,150,151
Infrastructure Assistance	142
International Capacity Building	2, 4, 39, 44, 57,100,137,139
International Programs	2, 4,132,133,135,137,140,142
IT / Data Management	2, 4,145,146,148
IT / Data Management / Security	2, 4,145,146,148
Laboratory Preparedness and Response	3
Lake Champlain	76, 80, 81, 84, 240, 243, 246
Lead	12, 96,112, 225, 226, 227, 253, 254
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review2, 4, 5,152,153,155,157,160,162,164,166,
  170,172
Legal Advice
  Environmental Program	2, 5,160
  Support Program	2, 5,162
                                    EPM - 268

-------
Long Island Sound	82, 83, 242, 259
LUST / UST	3, 6, 234
Marine Pollution	3, 6, 258
Methane to Markets	2, 36, 39
Mexico Border	96,142,144, 264
NAAQS	12,15
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways	3, 6, 241
NEPA  Implementation	1, 3, 66
Oil	42, 55, 93, 98,148,179
Operations and Administration	2, 5,174,175,177,179,182,184
Pesticides
  Field Programs	2, 5,188
  Registration of New Pesticides	2, 5,192
  Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides	2, 5,195
Pesticides Licensing	2, 5,187,188,192,195,199
Pollution Prevention	3, 6, 40, 66, 67, 98,119,128,166, 200, 209, 228, 231
Pollution Prevention Program	3, 6, 228, 231
POPs Implementation	2,4,140
Puerto Rico	259
Puget Sound	88
Radiation
  Protection	1,2,22
  Response Preparedness	1, 2, 25
Radon	103
RCRA
  Corrective Action	2, 5, 202
  Waste Management	2, 5, 205
  Waste Minimization & Recycling	2, 5, 209
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air	1, 4,104
Regional Geographic Initiatives	1, 3, 89
Regional Science and Technology	2, 5,164
Regulatory Innovation	2, 5,166
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis	2, 5,170
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)	2, 5, 55, 201, 202, 204, 205, 208, 209
Science Advisory Board	2, 5, 23,172
Science Policy and Biotechnology	2, 5,199, 200
Small Business Ombudsman	2, 4,119,120
Small Minority Business Assistance	2, 4,122,123
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness	2, 4,125
State Innovation  Grant Program	166
Stratospheric Ozone
  Domestic Programs	1, 2, 27
  Multilateral Fund	1,2,30
Surface Water Protection	3, 6, 261, 265
Toxic Substances
  Chemical Risk Management	2, 5, 215
                                    EPM - 269

-------
  Chemical Risk Review and Reduction	2, 5, 218
  Lead Risk Reduction Program	3, 6, 225
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention	2, 5, 6, 214, 215, 218, 223, 225, 228
TRI / Right to Know	2, 4,127
Tribal - Capacity Building	2, 4,129
Tribal General Assistance Program	129
Underground Storage Tanks	3, 6, 42, 43, 44, 50, 52,148,175,177,179,184, 233, 234, 236
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /UST)	3, 6, 233, 234
US Mexico Border	2, 4,142
Waste Management	205, 206, 207
Water
  Ecosystems	6, 238, 241, 244
  Human Health Protection	3, 6, 247, 248, 252
Water Quality	3, 6, 69, 73, 83, 85, 86,137, 238, 257, 258, 261, 262
Water Quality Monitoring	6, 83
Water Quality Protection	3, 6, 85, 86, 257, 258, 261
Wetlands	3, 6, 76, 81, 84, 85, 240, 243, 244, 245, 246
Wetlands Program Development	245
                                    EPM - 270

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Superfund

Resource Summary Table	1
Program Projects in Superfund	1
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality	5
   Radiation: Protection	6
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations	7
   Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations	8
Program Area: Compliance	10
   Compliance Assistance and Centers	11
   Compliance Incentives	13
   Compliance Monitoring	15
Program Area: Enforcement	18
   Civil Enforcement	19
   Criminal Enforcement	21
   Enforcement Training	22
   Environmental Justice	25
   Forensics Support	27
   Superfund: Enforcement	29
   Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement	33
Program Area: Homeland Security	35
   Homeland Security: Communication and Information	36
   Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection	38
   Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	40
   Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	43
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach	45
   Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations	46
   Exchange Network	48
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security	51
   Information Security	52
   IT / Data Management	54
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review	57
   Alternative Dispute Resolution	58
   Legal Advice: Environmental Program	60
Program Area: Operations and Administration	62
   Financial  Assistance Grants / IAG Management	63
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	65
   Acquisition Management	68
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:	68
   Human Resources Management	70
   Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	72
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems	74
   Human Health Risk Assessment	75

-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection	77
   Research:  Land Protection and Restoration	78
   Research:  SITE Program	82
Program Area: Research: Sustainability	84
   Research: Sustainability	85
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup	86
   Superfund:  Emergency Response and Removal	87
   Superfund:  EPA Emergency Preparedness	90
   Superfund:  Federal Facilities	92
   Superfund:  Remedial	96
   Superfund:  Support to Other Federal Agencies	100

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                 APPROPRIATION: Hazardous Substance Superfund
                              Resource Summary Table
                                (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance Superfund
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations

$1,374,889.5
3,232.9
FY 2006
Enacted

$1,231,074.0
3,326.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$1,258,955.0
3,297.4
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

$27,881.0
-29.2
                 BILL LANGUAGE: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

For  necessary  expenses   to  carry  out  the   Comprehensive  Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections lll(c)(3),
(c)(5), (c)(6), and(e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation,
and  renovation  of facilities,  not  to  exceed $85,000  per  project;  [$1,260,621,000]
$1,258,955,000, to remain available until expended, consisting of such sums as are available in
the Trust Fund [upon the date of enactment of this Act] on September 30, 2006, as authorized by
section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and up to
[$1,260,621,000]  $1,258,955,000 as  a payment from  general  revenues  to the  Hazardous
Substance Superfund for purposes  as authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended:
Provided,  That funds  appropriated under this heading may be  allocated to  other Federal
agencies in accordance with section 111 (a)  of CERCLA: Provided further,  That  of the funds
appropriated under this heading, [$13,536,000] $13,316,000 shall be transferred to the "Office
of Inspector General" appropriation to remain available until September 30,  [2007,  and
$30,606,000]  2008,  and $27,811,000  shall  be transferred to the  "Science and Technology"
appropriation to remain available until September 30, [2007] 2008.

                            Program Projects in Superfund
                                (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Air Toxics and Quality
Radiation: Protection
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
FY 2005
Obligations

$1,969.4

$15,182.0

$0.0
FY 2006
Enacted

$2,120.0

$13,337.0

$11.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$2,323.3

$13,316.0

$22.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

$203.3

($21.0)

$11.2
                                     Superfund-1

-------
Program Project
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Environmental Justice
Forensics Support
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Subtotal, Enforcement
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Laboratory Preparedness and Response
Subtotal, Homeland Security:
Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Decontamination
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
Decontamination
Laboratory Preparedness and Response
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Information Exchange / Outreach
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
FY 2005
Obligations
$148.9
$1,452.4
$1,601.3

$625.2
$8,070.1
$897.8
$921.5
$3,599.5
$165,634.0
$8,900.3
$188,648.4


$0.0
$0.0

$0.0
$1,348.2
$1,348.2

$0.0
$0.0
$38,131.8
$38,131.8
$694.2
$40,174.2

$111.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$186.0
$955.0
$1,152.0

$796.0
$8,275.0
$581.0
$827.0
$3,643.0
$156,653.0
$9,410.0
$180,185.0


$296.0
$296.0

$197.0
$1,245.0
$1,442.0

$10,395.0
$0.0
$27,184.0
$37,579.0
$588.0
$39,905.0

$48.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$142.7
$1,144.1
$1,309.0

$883.0
$8,502.2
$621.9
$756.7
$4,184.2
$163,650.5
$10,196.9
$188,795.4


$300.0
$300.0

$198.0
$1,373.6
$1,571.6

$12,271.3
$9,500.0
$28,003.6
$49,774.9
$594.2
$52,240.7

$130.4
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($43.3)
$189.1
$157.0

$87.0
$227.2
$40.9
($70.3)
$541.2
$6,997.5
$786.9
$8,610.4


$4.0
$4.0

$1.0
$128.6
$129.6

$1,876.3
$9,500.0
$819.6
$12,195.9
$6.2
$12,335.7

$82.4
Superfund-2

-------
Program Project
Relations
Exchange Network
Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic
Review
Operations and Administration
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: SITE Program
Subtotal, Research: Land Protection
Research: Sustainability
Research: Sustainability
Superfund Cleanup
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Remedial
FY 2005
Obligations

$2,330.3
$2,442.0

$234.6
$17,734.0
$17,968.6

$980.4
$722.8
$1,703.2

$3,109.3
$65,156.8
$17,464.2
$5,250.8
$20,620.3
$111,601.4

$3,848.8

$23,322.6
$6,730.9
$30,053.5

$501.0

$197,032.3
$11,387.4
$31,063.4
$711,969.6
FY 2006
Enacted

$1,650.0
$1,698.0

$341.0
$17,053.0
$17,394.0

$975.0
$755.0
$1,730.0

$3,060.0
$69,667.0
$19,727.0
$5,665.0
$24,349.0
$122,468.0

$3,755.0

$22,927.0
$1,206.0
$24,133.0

$292.0

$193,584.0
$10,540.0
$31,336.0
$588,905.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$1,432.4
$1,562.8

$788.6
$17,120.4
$17,909.0

$887.2
$690.8
$1,578.0

$2,920.8
$73,944.7
$23,514.3
$5,270.2
$25,540.8
$131,190.8

$3,847.2

$21,963.9
$0.0
$21,963.9

$0.0

$192,398.9
$8,863.1
$31,486.6
$581,594.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

($217.6)
($135.2)

$447.6
$67.4
$515.0

($87.8)
($64.2)
($152.0)

($139.2)
$4,277.7
$3,787.3
($394.8)
$1,191.8
$8,722.8

$92.2

($963.1)
($1,206.0)
($2,169.1)

($292.0)

($1,185.1)
($1,676.9)
$150.6
($7,310.1)
Superfund-3

-------
Program Project
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies
Brownfields Projects
Subtotal, Brownfields Projects
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
FY 2005
Obligations
$5,444.0
$2,299.0
$2,299.0
$959,195.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$9,540.0
$0.0
$0.0
$833,905.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$8,575.4
$0.0
$0.0
$822,918.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($964.6)
$0.0
$0.0
($10,986.1)
Superfund-4

-------
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
               Superfund-5

-------
                                                                  Radiation: Protection
                                                     Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                               Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                                  Objective(s): Radiation
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$11,694.4
$2,552.0
$1,969.4
$16,215.8
102.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,178.0
$2,086.0
$2,120.0
$15,384.0
103.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,648.6
$2,054.3
$2,323.3
$15,026.2
96.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($529.4)
($31.7)
$203.3
($357.8)
-6.9
Program Project Description:

Through this  program,  EPA ensures that Superfund  site  clean-up  activities reduce and/or
mitigate the health and environmental risk of radiation to safe levels.  In addition, the program
makes certain that appropriate clean up technologies and methods are adopted to effectively and
efficiently reduce the health and environmental hazards associated  with  radiation  problems
encountered at the sites.  Finally, the program ensures  that appropriate technical assistance is
provided on remediation approaches for NPL (National Priority List) and non-NPL sites.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will  ensure that appropriate methods to manage  and mitigate  radioactive releases and
exposures are  available.  This support will include technical assistance for clean-up,  sampling,
and  waste management activities  at Superfund  sites  and  at the Radiation and  Indoor
Environments National Laboratory (RIENL).  EPA will  maintain an on-going fixed and mobile
capability  to provide radioanalytical and mixed waste analytical data on environmental samples
to support site  characterization and remediation activities.

Performance Targets:

EPA is  on track through its ongoing work to  meet its  2008 strategic plan goal of protecting
public health and the environment from unwanted releases of EPA regulated radioactive waste
and to minimize impacts to public health from radiation exposure.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$143.3) This increase  will provide additional funding for  analysis of mixed waste at
      Superfund sites.

    •  (+$60.0) This reflects an  increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:
CERCLA, as amended by the SARA of 1986.
                                      Superfund-6

-------
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations and Investigations
                      Superfund-7

-------
                                                 Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
                                      Program Area: Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$44,580.7
$15,182.0
$59,762.7
357.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$36,904.0
$13,337.0
$50,241.0
361.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$35,100.0
$13,316.0
$48,416.0
361.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,804.0)
($21.0)
($1,825.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA's Inspector General  (IG)  provides audit,  evaluation, investigative, public liaison,  and
advisory services that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General Act, as amended, by
promoting the economy, efficiency,  and effectiveness of Agency  operations in the Superfund
program. These  activities  add value and enhance public trust by providing the Agency  and
Congress with best practices, analyses, and recommendations to address management challenges,
efficiently accomplish environmental objectives,  achieve Government Performance and Results
Act  goals, and  safeguard  resources.   They also result in the  prevention,  detection,  and
prosecution of financial fraud,  laboratory fraud, and cyber crime.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA's Inspector General seeks to assist the  Agency in its efforts to reduce  environmental and
human health risks, improve business systems and program operations, save taxpayer dollars,
and resolve major  management challenges.  Work in  FY 2007 will emphasize the themes of
accountability and data integrity  leading to positive environmental impacts and the attainment of
EPA's Strategic Goals.

Audits and Evaluations

The audits and evaluations conducted by the IG will determine if EPA is making progress toward
efficient and effective risk reduction and hazardous waste cleanup,  restoring previously polluted
sites  to appropriate uses,  effectively  reducing human health  or  environmental  risk,  and
generating opportunities for  sustained  economic  growth through the  Brownfields program.
Ongoing and  recently completed audits and  evaluations of the  Superfund  program  have
identified numerous impediments to effective resource and program management in the areas of
contracting, special  account management, and implementing program  improvements, among
                                      Superfund-8

-------
others. The IG will determine EPA's progress in addressing these issues as they relate directly to
EPA's ability to effectively and efficiently  reduce  risk and  protect human health and  the
environment at Superfund sites. IG will also evaluate how EPA can: (1) achieve efficiencies and
time reductions in the backlog of Superfund cleanups; (2) better control Superfund resources;
and (3) effectively manage its Superfund contracts.

Investigations

Inspector General investigations  include efforts to uncover criminal activity pertaining to  the
Superfund program. The IG will conduct investigations into allegations or indications, and seek
prosecution, of:  (1) fraudulent practices in  awarding, performance, charging,  and payment on
EPA Superfund contracts, grants, or other assistance agreements; (2) program fraud or other acts
which undermine the integrity of or confidence in the Superfund program and create imminent
environmental risks; (3) falsification of laboratory results that undermine the bases for Superfund
decision-making, regulatory  compliance, or enforcement  actions; and (4) intrusions into EPA's
computer systems as well as incidents of computer misuse.  Further, the IG will assist EPA in
testing environmental IT infrastructure and information networks against threats of intrusion or
destruction.

Public Liaison

Public liaison work will continue addressing critical public and governmental  concerns related to
the Superfund Program.  This activity involves responding to requests from the public,  Congress,
EPA employees, or other government entities to provide  information and to conduct reviews in
response to complaints  or allegations of  fraud, waste,  abuse, or mismanagement  in  EPA's
Superfund program. To accomplish this work, the Inspector General  initiates reviews and if
needed contracts with subject matter  experts to assist with such reviews, and coordinates these
efforts with ongoing audits, evaluations, or investigations.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives.  The  performance measures are included
in the Program Performance and Assessment section.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006  Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$1,002.4)   Decrease  reflects  a  general reduction to the Superfund  Appropriation
       transfer funds.

   •   (+$981.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

Inspector General Act, as amended; SARA; CERCLA; TSCA.
                                      Superfund-9

-------
Program Area: Compliance
         Superfund-lO

-------
                                                      Compliance Assistance and Centers
                                                               Program Area: Compliance
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$27,207.0
$531.6
$270.1
$0.0
$28,008.7
200.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$27,935.0
$711.0
$284.0
$11.0
$28,941.0
212.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$28,890.7
$839.1
$280.2
$22.2
$30,032.2
212.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$955.7
$128.1
($3.8)
$11.2
$1,091.2
-0.3
Program Project Description:

EPA's Compliance Assistance  program includes a range of activities and tools designed to
improve  compliance with  Superfund-related environmental laws, regulated entities, Federal
agencies  and the public benefit  from easy  access to tools that help them understand these laws
and find  effective, cost-effective means for putting them into practice. To achieve these goals,
the Compliance Assistance and Centers program provides information,  training and technical
assistance to the regulated community to increase its understanding of statutory and regulatory
environmental  requirements,  thereby gaining measurable improvements in compliance  and
reducing  risks  to human health and the environment.   The program also provides tools  and
information to other compliance assistance providers in  order to help the regulated community
comply    with   environmental    requirements.       For    more     information   visit:
www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html: www.epa.gov/clearinghouse: and
www.assistancecenters.net.
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Superfund-related  compliance assistance activities  are  mainly
reported   and  tracked  through   the   Agency's   Integrated
Compliance Information  System  (ICIS).   In FY  2007, the
Compliance Assistance program will provide Superfund support
for ICIS  and the  ongoing enhancements to ICIS for continued
support of the federal enforcement and compliance program.
EPA will continue to ensure the security and integrity of these
systems,  and will  use ICIS data to support  Superfund-related
regulatory enforcement program activities.
Performance    Assessment:
The    Civil    Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the   last   PART   review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement  Plan
(MIP)  to better characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
                                      Superfund-11

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type







Measure
Percentage of regulated
entities receiving direct
compliance assistance
from EPA reporting
that they improved
BMP as a result of
EPA assistance.
FY 2005
Actual



72



FY 2005
Target



50



FY 2006
Target



50



FY 2007
Target



50



Units



Percentage



Measure
Type







Measure
Percentage of regulated
entities receiving direct
assistance from EPA
reporting that they
reduced, treated, or
eliminated pollution, as
a result of EPA
assistance.
FY 2005
Actual



13



FY 2005
Target



25



FY 2006
Target



15



FY 2007
Target



15



Units



Percentage



EPA's Compliance Assistance Program achieves pollutant reductions, improvements in regulated
entities environmental management practices, and increases regulated entities understanding of
environmental requirements through direct compliance assistance provided by EPA personnel,
and through on-line compliance assistance centers and the clearinghouse.   There are many
programs evaluated under the Civil Enforcement PART. These programs include Compliance
Assistance, Compliance Incentives, Compliance  Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Enforcement
Training, Forensics, Superfund Enforcement, and categorical grant programs for toxic substances
and sectors.  One of the key Civil Enforcement PART program measures, pounds of pollutants
reduced, looks at  the overall reduction in pollution  as a result of enforcement  actions. The
Agency is  exploring methodologies to extend the measure by analyzing the risk associated with
the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$11.2)  This  increase  will  support  ongoing enhancements  for  the Information
       Compliance Information System (ICIS).

Statutory Authority:

RCRA; CERCLA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
                                    Superfund-12

-------
                                                                  Compliance Incentives
                                                               Program Area: Compliance
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$10,135.7
$148.9
$10,284.6
78.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$9,412.0
$186.0
$9,598.0
76.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,702.2
$142.7
$9,844.9
76.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$290.2
($43.3)
$246.9
-0.2
Program Project Description:

To improve compliance with Superfund-related environmental laws, EPA actively encourages
business owners and operators that run similar operations at multiple facilities to disclose their
violations to the Agency. These disclosures allow entities to review their operations holistically,
and often nationally, which more effectively benefits the environment.  Under the Audit Policy,
when companies voluntarily discover and promptly correct environmental violations,  EPA may
waive  or substantially reduce civil penalties. Activities are tracked  and reported  using  the
Integrated   Compliance   Information   System   (ICIS).     For  more  information  visit:
www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/programs/index.html.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:                     	
In FY 2007, the Compliance Incentives program will provide
Superfund  support for ICIS  and  ongoing  enhancements  to
continue support of the federal enforcement and compliance
program. EPA will continue to ensure the security and integrity
of these systems, and will use ICIS data to support Superfund-
related regulatory enforcement program activities.

Performance Targets:
Performance    Assessment:
The    Civil    Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the   last   PART   review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement  Plan
(MIP)  to better  characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
EPA's  Compliance  Incentive Programs,  which encourage  regulated entities to monitor and
quickly correct environmental violations, achieves pollutant reductions, and improvements in
regulated entities environmental management practices.   There are  many programs evaluated
under  the  Civil  Enforcement PART.    These  programs  include  Compliance Assistance,
Compliance Incentives, Compliance Monitoring, Civil  Enforcement,  Enforcement Training,
Forensics,  Superfund Enforcement, and categorical grant programs for toxic  substances and
sectors.  One  of the  key  Civil Enforcement PART  program measures, pounds of pollutants
reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution as a result of enforcement actions. For more
information on measures  and results pertaining to reduction  in  pollution  from enforcement
actions, please see the Civil Enforcement and Compliance  Incentives program projects in the
                                      Superfund-13

-------
Environmental Programs &  Management section  of this report.  The  Agency  is exploring
methodologies to extend the measure by  analyzing  the risk associated with the pollutants
reduced. This may entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.

Although the estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown over the past 5 years, they are projections made of future pollution reduction based
on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year. One or two cases can have
a significant affect on the end-of-year results.  A baseline was established in FY 2006.  Work
under this program supports Improve Compliance objective. Currently, there are no performance
measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-$8.7) This decrease reduces funding for the Compliance Incentives program.

    •  (-$34.6)  This  decrease is the net effect  of increase for payroll  and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA;  CWA; SOW A; CAA;  TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
                                     Superfund-14

-------
                                                                  Compliance Monitoring
                                                                Program Area: Compliance
                                           Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$85,297.9
$1,452.4
$86,750.3
625.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$85,463.0
$955.0
$86,418.0
627.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$93,018.8
$1,144.1
$94,162.9
632.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$7,555.8
$189.1
$7,744.9
4.4
The FY 2005 Obligations include a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring and Civil Enforcement program projects.

Program Project Description:

The  Compliance Monitoring  program focuses on providing information system  support for
monitoring compliance with Superfund-related environmental regulations and contaminated site
clean-up agreements.  The program also will ensure the security and integrity of its compliance
information systems.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
Superfund-related compliance monitoring activities are mainly
reported  and  tracked  through  the   Agency's  Integrated
Compliance Information  System  (ICIS).   In FY 2007,  the
Compliance  Monitoring  program  will provide  Superfund
support for ICIS and the ongoing enhancements to  ICIS for
continued support of the federal enforcement and compliance
program. EPA will continue to ensure the security and integrity
of these systems, and will use ICIS data  to support Superfund-
related regulatory enforcement program activities.
Performance Assessment:
The Civil Enforcement Program
was rated adequate in  the last
PART review completed for the
Program in  2004  based  on
preparation  of  a  Measures
Improvement Plan  (MIP)  to
better   characterize   pollutant
reductions with respect to hazard
and exposure.
EPA will continue to make Superfund-related compliance monitoring information available to
the public through the Enforcement and Compliance History On-line (ECHO) Internet website
during FY 2007.  This site provides communities with knowledge of compliance status and will
continue to develop additional tools and data for public use. ECHO is a valuable tool, averaging
about 65,000 queries per month.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of pollution
estimated to be
FY 2005
Actual
1,100
FY 2005
Target
300
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
Units
Million
Pounds
                                      Superfund-15

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
reduced, treated, or
eliminated as a result
of concluded
enforcement actions.
(civil enf)
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target

Units

Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Percentage of
concluded enforcement
cases (including SEPs)
requiring that pollution
be reduced, treated, or
eliminated.
FY 2005
Actual


28.80


FY 2005
Target


30


FY 2006
Target


30


FY 2007
Target


30


Units


Percentage


Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
Percentage of
concluded enforcement
cases including SEPs
requiring
implementation of
improved
environmental
management practices.
FY 2005
Actual



72.50



FY 2005
Target



60



FY 2006
Target



65



FY 2007
Target



70



Units



Percentage



Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Percentage of regulated
entities taking
complying actions as a
result of on-site
compliance inspections
and evaluations.
FY 2005
Actual


19


FY 2005
Target


10


FY 2006
Target


25


FY 2007
Target


30


Units


Percentage


EPA's Monitoring and Enforcement Program achieves pollutant reductions, and improvements in
regulated entities  environmental management practices through the settlement of enforcement
cases.    There are  many  programs evaluated  under the  Civil Enforcement PART.  These
programs include Compliance Assistance, Compliance Incentives, Compliance Monitoring, Civil
Enforcement, Enforcement Training, Forensics,  Superfund  Enforcement, and  categorical grant
programs for toxic substances and sectors.  One of the key Civil Enforcement PART program
measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the  overall reduction in pollution as a result of
enforcement  actions. The  Agency  is exploring  methodologies to extend  the measure by
analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of pollutant
hazards and population exposure.
                                     Superfund-16

-------
Although the estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown over the past 5 years, they are  projections made from future pollution reduction
based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.  One or two cases
can have a significant affect on the end-of-year results. A baseline was established in 2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$195.1) This increase also supports enhancements to the enforcement program's data
       systems including the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS).

    •   (-$6.0) This decrease is the net effect  of increases for payroll and cost of living increases
       for  existing  FTE, combined  with a reduction  based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA;  CWA; SOW A;  CAA; TSCA; EPCRA;  RLBPHRA; FIFRA;  ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR; NEPA.
                                     Superfund-17

-------
Program Area: Enforcement
          Superfund-18

-------
                                                                       Civil Enforcement
                                                               Program Area: Enforcement
                                           Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                          Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$113,719.7
$1,900.7
$625.2
$116,245.6
933.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$117,807.0
$1,910.0
$796.0
$120,513.0
960.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$120,777.7
$1,826.3
$883.0
$123,487.0
958.5
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,970.7
($83.7)
$87.0
$2,974.0
-2.2
The FY 2005 Obligations include a redistribution of resources from the IT/Data Management program project to the core
programs that these resources support: Compliance Monitoring and Civil Enforcement program projects.

Program Project Description:

The  overarching goal  of the Civil Enforcement program  is to protect  human health and the
environment, targeting Superfund-related enforcement actions according to degree of health and
environmental risk.   The  program  works with the Department of Justice  (DOJ)  to  ensure
consistent and fair enforcement of Superfund-related environmental laws and regulations.  The
program aims to level the  economic playing field by ensuring that violators  do not  realize an
economic benefit  from noncompliance,  and  seeks to  deter  future  violations.    The  civil
enforcement program develops, litigates and settles administrative and civil judicial cases against
serious violators of environmental laws. For more information visit:
www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/index.html: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/backgnd.htm.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
Financial  assurance requirements ensure that adequate  funds
are available to address closure and clean up of facilities that
handle  hazardous  wastes,   hazardous  substances,  toxic
materials,  or  other pollutants.   EPA  has selected  financial
responsibility  as an enforcement program priority under both
RCRA and  CERCLA beginning in FY 2006.  Placing more
emphasis on financial responsibility will facilitate timely clean-
up  at contaminated sites,  and closure  of waste management
units that are no longer being actively used, and will also keep
closure and remediation costs from being shifted to the public.

Performance Targets:
EPA's Monitoring and Enforcement Program achieves pollutant reductions, and improvements in
regulated  entities environmental management practices through the settlement of enforcement
cases.    There  are  many programs  evaluated  under the Civil Enforcement PART.   These
Performance Assessment:
The    Civil    Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the    last   PART   review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement  Plan
(MIP)  to better  characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
                                       Superfund-19

-------
programs include Compliance Assistance, Compliance Incentives, Compliance Monitoring, Civil
Enforcement, Enforcement Training, Forensics,  Superfund Enforcement, and categorical grant
programs for toxic substances and sectors.  One of the key Civil Enforcement PART program
measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution as a result of
enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring  methodologies to extend the measure  by
analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may  entail analysis of pollutant
hazards and population exposure.

Although the estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown  over the past 5 years, they are  projections made from future pollution reduction
based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.  One or two cases
can have a significant affect on the end-of-year results.  A baseline was established in FY 2006.
Work under this  program supports Improve Compliance objective.  Currently, there are  no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in  Thousands):

    •   (+$4.2)  This increase will support the program's review of financial responsibility issues
       under CERCLA.

    •   (+$59.8) This increase reflects funds for  IT and  telecommunications under the civil
       enforcement program.

    •   (+$23.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA; CERCLA; CWA;  SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA;  SBLRBRERA; PPA; CERFA; AEA; UMTRLWA.
                                     Superfund-20

-------
                                                                 Criminal Enforcement
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$35,109.3
$8,070.1
$43,179.4
251.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$37,565.0
$8,275.0
$45,840.0
273.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$37,793.5
$8,502.2
$46,295.7
270.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$228.5
$227.2
$455.7
-2.7
Program Project Description:

The  Criminal  Enforcement  program, mandated by the Pollution  Prosecution Act of 1990,
forcefully  deters violations of Superfund and Superfund related laws by demonstrating that the
regulated community will be held accountable, through jail  sentences and criminal fines, for
serious, willful  statutory violations. The program  thus  serves  as a deterrent for potential
violators, thereby enhancing aggregate compliance with laws and regulations.

The  Criminal Enforcement program conducts  investigations and refers for prosecution cases
which  reduce pollution  and helps secure plea agreements or sentencing conditions that will
require  defendants to improve  their environmental  management practices (e.g., by securing
permits or developing environmental management  systems to enhance  performance).  The
Agency also develops information to support grand jury inquiries and decisions, and works with
other law enforcement agencies to present a highly visible and effective force in the Agency's
overall enforcement strategy. Cases are referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution,
with special agents serving as key witnesses in the proceedings.

The program also participates in task forces with state and local law enforcement, and provides
specialized training at the Federal Law Enforcement  Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA.
FLETC provides  one  of the  few opportunities for state,  local,  and tribal  environmental
enforcement professionals to obtain criminal investigation training. For more information visit:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY  2007, the  Criminal  Enforcement Program  will  continue  implementing  its strategic
approach by emphasizing investigations and prosecutions of national and regional  CERCLA-
related enforcement priorities, as well as "complex" cases  that have  the most significant impact
upon human health and the environment. The Criminal Enforcement Program will also continue
to enhance its coordination with the civil enforcement program by expanding the Regional case
screening  process  and by taking criminal  enforcement actions  against long-term,  or repeat
significant non-compliers where appropriate.
                                      Superfund-21

-------
In FY  2007, the  Criminal Case Reporting  System
(which replaces the existing CRIMDOC system and will
come "on-line" in FY 2006) will  complete a series of
enhancements to  permit "real time"  entry of  data
associated with all closed criminal enforcement cases.
This information will be used to systematically compile
a "profile" of criminal cases,  including the extent to
which  the   cases   support  Agency-wide,  program-
specific, or Regional enforcement priorities.  The profile
will  also describe the  impact of the cases in terms of
pollution released into the  environment and resulting
environmental harm such as the degradation of drinking
water wells, human populations injured or made ill, and
aquatic or animal life harmed.

Performance Targets:
Performance Assessment: The Criminal
Enforcement Program was rated adequate
with  the  addition  of  new  outcome
measures. The program created a measure
implementation plan  to  set  targets and
milestones  for  performance measures.
Case Conclusion Data Sheet improvements
will  collect  new  data  for  Criminal
Enforcement  PART  measures.   EPA
anticipates    collecting     performance
information for  pollution reduction and
recidivism performance targets in  2006.
The   targets   for   the   Improved
Environmental  Management and  the
Pollutant  Impact   measures  will  be
developed  in  FY2007   and  FY2008
respectively.
In FY 2007, the criminal program's Pollution Reduction measure will be reported against the
baseline and target set in FY 2006, which uses an average of pollutant reduction data from three
fiscal years (FY 2003-2005).  The results of this measure are likely to fluctuate annually due to
the specific characteristics of the  enforcement cases concluded  during  a  given fiscal year,
however, applied over the long-term, this information will help the program to identify and
prioritize cases that present the most serious threats to public health and the environment.

In addition, in FY 2007 the Criminal Enforcement Program will report its  PART-approved
measures on "improved environmental management"  and "recidivism" after the targets and
baselines are developed in FY 2006.  The program will also develop the targets and baselines for
its "pollutant impact" measure (i.e., the amount of illegal pollution released into the environment
that cannot be treated,  remediated or otherwise reduced) in order to begin  external reporting of
that measure in FY 2008.  Work under this program supports Improve Compliance  objective.
Currently, there are no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-0.7 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •  (+$158.6) This  increase will support the Agency's criminal investigations.

    •  (+$68.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA; EPCRA; Powers of Environmental Protection Agency;  Fraud and False Statements
Act: Pollution Prosecution Act.
                                      Superfund-22

-------
                                                                   Enforcement Training
                                                               Program Area: Enforcement
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$3,766.2
$897.8
$4,664.0
25.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$2,945.0
$581.0
$3,526.0
17.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,503.7
$621.9
$3,125.6
16.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($441.3)
$40.9
($400.4)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

As  mandated by the Pollution Prosecution Act, the Agency's Enforcement Training program
provides environmental enforcement training nationwide, through EPA's National Enforcement
Training Institute (NETI). The program oversees the design and delivery of core and specialized
Superfund enforcement courses that sustain a well-trained workforce to carry out the Agency's
enforcement goals.  Courses are provided to lawyers, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators,
and technical experts at all levels of government.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:                    	
In FY 2007, the Enforcement Training program will develop and
deliver  training  to support national teams  formed  to  address
national  Superfund enforcement  priority  areas.   The  program
also maintains a training center on the Internet, "NETI Online."
NETI Online  offers targeted technical  training  courses and a
clearinghouse   of  training  information  to  national   and
international audiences.   The  site also provides  for tracking
individual training plans, as well as developing, managing and
improving the program's training delivery processes.
 For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html.

Performance Targets:
Performance    Assessment:
The    Civil    Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the   last   PART   review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement  Plan
(MIP)  to better characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of pollution
estimated to be
reduced, treated, or
eliminated as a result
of concluded
enforcement actions.
(civil enf)
FY 2005
Actual
1,100
FY 2005
Target
300
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
Units
Million
Pounds
                                      Superfund-23

-------
This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review in 2004, which received an
overall rating of Adequate based on development of a Measures Implementation Plan.  One of
the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution
as a result of enforcement actions.  The Agency  is exploring methodologies to  extend the
measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced.  This may entail analysis of
pollutant hazards and population exposure.

Although the estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown over the past 5 years, they  are projections made from future pollution reduction
based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.  One or two cases
can have a significant affect on the end-of-year results. A baseline was established in FY 2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in  Thousands):

    •  (-0.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •  (-$16.7)  This decrease reduces support for the National Enforcement Training Institute
       (NETI).

    •  (+$57.6) This reflects an increase for payroll  and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

PPA; CERCLA.
                                     Superfund-24

-------
                                                                 Environmental Justice
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                               Objective(s): Communities
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$4,853.2
$921.5
$5,774.7
21.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$5,569.0
$827.0
$6,396.0
18.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,859.0
5756.7
$4,615.7
17.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,710.0)
($70.3)
($1,780.3)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

The Environmental Justice program provides a central point of contact for the Agency to address
environmental and human health concerns in all communities, especially minority and/or low-
income communities — segments of the population that have been disproportionately exposed to
environmental harms   and risks.  The Agency  provides  education,  outreach, and  data to
communities, and manages two national competitive grant programs which focus on building
capacity and addressing environmental and/or public health issues at the local level.  For more
information on the Environmental Justice program visit:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/index.html.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:                  	
In FY 2007,  EPA will  enhance and  maintain the Online
Environmental  Justice  Geographical  Information   System
Assessment  Tool to  help individuals, government, industry,
and organizations better identify and address environment and
public health issues that may affect them.  The Environmental
Justice Geographical  Information System Assessment Tool
provides   ready   access  to  environmental,   public  health,
economic, and social demographic information from EPA and
other government sources.
Performance Assessment:
The    Civil    Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the   last   PART   review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement Plan
(MIP)  to better  characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
In FY 2007, the Environmental Justice program also will continue to assist community-based
organizations in developing solutions to Superfund-related and other local environmental issues
as a part of the Environmental Justice Small Grants program. The Small Grants Program has
awarded more than  1,000 grants of up to $20,000 each to community-based organizations and
others such as universities, Tribes, and schools.

Performance Targets:

This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART assessment in 2004, which received
an overall rating of Adequate based on development of a Measures Implementation Plan.  One of
                                     Superfund-25

-------
the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution
as a result of enforcement actions.   The Agency is  exploring  methodologies to  extend  the
measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of
pollutant  hazards  and  population  exposure.  Work  under this program  supports  Healthy
Communities objective.  Currently, there are no performance measures specific  to this program
project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$418.8) This reflects an increase in resources for activities  related to Environmental
       Justice.

    •  (-$489.1) This  decrease  is the net  effect of increases for payroll and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

Statutory Authority:

Executive Order 12898; CERCLA, as amended.
                                      Superfund-26

-------
                                                                       Forensics Support
                                                               Program Area: Enforcement
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                            Objective(s): Improve Compliance; Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$13,377.9
$3,599.5
$16,977.4
104.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$13,129.0
$3,643.0
$16,772.0
108.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,185.2
$4,184.2
$17,369.4
107.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$56.2
$541.2
$597.4
-0.8
Program Project Description:

The Forensics  Support program provides specialized  scientific and technical support for the
nation's most complex Superfund civil enforcement cases, and provides technical expertise for
non-routine Agency compliance efforts.  EPA's National Enforcement Investigations  Center
(NEIC) is the only accredited environmental forensics center in the nation. NEIC's Accreditation
Standard has been customized to cover the civil, criminal, and special program work conducted
by the program.

NEIC  collaborates  with state, local  and  Tribal  agencies,  providing technical  assistance,
consultation, and on-site investigation and inspection activities in support of the Agency's civil
program. In addition, the program coordinates with the Department of Justice and other Federal,
state and local  law enforcement organizations in support of criminal investigations.  For more
information visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
Efforts to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement in
FY 2007, will include the refinement of successful multi-media
inspection approaches; use of customized laboratory methods
to solve  unusual enforcement case problems; applied research
and development for both laboratory and field applications.  In
response  to  Superfund case needs, the NEIC will conduct
applied research and development to identify and deploy new
capabilities, and to test and/or enhance existing methods and
techniques involving environmental measurement and forensic
situations. As part of this activity, NEIC will also evaluate the
scientific basis and/or technical enforceability of select EPA
Superfund program activities.
Performance Assessment:
The    Civil    Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the   last  PART   review
completed for  the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement Plan
(MIP)  to better  characterize
pollutant    reductions   with
respect to  hazard and exposure.
regulations that may impact
In FY 2007, the Forensics program will continue to function under more stringent International
Standards of Operation for environmental data measurements to maintain its accreditation. The
                                      Superfund-27

-------
program  also  will  continue  development  of emerging  technologies in field  measurement
techniques and laboratory analytical techniques, as well as identifying sources of pollution at
abandoned Superfund and other waste sites.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of pollution
estimated to be
reduced, treated, or
eliminated as a result
of concluded
enforcement actions.
(civil enf)
FY 2005
Actual
1,100
FY 2005
Target
300
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
Units
Million
Pounds
This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review in 2004, which received an
overall rating of Adequate. One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at
the overall reduction in pollution as a result of enforcement actions.  The Agency is exploring
methodologies to extend the measure by analyzing the risk  associated  with the  pollutants
reduced.  This may entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.

Although the estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown  over the past 5 years, they are projections made from future pollution reduction
based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.  One or two cases
can have a significant affect on the end-of-year results.  The baseline was established in FY
2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in  Thousands):

    •  (-$140.8) This decrease reduces support  for the National  Enforcement Investigations
       Center's (NEIC) forensics laboratory which provides  support to the civil and criminal
       enforcement programs.

    •  (+$682.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost  of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA; EPCRA.
                                     Superfund-28

-------
                                                               Superfund: Enforcement
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                                   Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                               Objective(s): Restore Land

                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$165,634.0
$165,634.0
973.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$156,653.0
$156,653.0
1,002.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$163,650.5
$163,650.5
1,000.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$6,997.5
$6,997.5
-1.5
Program Project Description:

EPA negotiates cleanup and removal agreements with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at
hazardous waste sites and, where negotiations fail, the Agency either takes enforcement actions
to require cleanup or expends Hazardous Substances Superfund (Trust Fund) dollars to remediate
the sites. When Trust Fund dollars are used, the Superfund Enforcement program takes action
against PRPs to recover the costs  of the cleanup.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) supports
EPA's Superfund Enforcement program through negotiations and judicial actions to compel PRP
clean-up and litigation to recover Trust Fund monies spent.

The Agency encourages its Regional offices to establish and use Special Accounts.  These
Special Accounts segregate site-specific funds obtained from responsible parties who complete
settlement agreements with EPA. These funds also act as an incentive for other PRPs to perform
work they might not be willing to perform or used by the Agency to fund clean up. The result is
the Agency can sustain the "polluter pays" principle,  clean up more sites and also preserve
appropriated dollars for sites without viable PRPs.

EPA's financial management community  maintains  a  strong partnership with the  Superfund
program, providing a full array of financial management support services  necessary to pay
Superfund bills and recover cleanup and oversight costs for the Trust Fund.  This component of
the program allows the Agency to centrally manage Superfund budget formulation, justification,
and execution, as well as financial cost recovery. It also manages oversight billing for  Superfund
site cleanups (cost  of overseeing  the responsible party's cleanup  activities), Superfund cost
documentation (the Federal cost of  cleaning up a Superfund site), and refers  delinquent accounts
receivable and oversight debts to the DOJ for collection.

FY 2007 Activities  and Performance Plan:

The Agency's Superfund program pursues an "enforcement first" policy to  ensure that sites for
which there are viable, liable responsible parties are cleaned up by those parties.  In tandem with
                                      Superfund-29

-------
this approach, various  Superfund reforms have been implemented to increase fairness, reduce
transaction costs, and promote  economic redevelopment.  For more information about EPA's
Superfund enforcement program, and its various components visit:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/.

Throughout FY 2007, the Superfund Enforcement program will maximize PRP participation in
cleanups while promoting fairness in the enforcement process and will continue to recover costs
from PRPs when EPA expends money from the Trust Fund.  The Agency will maximize PRP
participation by reaching a settlement or taking an enforcement action by the time of a remedial
action  start at 95 percent of non-Federal Superfund sites that have  viable,  liable parties.  The
Agency will  also continue to  ensure Trust Fund stewardship
through cost recovery efforts that include addressing 100 percent   Performance Assessment:
                                                              The    Civil    Enforcement
                                                              Program was rated adequate in
                                                              the   last  PART    review
                                                              completed for the Program in
                                                              2004 based on preparation of a
                                                              Measures  Improvement Plan
                                                              (MIP)  to better  characterize
                                                              pollutant    reductions   with
                                                              respect to hazard and exposure.
of past costs at sites with a statute of limitations and where total
past costs are equal to or greater than $200,000.

In 2007, the Agency will provide $26 million in funding to the
DOJ, through  an  Interagency  Agreement (IAG) to provide
support for EPA's  Superfund Enforcement program through
such actions as negotiating consent decrees with PRPs, preparing
judicial actions to compel PRP clean-up, and litigating to recover
Trust Fund monies spent  in cleaning  up  contaminated  sites.
EPA's Superfund  enforcement program is responsible for case  development and  preparation,
referral to DOJ, and post-filing  actions as well as for providing case and  cost documentation
support for the  docket of current cases with DOJ.  The program also ensures that EPA meets cost
recovery  statute of limitation deadlines, resolves cases, issues bills for oversight, and makes
collections in a timely manner.

In 2007,  the Agency will  negotiate remedial design/remedial action cleanup agreements and
removal agreements at contaminated properties. Where negotiations fail, the Agency will either
take unilateral  enforcement  actions to require PRP cleanup or use  appropriated dollars  to
remediate sites. When appropriated dollars are used to clean up  sites, the program will recover
this money from the PRPs.  The Agency also will continue its efforts to establish and use special
accounts to facilitate clean up.

By pursuing cost recovery settlements, the program promotes the principle that polluters should
perform or pay for cleanups  and  preserves the Trust Fund to address contaminated sites which
have no viable, liable PRPs.  The Agency's expenditures will be recouped through administrative
actions, through CERCLA  section 107 case referrals, and through settlements reached with the
use of alternative dispute resolution.

During FY 2007, the Agency will also continue its efforts in  support of Superfund cost recovery
and  collections. These  efforts include managing Superfund delinquent debt,  maintaining the
Superfund cost  documentation system, and preparing cost documentation packages. The Agency
continues  to refine and streamline the cost documentation process to gain  further efficiencies;
provide DOJ case  support for Superfund sites; and calculate indirect cost rates to be applied  to
direct costs incurred by EPA for site cleanup. The Agency will also continue to maintain the
                                      Superfund-30

-------
accounting and billing of Superfund oversight costs attributable to responsible parties.   These
costs represent EPA's cost of overseeing Superfund site clean-up efforts by responsible parties as
stipulated in the terms of settlement agreements.

A critical component of many response actions selected by EPA is institutional controls.  These
are  established to ensure that property is used and maintained in an appropriate manner after
construction of the selected cleanup is complete.  The  Superfund program will oversee the
implementation and enforcement of institutional controls as part of its remedies, focusing on sites
where construction of engineered remedies has been completed.

EPA also plans further  improvements to its budgeting  and planning system, financial data
warehouse, business intelligence tools, and reporting capabilities.  These improvements will
support EPA's "green" score in financial performance on the President's  Management Agenda
scorecard by providing more accessible data to support accountability, budget and performance
integration,  and management  decision-making.   During FY  2007, EPA will also continue
reorganizing its financial services to achieve greater efficiency.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Output


Measure
Percentage of
Superfund sites at
which settlement or
enforcement action
taken before the start
ofRA.
FY 2005
Actual


100


FY 2005
Target


90


FY 2006
Target


95


FY 2007
Target


95


Units


Percent


Measure
Type




Output




Measure
Refer to DOJ, settle, or
writeoff 100% of
Statute of Limitations
(SOLs) cases for SF
sites with total
unaddressed past costs
equal to or greater than
$200,000 and report
value of costs
recovered.
FY 2005
Actual




99




FY 2005
Target




100




FY 2006
Target




100




FY 2007
Target




100




Units




Percent




This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review in 2004, which received an
overall rating of Adequate based on development of a Measures Implementation Plan.  One of
the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution
as a result of enforcement  actions.   The Agency  is exploring methodologies to extend the
measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced.  This may entail analysis of
pollutant hazards and population exposure.
                                      Superfund-31

-------
Although the estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown over the past 5 years, they are  projections made from future pollution reduction
based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.  One or two cases
can have a significant affect on the end-of-year results. A baseline was established in FY 2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$3,179.6) This increase reflects additional funding for PRP searches, funding available
       to recover costs from PRPs, and other CERCLA litigation support.

    •   (-9.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •   (-$94.8) This decrease reflects costs savings in IT and telecommunications resources.

    •   (+7.8 FTE) This change represents a technical correction to  bring FTE levels for the
       Financial Services portion of this program in line with historic utilization.  The 7.8 FTE
       were transferred to  this program  from the Superfund portion of Central  Planning,
       Budgeting and Finance.

    •   (+$3,912.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA; SBLRBRERA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; SOW A;  CCA; FGCAA;
FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations; FMFIA; FOIA; GMRA; IPIA; IGA; PRA; Privacy Act;
CFOA; GPRA; The Prompt Payment Act; Executive Order 12241; Executive Order 12656.
                                     Superfund-32

-------
                                               Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
                                                               Program Area: Enforcement
                                                   Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                                Objective(s): Restore Land

                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$8,900.3
$8,900.3
64.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$9,410.0
$9,410.0
82.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,196.9
$10,196.9
81.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$786.9
$786.9
-1.4
Program Project Description:

The Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement program ensures that all Federal facility sites on
the National Priority List  sign  Inter-Agency  agreements (lAGs), which provide enforceable
schedules for the progression of the entire cleanup.  After years of service and operation, some
Federal facilities contain environmental contamination, such as hazardous wastes, unexploded
ordnance, radioactive wastes or other toxic substances.  To reduce the cost of cleanup and reuse
of such sites, the  Federal  Facilities Enforcement program coordinates creative solutions that
protect  both human health and  the environment.  These enforcement solutions help restore
facilities so they can once  again serve an important role in the economy and welfare of local
communities and our country.
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Pursuant to  CERCLA,  Section  120, EPA will  enter into
interagency agreements (lAGs) to ensure protective cleanup at
a timely pace in FY 2007. EPA will also monitor milestones in
existing lAGs, resolve disputes, and oversee all remedial work
being conducted by Federal facilities.  EPA will also continue
its work with affected agencies to resolve outstanding policy
issues relating to the cleanup of Federal facilities.

Performance Targets:

This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review in 2004, which received an
overall rating of Adequate. One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at
the overall reduction in pollution as a result of enforcement  actions. The Agency is exploring
methodologies to  extend the measure  by analyzing the risk associated with  the  pollutants
reduced. This may entail analysis of pollutant hazards  and population exposure. Work under
Performance Assessment:
The    Civil     Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the    last   PART   review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement  Plan
(MIP)  to better characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
                                      Superfund-33

-------
this  program supports  Improve  Compliance,  although  currently  no  specific  performance
measures exist for the program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+$112.7)  This increase will be used to negotiate and facilitate interagency agreements
       with other Federal agencies.

   •  (-1.4 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •  (+$674.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA;  SBLRBRERA; DBCRA;  Defense Authorization  Amendments;  BRAC;  PPA;
CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; DRAA; SOW A; Executive Order 12241; Executive
Order 12656.
                                    Superfund-34

-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
             Superfund-35

-------
                                   Homeland Security: Communication and Information
                                                       Program Area: Homeland Security

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the  Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$5,432.4
$0.0
$5,432.4
7.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$6,475.0
$296.0
$6,771.0
13.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,799.7
$300.0
$7,099.7
13.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$324.7
$4.0
$328.7
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program  coordinates  development and implementation of homeland security policy and
related information security for the Superfund program.  EPA works to ensure rapid access to
relevant communication tools, accelerated transfers of data, the development of models and maps
to support response activities,  and  effective Agency  wide  communication  in emergency
situations.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA's FY 2007 homeland security resources for information systems will continue support for
the Agency's rapid response  infrastructure by delivering increased network capacity.  In FY
2007, EPA will ensure emergency access to the Agency's information resources by continuing
deployment of an integrated Internet/WAN/LAN solution - Mobile Laboratory LAN-in-a-Box —
that can be immediately deployed anywhere to equip mobile laboratories with high speed, secure
access to the Internet and the EPA WAN, and  the ability  to  share information  on scene.  In
addition, Homeland Security  information technology efforts are closely coordinated with the
Agency-wide Information Security and Infrastructure activities coordinated and managed in the
Information Security and IT/Data Management programs.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports multiple performance objectives.   Currently,  there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•  (+$4.0) This increase will support  continued deployment of an integrated mobile Laboratory
   LAN-in-a-Box.
                                     Superfund-36

-------
Statutory Authority:

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); CERCLA; SOW A,
Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act, BioTerrorism Act; Homeland Security Act of 2002; Defense
Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act (Title XIV of Public Law 104-201).
                                    Superfund-37

-------
                                   Homeland Security:  Critical Infrastructure Protection
                                                        Program Area: Homeland Security
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Compliance

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$6,700.6
$17,952.2
$1,348.2
$26,001.0
47.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$6,787.0
$12,393.0
$1,442.0
$20,622.0
59.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$7,242.7
$45,251.0
$1,571.6
$54,065.3
59.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$455.7
$32,858.0
$129.6
$33,443.3
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program involves Superfund activities that coordinate and support protection of the nation's
critical public infrastructure from terrorist threats. Through this program, EPA provides subject
matter expertise  and training support for terrorism-related environmental  investigations to
support responses authorized under CERCLA.   The program coordinates the Agency's  law
enforcement / crisis management activities and participates in Homeland Security Presidential
Directives 5, 7,  8 and 10 activities while also having direct responsibilities pursuant to the
National Response Plan, Emergency Support Functions 10 and 13 and the Oil and Hazardous
Materials Annex.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will  focus  on its goal, to train all  EPA criminal investigators in the National  Counter
Terrorism Evidence  Response Team (NCERT) areas of Weapons  of Mass Destruction  and
Environmental Crime Scene/ Forensic  Evidence Collection.  In FY 2007, the  program will
continue this multi-year effort to train and provide these agents with the necessary specialized
response and evidence collection equipment.  This  will enable EPA criminal investigators to
collect evidence and process a crime scene safely and effectively in a contaminated environment
(hot zone).

EPA criminal investigators support criminal  cases and the FBI and DHS in the event of a
terrorist attack anywhere in the United States.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program supports multiple performance objectives.  Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program  project.
                                      Superfund-38

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):




   •  (+$126.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.




   •  (+$3.5) This minor increase reflects recalculated workforce support contract costs.




Statutory Authority:




CERCLA as amended; EPCRA;  FFSA; Pollution Prosecution Act.
                                    Superfund-39

-------
                              Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
                                                        Program Area: Homeland Security
                                                   Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                               Objective(s): Restore Land

                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                               Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,620.2
$33,417.3
$38,131.8
$74,169.3
143.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$3,252.0
$35,752.0
$37,579.0
$76,583.0
160.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,328.7
$44,498.1
$49,774.9
$97,601.7
165.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$76.7
$8,746.1
$12,195.9
$21,018.7
5.0
Program Project Description:

EPA's  Homeland  Security Emergency  Preparedness and  Response  program  develops  and
maintains  an agency-wide capability to respond to incidents  of national significance with
emphasis on those that may involve Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  The program builds
upon EPA's 30 year-old emergency  response and removal program which is responsible  for
responding and cleaning-up both oil and hazardous substance releases. EPA's homeland security
effort expands these responsibilities to include threats associated with  radiological, biological,
and chemical agents. Over the next several years the  Agency will focus  on building the capacity
to respond to multiple simultaneous incidents of national significance. To meet this challenge the
Agency will use a comprehensive approach that brings together all Agency emergency response
assets to implement efficient and effective responses. Another priority for this program is
increasing the state of knowledge of potential threats and response protocols through research,
development and technical support.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, efforts to develop the capability described above will concentrate on four key areas:
1) developing and maintaining a highly skilled, well-trained and  equipped  response workforce
that can rise to the challenge of responding to simultaneous incidents as well as threats involving
WMD substances; 2) developing decontamination options, methods, and protocols to ensure that
the nation  can  quickly  recover  from   a  terrorism  event;  3) establishing  a nationwide
environmental laboratory  network capability to  enhance  coordination and standardization  of
laboratory  support; and  4)  implementing  the  EPA's National Approach to  Response  to
effectively  manage EPA's emergency  response  assets during large-scale activations.   EPA
activities in support of these efforts include the following:
                                      Superfund-40

-------
   •   Developing and maintaining the skills of EPA's On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) through
       specialized training, equipment and exercises.  The Environmental Response Team, a key
       component of EPA's response community, will provide responders with WMD training,
       as well as training on field  response, monitoring and sampling equipment. It will also
       support responders during drills and exercises to test their skills and abilities in utilizing
       this specialized equipment. The National Decontamination Team, with expertise in health
       and safety, will  provide them with  information on WMD decontamination protocols,
       methods and techniques.

   •   Participating in national events that require a heightened level of security. EPA estimates
       it will pre-deploy  its emergency response personnel and response assets to six such
       national security  events.

   •   Developing data  portability tools for field responders. This includes full integration of the
       decontamination  portfolio in the emergency portal which will use the Internet and enable
       downloading on multiple types of portable devices. EPA will continue to manage, collect
       and  validate  the  portfolio  content  for  new  and  existing  WMD  agents  as new
       decontamination  techniques  are  developed  or  other  information  emerges  from the
       scientific community.

   •   Establishing  a national  laboratory  capability to coordinate with  other established
       laboratory networks that can provide lab analysis in  the aftermath of a terrorist attack.
       Activities will include participation with the Integrated Consortium  of Lab Networks,
       maintaining  and  updating a laboratory compendium  of Federal, state  and commercial
       capabilities,  developing  an  additional lab capability with  State lab  community and
       developing standard operating procedures and  standards of performance.

   •   Implementing the National Approach to Response to  maximize regional interoperability
       and to ensure that EPA's OSCs will be able to respond to terrorist threats and incidents in
       an effective, nationally consistent manner.

   •   Continue to develop and validate environmental sampling and analysis and human health
       risk assessment methods for known and emerging biological threat agents in accordance
       with Homeland Security Presidential Directive-10. These sampling and analysis methods
       are critical to ensuring appropriate  response and  recovery  actions  and developing
       necessary laboratory support capacity.  The human health risk assessment methods also
       are extremely important to decisions  makers who are faced with determining  when
       decontaminated  facilities   and   equipment   can  be   returned  to   service.    This
       decontamination  and consequence management research will produce data, information,
       and technologies to assist EPA in developing standards, protocols, and capabilities  to
       recover from and mitigate the risks associated with biological attacks.

Performance Targets:

Work under  this program supports multiple performance objectives.  Currently, there  are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
                                      Superfund-41

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+ $9,500.0 and +5 FTE) This increase is requested for a new initiative to develop an
       environmental laboratory preparedness and response capability.   The initiative will
       improve coordination with  other established laboratory networks  that can provide lab
       analysis in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. This includes $641.5 to support payroll for
       5 additional FTE.

    •   (+$1,731.1)    This  increase   supports  acquisition  of  emergency   equipment  for
       decontamination  and pre-deployment  of  personnel and  resources to national  security
       events.

    •   (+$1,006.7)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living  for existing FTE, but
       does not include payroll for the 5 FTE  requested to support the environmental laboratory
       capability  initiative.

    •   (-$41.9) This decrease reflects a minor recalculation of base workforce support  contract
       costs for decontamination research.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA Section 104, 105, 106; CWA; Oil Pollution Act.
                                      Superfund-42

-------
                     Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
                                                        Program Area: Homeland Security

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$9,102.2
$2,517.6
$12,936.5
$694.2
$25,250.5
4.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$6,199.0
$2,050.0
$11,331.0
$588.0
$20,168.0
3.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,268.9
$2,079.0
$11,385.1
$594.2
$20,327.2
3.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$69.9
$29.0
$54.1
$6.2
$159.2
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and operational and that the Agency is prepared to conduct its essential functions during an
emergency or threat situation. This involves safeguarding EPA's staff, ensuring the continuity of
operations, and protecting EPA's vital infrastructure assets.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency will continue to update its physical security vulnerability assessments and continue
the mitigation of medium vulnerabilities at our most sensitive facilities.  The Agency  will also
conduct rehearsal of (1) Continuity Of Operations (COOP) site activation, (2) movement of
COOP site and (3) the mission essential  functions from its  remote alternate site,  including
interagency operations.

In FY 2007 EPA plans to support  training activities and to participate in a major interagency
COOP exercise, and one EPA internal COOP exercise.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•   (+$6.2)  This increase will support activities to ensure continuity of operations.
                                     Superfund-43

-------
Statutory Authority:

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; CERCLA.;104-
102 (Nunn-Lugar II) National Response Plan; and National Security Act of 1947, as amended
(50U.S.C. 401etseq.)
                                    Superfund-44

-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                   Superfund-45

-------
                                   Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
                                           Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$48,407.3
$111.7
$48,519.0
396.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$50,291.0
$48.0
$50,339.0
370.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$52,142.7
$130.4
$52,273.1
381.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,851.7
$82.4
$1,934.1
10.9
Program Project Description:

The  Congressional, Intergovernmental,  External Relations program disseminates information
about Superfund enforcement actions, compliance monitoring and the availability of compliance
assistance. Monthly Enforcement Alerts, regular news briefs about Superfund enforcement and
compliance  assistance  activities and a website with easily  accessible tools  for  retrieving
information  are  some of the  tools used to inform stakeholders. Comprehensive reports and
Agency documents are also posted in a timely manner.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

During  FY  2007,  the  Agency will  continue  to  foster  public  awareness  of Superfund
environmental issues and the Federal government's role in monitoring compliance and enforcing
Superfund laws.  This awareness and support are critical to public support and to the Agency's
success in meeting its goals. The  Agency will issue the following informational  materials:
enforcement alerts; accomplishments reports; daily updating of the website; weekly news alerts;
specialized list-servers with periodic postings;  and news releases as Superfund major cases are
concluded.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports  multiple objectives.  Currently, there are  no performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (-$24.1)  This  reduction reduces funding for preparation of information on Superfund
       environmental issues.
                                     Superfund-46

-------
    •   (+$106.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.




Statutory Authority:




CERCLA.
                                     Superfund-47

-------
                                                                    Exchange Network
                                           Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$16,723.0
$2,330.3
$19,053.3
24.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$17,700.0
$1,650.0
$19,350.0
24.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$16,048.5
$1,432.4
$17,480.9
24.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,651.5)
($217.6)
($1,869.1)
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program supports  the  Superfund development  and maintenance of the Environmental
Information Exchange Network (the Exchange Network), an integrated information system that
facilitates information sharing among EPA and its partners using standardized data formats and
definitions.   The Exchange Network  provides  a  centralized  approach  to receiving and
distributing information, and improving access to timely and reliable environmental information.
This  program  provides resources for  the development,  implementation,  operation and
maintenance for the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX, www.epa.gov/cdx), the point of
entry on the Exchange Network for data submissions to the Agency. The program  also develops
the regulatory framework to ensure that electronic submissions are legally acceptable, establishes
partnerships with states, tribes, territories and tribal consortia; and, supports the e-Rulemaking e-
Government initiative. E-Rulemaking is designed to improve the public's ability to find, view,
understand and comment on Federal regulatory actions, and EPA is providing the leadership role
on this effort.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the major focus  is on fulfilling the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov)  commitments
and support of EPA's information technology initiatives.  These activities  build upon efforts
started in FY 2004-2006 to enhance  the  availability,  quality and analytical usefulness  of
environmental information for EPA and its partners and stakeholders.  These efforts support the
data exchange of States, Tribes and other partners, through the use of the Exchange Network and
EPA's node on the Exchange  Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX).

The Exchange Network  is the cornerstone of the Agency's efforts to partner with states, tribes
and territories to exchange secure, accurate and timely information that supports environmental
and health decisions.  In FY 2007, EPA, states, tribes, and territories will continue to re-engineer
                                     Superfund-48

-------
data systems so that information that was previously not available or not easily available can be
exchanged using common data  standards and computer language called schemas.  In FY 2007,
all 50 states and approximately  10 tribes will have established nodes on the Exchange Network
and will be mapping data to the new schemas for sharing with partners and submission to EPA.
These efforts will be closely  coordinated with the Agency's Program Offices, as well as data
system registries.

EPA's efforts capitalize on the  Exchange Network and CDX to continue to improve access to
and  availability  of relevant program data including  data  systems supporting  the  Superfund
program (e.g., Risk Management Plan and Institutional Control  data flows) for states, tribes and
direct reporting participants. Additional data flow capability will increase information accuracy
through tools that check data before submission, increase timeliness of data, improve analytical
capability, and create economies  of scale as standards and schemas are reused and additional
efficiencies are found through re-engineering.

In addition, EPA will be  implementing electronic reporting  standards that will support the
authentication  and  electronic  signatures  of report submitters.   EPA will  work to provide
assistance to states, tribes and territories in implementing these standards.

Effective implementation of the Exchange Network activities relies on close coordination with
the Information Security and Agency Architecture and data management activities. Coordination
helps to ensure necessary system security measures are adhered to,  system platforms follow the
Agency's Enterprise Architecture, and data management follows documented data standards.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type




Output




Measure
Number of major EPA
environmental systems
that use the CDX
electronic requirements
enabling faster receipt,
processing, and quality
checking of data. The
baseline is 70 data
flows.
FY 2005
Actual




22




FY 2005
Target




12




FY 2006
Target




29




FY 2007
Target




36




Units




Systems




Measure
Type



Output



Measure
Number of users from
states, tribes,
laboratories, and others
that choose CDX to
report environmental
data electronically to
EPA. The baseline of
FY 2005
Actual



45,000



FY 2005
Target



20,000



FY 2006
Target



47,000



FY 2007
Target



55000



Units



Users



                                      Superfund-49

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
users for the scheduled
deployments of data
flows is approximately
75,000 users.
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target

Units

Work under this program supports multiple objectives.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-$217.6)  The reduction in resources reflects the Superfund portion of a shift in the
       emphasis of the Central Data Exchange from infrastructure to adding data flows and
       Web services;  and scheduling Enterprise Content Management System and enterprise
       solutions deployments to better align with Agency readiness, and with the lifecycle phase
       of the e-Rulemaking project.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
CAA and amendments; CWA and amendments; Environmental Research,  Development, and
Demonstration Act; TSCA; FIFRA; Food Quality Protection Act; Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments;  Federal Food,  Drug  and  Cosmetic  Act;  Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know;  SARA; GPRA; GRMA; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act; FOIA;
Privacy Act; EFOIA; EPAct.
                                    Superfund-50

-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
                   Superfund-51

-------
                                                                  Information Security
                                            Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management  (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in  Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$4,745.6
$234.6
$4,980.2
14.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$3,751.0
$341.0
$4,092.0
14.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,562.1
$788.6
$6,350.7
15.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,811.1
$447.6
$2,258.7
1.5
Program Project Description:

The Superfund  portion  of the  Information  Security  program protects  the  confidentiality,
availability, and integrity of the EPA's Superfund information assets.  The program: establishes a
risk-based cyber security program using a defense-in-depth approach that  includes partnering
with other Federal agencies and the states; implements aggressive efforts to respond to evolving
threats and computer security alerts and incidents, and  integrates information security into its
day-to-day business; manages the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) data
collection and reporting requirements;  and, supports the development, implementation and
operations and maintenance of the security documentation system ASSERT.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue its technical and system analyses, evaluations, and assessments
to maintain the security of EPA's Superfund information.  The constant system and network
monitoring is essential  to detect  and identify any potential weaknesses  or vulnerabilities that
might compromise EPA's information assets.   These proactive efforts allow EPA to develop
cost-effective solutions that extend EPA's long-term goal of building analytical capacity.  EPA
will also coordinate information security activities with the Homeland Security IT,  Exchange
Network and IT/Data Management program  requirements  and where  possible identify and
implement more efficient solutions.

In FY 2007, Information Security continues to be a critical factor in the effective management of
a Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plan.  The  Information Security program will continue to
coordinate with the IT/Data Management to prepare the Agency for successful identification and
implementation of the necessary  information management infrastructure, telecommunications,
and standard  operating procedures to ensure that EPA can  promptly respond to emergency
situations. In FY 2005  and  early FY  2006, EPA's COOP  Program met  the challenge  of
                                     Superfund-52

-------
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita with support that included emergency response access to the web
and internet, IT, communications, and other critical services.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Output

Measure
Percent of Federal
Information Security
Management Act
reportable systems that
are certified and
accredited.
FY 2005
Actual


94

FY 2005
Target


75

FY 2006
Target


100

FY 2007
Target


100

Units


Percent

Work under this program supports multiple objectives.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$387.9)  The increase will support development of the national Information Systems
       Security Line of Business (ISS LOB), and OMB e-Government initiatives.

    •  (+$59.7)  This increase reflects a shift of payroll resources from IT Data Management to
       Information Security programs to better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •  (+0.5 FTE) The FTE increase reflects a shift from the IT Data Management program to
       the IT Security Program to better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

FISMA; GPRA;  GMRA;  Clinger-Cohen Act;  Paperwork Reduction Act; FOIA; Privacy Act;
EFOIA.
                                     Superfund-53

-------
                                                                 IT / Data Management
                                            Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management  (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in  Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$84,371.1
$4,141.3
$108.0
$39.5
$17,734.0
$106,393.9
510.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$94,567.0
$4,173.0
$182.0
$31.0
$17,053.0
$116,006.0
486.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$96,807.2
$4,268.0
$175.9
$32.5
$17,120.4
$118,404.0
488.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,240.2
$95.0
($6.1)
$1.5
$67.4
$2,398.0
1.6
Project Description:

The Superfund IT/Data Management program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise
Architecture and  develops  analytical tools  (e.g., Environmental  Indicators) to ensure sound
environmental   decision-making.  The  program implements  the  Agency's  e-Government
responsibilities  as well as designs, develops and manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet
resources  including the Integrated  Portal.   In addition, the IT/Data Management  program
supports the development,  collection, management, and analysis of environmental  data (to
include  both point  source  and  ambient data)  to manage statutory programs.  The  program
supports the Agency in strategic planning at the national, program, and regional  levels, and
provides a secure, reliable,  and  capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise
architecture which includes data standardization, integration, and  public access. The program
manages the Agency's Quality  System  ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and
adhere  to  Federal  guidelines,  and supports  Regional  Superfund  information  technology
infrastructure,  administrative  and environmental programs,  and telecommunications. These
functions are integral  to the implementation of Agency information technology programs and
systems like the Exchange Network, the  Central Data Exchange (CDX, http://www.epa.gov/cdx)
and Permit Compliance  System  (PCS, http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html) Agency
Offices  rely on the IT/Data Management program and its capabilities to develop and implement
tools for ready  access to accurate and timely data.  Recent internal partnerships include portal
projects with the  Research  and  Development program and the Air  and Radiation program  to
access scientific and program data.
                                     Superfund-54

-------
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2007, EPA's Information Technology community will continue to focus on the Agency's
Technology Initiative and  fulfilling  the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) commitments. The
Agency's Technology Initiative builds on  efforts started in FY 2004 and FY 2005 to enhance
environmental analytical capacity for EPA, its  partners and stakeholders.   The Initiative is
designed with the understanding that the majority of environmental data are collected by states
and Tribes, not directly by EPA that ready access to real time quality environmental data and
analytical tools is  essential to making sound environmental decisions. The Agency's  IT/Data
Management program forms the core of this effort with its focus on building and implementing
the Agency's Integrated Portal and Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS), developing
improved Environmental Indicators, and deploying enterprise-wide IT infrastructure solutions.
The ECMS, and EPA's enterprise-wide IT  infrastructure solutions, combined with the Exchange
Network (e.g., Central Data Exchange, CDX), provides the foundation for improved information,
data access and sharing opportunities among the states, the Tribes, the public, the regulated
community, and EPA.

In FY 2007 EPA's  Integrated  Portal activities  continue  implementing identity  and access
management  solutions,  integrating geospatial tools, and linking the CDX in support of the
Superfund  Program.   The Portal is the Technology Initiative's link to  diverse data sets and
systems giving users  the ability  to perform complex environmental data analyses on data stored
at other locations. It  provides a  single business gateway for EPA's Superfund program, partners,
and stakeholders to  access, exchange and integrate standardized local, Regional and national
environmental and public health data.

Using a collaborative process, the Agency will continue to implement the ECMS project,  an
enterprise-wide, multi-media solution designed to manage and organize environmental data and
documents  for EPA programs,  regional  offices, field  offices  and laboratories.   Previously
fragmented data storage approaches will be converted  into a single tool on a standard platform
which is accessible to everyone,  reducing data and document search time and assisting in security
and information retention efforts.

EPA's infrastructure  program will continue to deliver secure information services to ensure that
the Agency  and  the  Superfund  programs have  a  full  range  of  information  technology
infrastructure  components  (e.g.,  user equipment, network connectivity,  e-mail,  application
hosting, and remote  access) that make information  accessible across the spectrum of mission
needs at all locations.

In addition to supporting key components  of EPA's Technology Initiative, Superfund program
will  continue to  provide regional offices with critical support  for  hardware requirements,
software programming and  applications, records management systems, data base services, local
area  network activities,  intranet web design,  and desktop support.  EPA's  environmental
information needs require the Agency to ensure that it is keeping pace with the States in the areas
of data collection, management and utilization. Additionally, this program will  continue to focus
on information security and the need for  each regional  office to have an internal  IT  security
capacity. The regional offices will implement Agency information resource management policies
in  areas   such  as  data  and  technology  standards,  central   data  base  services,  and
                                      Superfund-55

-------
telecommunications. The regional offices will also continue to work on the implementation of
cost accounting procedures to capture in detail all IT expenditures for EPA offices.

Information  Technology continues  to be  a critical  factor in the  effective management of a
Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plan. The IT/Data Management program continues to prepare
the Agency  for  successful  identification and implementation of the necessary information
management infrastructure,  telecommunications,  and standard operating  procedures to ensure
that EPA can promptly respond to emergency situations. In FY 2005 and early FY 2006, EPA's
COOP Program met the challenge of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita with  support that included
emergency response access to the  web and internet, IT, communications, and other critical
services.

The Superfund Program efforts are integral to the Exchange Network and Information Security
programs. Together these programs work to  design, develop, and deploy secure systems and
analytical tools to promote sound environmental decision-making.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives.   Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-$982.2) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.   In addition, this decrease reflects a $59.7 shift associated with the 0.5
       FTE shift below from this program project to Information Security within Superfund.

    •  (+$1,049.6) This resource increase supports  enhanced IT/Data Management regional
       requirements  including  records support, local  area network activities,  data  systems
       support (e.g. ECMS), and hardware needs.

    •  (-0.5 FTE) The FTE decrease reflects a shift from the IT  Data management program to
       the Information Security program to support ASSERT and EISS.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
CAA and amendments; CWA and  amendments; Environmental Research,  Development, and
Demonstration Act; TSCA; FIFRA; Food Quality Protection Act;  Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act;  Emergency Planning  and Community
Right-to-Know; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act;
FOIA; Computer Security Act; Privacy Act; EFOIA; EPAct.
                                     Superfund-56

-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory /
            Economic Review
                 Superfund-57

-------
                                                         Alternative Dispute Resolution
                              Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$1,531.0
$980.4
$2,511.4
11.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$1,048.0
$975.0
$2,023.0
7.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,229.8
$887.2
$2,117.0
7.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
$181.8
($87.8)
$94.0
-0.3
Program Project Description:

The  General  Counsel and Regional  Counsel offices will  provide  environmental  Alternative
Dispute Resolution services  (ADR). Funding supports the use of ADR in the Superfund
program's extensive legal work with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007,  the Agency  will provide conflict prevention  and alternative dispute resolution
services to EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices and  external stakeholders on environmental
matters. The national ADR program assists in developing effective ways to anticipate, prevent
and resolve disputes and makes neutral third parties - such as facilitators and mediators - more
readily available for those purposes.  Under EPA's ADR Policy, the Agency encourages the use
of ADR techniques to prevent and resolve  disputes with  external parties in many  contexts,
including  adjudications, rulemaking, policy  development,  administrative and  civil judicial
enforcement actions, permit issuance, protests of contract awards, administration of contracts and
grants, stakeholder involvement, negotiations and litigation.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports  multiple  objectives. Currently, there  are no performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-0.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (-$25.7) This reflects a minimal reduction to the ADR Superfund resources.
                                     Superfund-58

-------
   •   (-$62.1) This reduction is the net effect of an increase for payroll and cost of living for
       existing FTE, combined with a recalculation of base workforce costs.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's General Authorizing Statutes
                                      Superfund-59

-------
                                                 Legal Advice: Environmental Program
                             Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$32,764.8
$722.8
$33,487.6
236.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$35,931.0
$755.0
$36,686.0
250.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$37,525.5
$690.8
$38,216.3
249.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,594.5
($64.2)
$1,530.3
-1.1
Program Project Description:

The Agency's General Counsel and Regional Counsel offices will provide legal representational
services, legal counseling and legal  support for all Agency environmental activities. Funding
supports the use of legal advice in the Superfund programs extensive legal work with Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, legal  advice  to environmental programs  will include but is not limited to:
representing EPA and providing litigation support in cases where EPA is a defendant as well as
those cases where EPA is not a defendant but may  have an interest in the case: providing legal
advice, counsel and  support to Agency management and program offices on matters involving
environmental issues including, for example, providing interpretations of relevant and applicable
laws, regulations, directives, policy and guidance documents and other materials.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports  multiple  objectives. Currently, there are no performance
measures for this specific program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-0.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (-$48.5) This reduction is the net effect of an increase for payroll and cost of living for
       existing FTE, combined with a recalculation  of base workforce costs.
                                     Superfund-60

-------
   •   (-$15.7) This reflects a minimal reduction to Superfund environmental legal  services
       resources.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's General Authorizing Statutes
                                      Superfund-61

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
               Superfund-62

-------
                                         Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
                                             Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$22,223.9
$3,109.3
$25,333.2
195.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$23,168.0
$3,060.0
$26,228.0
164.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$21,847.0
$2,920.8
$24,767.8
163.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,321.0)
($139.2)
($1,460.2)
-1.5
Program Project Description:

Grants and Interagency  Agreements comprise over half of the Agency's budget.  Superfund
resources in this program support activities related to the management of Financial Assistance
Grants/Interagency Agreements (lAGs), and of suspension and debarment at Headquarters and
within Regions.  The key components of this program are ensuring that EPA's management of
meets the highest fiduciary standards, and that grant funding produces measurable environmental
results. This program focuses on  maintaining a  high level of integrity in the  management of
EPA's assistance agreements, and fostering relationships with state and local  governments to
support the implementation of environmental programs.  A substantial portion of the Superfund
program is implemented through lAGs with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard.
Sound grants management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will achieve key objectives under its long-term Grants Management Plan.
These objectives include strengthening accountability, competition and positive environmental
outcomes, and aggressively implementing new and revised policies on at-risk grantees. l  The
Grants Management Plan has provided a framework for extensive improvements in grants
management at  the technical administrative level, programmatic oversight level and at  the
executive  decision-making levels of the Agency.    EPA will  continue  to  reform grants
management by conducting on-site and pre-award reviews of grant recipients and applicants,
performing indirect cost rate reviews, providing Tribal technical assistance, and implementing
its Agency wide training program for project officers, grant specialists, and managers.
1 US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-R-03-001, April 2003. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/fmakeport.pdf
                                     Superfund-63

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this  program supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there  are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from the FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$227.8) This decrease is  the net effect of increases for payroll  and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce  costs.

   •   (+$88.6) This increase will support activities for  conducting on-site and pre-award
       reviews of grant recipients and applicants.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's environmental statutes; Annual Appropriations Act; FGCAA Section 40; CFR Parts:  30,
31,35, 40, 45, 46, and 47
                                     Superfund-64

-------
                                                 Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
                                              Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$317,744.7
$8,892.1
$32,244.5
$982.9
$552.1
$65,156. 8
$425,573.1
364.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$343,908.0
$8,511.0
$28,295.0
$894.0
$500.0
$69,667.0
$451,775.0
437.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$294,760.1
$70,239.5
$28,430.9
$916.8
$499.3
$73,944.7
$468,791.3
438.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($49,147.9)
$61,728.5
$135.9
$22.8
($0.7)
54277.7
$17,016.3
1.4
Program Project Description:

Superfund resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Project are used to
fund rent, utilities, and security, and also to manage activities and support  services in many
centralized  administrative  areas  such as  health  and  safety,  environmental compliance,
occupational  health,  medical monitoring,  fitness/wellness and  safety, and  environmental
management functions at EPA. Resources  for this program also support a full range of ongoing
facilities management services including:  facilities maintenance and  operations; Headquarters
security;  space  planning;   shipping  and receiving;  property   management;  printing  and
reproduction; mail management; and transportation services.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with GSA and other private landlords
by  conducting rent reviews and verifying that monthly  billing  statements are correct.   The
Agency also reviews space needs on a regular basis.

These  resources also help  to improve operating efficiency and  encourage  the use of new,
advanced technologies and energy. EPA  will continue to  direct  resources towards acquiring
alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger cars and light trucks to meet the goals
set  by  Executive Orders (EO) 131492, Greening the Government through Federal Fleet and
2 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3149.htm
                                      Superfund-65

-------
Transportation Efficiency and EO 131233, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy
Management.  Additionally, the Agency will attain the Executive Orders' goals through several
initiatives including comprehensive facility energy audits, sustainable building design in Agency
construction and alteration projects,  energy savings performance contracts  to achieve energy
efficiencies, the use of off-grid energy equipment, energy load reduction strategies, green power
purchases, and the use of Energy Star products and Energy Star rated buildings.

EPA  will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive  Order (EO)
13ISO4 "Federal Workforce  Transportation."  EPA will  continue the implementation  of the
Safety and Health Management Systems to ensure a safe working environment. As a result of an
ongoing review of indirect cost charging in FY 2007, the Agency is reviewing the allocation of
rent, security and utilities costs among EPA's various appropriations.  The largest shift is to the
Science and Technology appropriation, but other  appropriations proportions have  been adjusted.
Charging reflects actual costs for personnel within the Superfund appropriation.

In FY 2007,  the Agency will complete  its Headquarters space consolidation project for the
offices in Crystal City, VA. The move to the new facility in Region 8 (Denver, CO) will begin.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives.  Performance information is included in
the Program Performance and Assessment section.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+843.2)  This  is not  an  increase  to  the  overall  program,  but  a  shift  from  the
       Environmental Programs and Management account.  It is due to  a recalculation of the
       Superfund allocation  for rent, security and utilities  in the Superfund program.   This
       change reflects  the restructuring of cost  allocation methodologies.   In the past, direct
       laboratory rent,  security, and utilities have been included under the EPM  appropriation.
       This methodology change will better reflect actual costs for personnel with  S&T funds.

   •   (+$2,252.3) This  adjustment represents  an increase in  costs  associated  with rising
       utilities,  resulting from increases in natural gas and oil prices as well as  increase costs
       associated  with security.  The increase in security includes a base  shift  from Rent to
       Security, and represents the cost of the Federal Protective  Service  and Building Specific
       Guard  contracts previously included in GSA Rent/Lease bills. These costs will now be
       billed to EPA directly from the Department of Homeland Security.

   •   (+$1,278.5) This change provides additional resources for the new Region  8  facility in
       Denver, CO and the new Region 1 facility in Boston, MA - these moves align with lease
       expirations and are required by GSA.
 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3123.htm
4 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
                                       Superfund-66

-------
   •   (-$289.2) This decrease is the  net  effect of increases for payroll and  cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

   •   (+$876.0) Provides additional resources to cover basic facilities management services in
       EPA's Headquarters and ten regions.

   •   (-$683.1)  This change represents the expected on-time completion of the Crystal City
       consolidation project at Potomac Yards.

Statutory Authority:

FPASA; PBA; annual Appropriations Acts; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act; EO 10577 and
12598; United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities Report;
Homeland Security FDD 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
                                      Superfund-67

-------
                                                              Acquisition Management
                                             Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives.  This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$21,830.4
$337.0
$17,464.2
$39,631.6
343.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$23,265.0
$358.0
$19,727.0
$43,350.0
364.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,418.3
$360.8
$23,514.3
$49,293.4
357.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,153.3
$2.8
$3,787.3
$5,943.4
-7.6
Program Project Description:

Sound contract management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs.
Resources in this  program  support contract and acquisition management  at  Headquarters,
Regions, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina and Cincinnati, Ohio.  Much of the Superfund
program is implemented through contracts. EPA focuses on maintaining a high level of integrity
in the management of its procurement activities and fostering relationships with state and local
governments to support the implementation of environmental programs.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA's Acquisition Management System has reached the end  of its useful life. Staff increasingly
spends time making the system work as opposed to using the system to  accomplish their work.
The system is obsolete; therefore an upgrade is not feasible.  In FY 2007, EPA plans to acquire
and to begin implementing a new acquisition system.  The new system will  provide data on
contracts that support mission oriented  planning and evaluation. The new system will allow the
Agency to reach President's Management Agenda (PMA) goals, e-government requirements and
the  needs of Agency personnel resulting in more efficient process implementation. Some of the
benefits of the  new  system are:  1) Program offices will be  able to track  the progress of
individual actions; 2) Extensive querying and reporting capabilities to meet internal and external
demands.   In  addition, the  system  will integrate with  the Agency's  financial systems and
Government-wide shared services.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives.  Currently, there are  no performance
measures specific to this program project.
                                     Superfund-68

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$764.8) This reflects increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (+$2,000)  This change reflects an increase to support the development and deployment
       of the Agency's new Acquisition Management System. A total of $4,000.0 is requested
       ($2.0M EPM and $2.0M  Superfund). The new  Acquisition Management System  is
       required because the  existing system is obsolete and impedes efficiency.  The new system
       will be capable of integrating with the GSA Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE).
       The IAE is  an initiative under the President's Management Agenda effort to expand E-
       Government.

    •   (+$1,022.5)  This increase will  support the Agency in enhancing the education of its
       contract workforce.  The increase will also help support the  central contractor registry,
       which is the single government-wide database for vendor data and part of the IAE.

    •   (-7.6 FTE)  This reduction is in accordance with the Agency-wide workforce adjustment.
       This reduction also reflects efforts to strategically realign projected workload and skill
       requirements with updated cost estimates for FTE usage in the Acquisition Management
       program.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's environmental statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; contract law.
                                     Superfund-69

-------
                                                        Human Resources Management
                                             Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$46,795.7
$5.0
$5,250. 8
$52,051.5
344.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$41,275.0
$3.0
$5,665.0
$46,943.0
297.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$40,202.5
$3.0
$5,270.2
$45,475.7
297.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,072.5)
$0.0
($394.8)
($1,467.3)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

Superfund resources in this program support activities related to the provision of human capital
and human resources management services to the entire Agency.  EPA supports organizational
development and management activities through Agency-wide and  interagency councils  and
committees and through participation in interagency management improvement initiatives.  The
Agency continually evaluates and improves Superfund-related human resource and workforce
functions, employee development, leadership development, workforce planning, and succession
management.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA is committed to fully implementing "Investing in Our People II, EPA's Strategy for Human
Capital" 5,  which was issued in December 2003 and  reviewed in 2005.  As a result of  that
review, the desired outcomes for each strategy were strengthened to focus on measurable results.
In FY 2007, the Agency will continue its efforts to implement a Workforce Planning System  that
will include: closing competency gaps in senior leadership positions;  significantly reducing the
time to hire for senior executives; and reducing the overall  number  of vacancies for non-SES
positions processed beyond 45-days; and increasing the emphasis on the EPA Environmental
Intern Program and other innovative recruitment and hiring  flexibilities that  address personnel
shortages in mission-critical occupations (MCOs).

In accordance with OMB Circular A-76 "Implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform Act of 19986 (Public Law 105-270) (FAIR  Act), the Agency will build on competitive
 US EPA Investing in OUR People II, EPA's Strategy for Human Capital. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oarm/strategv.pdf
6 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/fair2002notice4.html
                                     Superfund-70

-------
sourcing principles to identify the most efficient, cost effective resources for performing
functions critical to the EPA mission.

Performance Targets:

Performance information for this program  is included in the  corresponding narrative in the
Environmental Program and Management section.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$713.6) This decrease is the net effect of increases  for payroll  and cost of living
       increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.

    •   (+$318.8) This increase  will  support activities for human resource and  workforce
       planning activities.

Statutory Authority:

Title V USC.
                                     Superfund-71

-------
                                              Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
                                             Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$68,045.9
$730.4
$20,620.3
$89,396.6
520.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$73,680.0
$1,010.0
$24,349.0
$99,039.0
548.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$83,548.1
$1,014.8
$25,540.8
$110,103.7
537.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$9,868.1
$4.8
$1,191.8
$11,064.7
-10.4
Program Project Description:

EPA's financial  management community maintains  a strong partnership with the Superfund
program. The Agency provides a full array of financial management support services necessary
to pay Superfund bills and recoup cleanup and oversight costs for the Trust Fund.  The Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) manages Superfund budget formulation, justification, and execution as
well as financial cost recovery.  OCFO manages oversight billing for Superfund site cleanups
(cost of overseeing the responsible party's cleanup activities), Superfund cost documentation (the
federal cost of cleaning up a Superfund  site), and refers delinquent accounts receivable and
oversight   debts   to   the   Department   of   Justice   for   collection.            (See
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm for more information).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will continue efforts to modernize the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
The modernization effort will reduce cost, comply with Congressional direction and new Federal
financial systems requirements.  This work is framed by the Agency's Enterprise Architecture
and will make maximum use  of enabling  technologies for  e-Gov initiatives including e-
Procurement, e-Payroll, and e-Travel.

EPA plans further improvements to its budgeting and planning system, financial data warehouse,
business intelligence tools, and reporting capabilities.  These  improvements will support EPA's
"green" score in financial performance on the President's Management Agenda scorecard by
providing  more  accessible  data to support  accountability,  cost  accounting,  budget  and
performance integration, and management decision-making.
                                     Superfund-72

-------
In FY 2007, EPA will continue to strengthen its accountability and effectiveness of operations
through improved coordination and integration of internal control assessments as required under
Revised OMB Circular A-123.  Improvements in internal controls will further support EPA's
President's Management Agenda initiatives for improved financial performance.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives.  Currently, there  are no performance
measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$105.3)  This increase will further support activities relating to the  assessment and
       strengthening of internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to OMB Circular A-
       123, Management for Responsibility for Internal Control.

    •  (+$1,780.0) This  increase continues the modernization  process  of  major  Agency
       financial systems  by funding  the  Financial  Replacement  System (FinRS) Capital
       Investment.

    •  (-$370.4) This decrease reflects costs savings in IT and telecommunications resources.

    •  (-$323.1)  This decrease reflects the net effect of payroll and cost of  living  increases
       combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce costs.

    •  (-1.7 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in EPA's  workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •  (-7.8 FTE)  This change represents a technical correction to bring FTE levels of the
       Financial Services portion of this program in line with historic utilization. The 7.8 FTE
       were  transferred  to  the Financial  Services  portion  of  the Superfund Enforcement
       program.

Statutory Authority:

Annual  Appropriations Act;  Clinger-Cohen Act;  CERCLA;  Computer Security  Act;  E-
Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPA's Environmental Statutes, and the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act; Federal Activities  Inventory Reform Act;  Federal Acquisition
Regulations, contract law and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46,
47); Federal  Manager's  Financial  Integrity  Act (1982);  FOIA; GMRA (1994); Improper
Payments Information Act; Inspector General Act of 1978 and Amendments of 1988; Paperwork
Reduction Act; Privacy Act; The Chief Financial Officers Act (1990);  GPRA (I"3);
Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5 United States Code; EPAct.
                                     Superfund-73

-------
Program Area: Research: Human Health
           and Ecosystems
               Superfund-74

-------
                                                            Human Health Risk Assessment
                                      Program Area: Research:  Human Health and Ecosystems
                                                  Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                  Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$33,247.5
$3,848.8
$37,096.3
177.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$35,637.0
$3,755.0
$39,392.0
184.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$34,488.5
$3,847.2
$38,335.7
183.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,148.5)
$92.2
($1,056.3)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) program provides health hazard assessments and
develops assessment methods to support Superfund in the following areas:

The Integrated Risk Information System  (IRIS)7, Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values,
and other health hazard assessments:  Based on the expressed needs of EPA's Solid Waste and
Emergency Response program, this program prepares hazard characterization and dose-response
profiles for environmental  pollutants and issues of specific relevance  to site assessments and
remediation.  Where IRIS values are unavailable, the HHRA program develops provisional peer-
reviewed toxicity values for evaluating chemical specific exposures at Superfund sites.  Support
for these  assessments  is provided through the  Superfund Technical  Support  Centers.  (R&D
Criteria: Quality, Relevance)

Risk  assessment  guidance, methods,  and  model development:   Improved risk  assessment
guidance,  methods, and models to support Superfund includes  the  development of dermal
absorption tools to better estimate potential  human  exposures at Superfund  sites,  and the
consultative  support necessary for the application of these methods.  (R&D  Criteria:  Quality,
Relevance)

Superfund research is guided by the long term  Waste Research Strategy8, which was developed
with participation from major clients and  outlines research needs and priorities. These  research
efforts are guided by multi-year plans (MYPs)9, developed with input  from across the  Agency,
which outline  steps for meeting the needs of Agency programs and  for evaluating  progress
through annual performance goals and measures.  Application of the research results and existing
 Available at: 
8 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Research Strategy (Washington: EPA). For additional information
please go to: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/wastepub.pdf
 For additional information, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp
The Waste Research Strategy outlines the research needs and priorities at the time it was prepared. To guide these research
efforts as progress is made and new needs emerge, EPA develops multi-year research plans that are revised periodically. EPA is
currently merging the Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans (MYPs) into one cohesive Land Research MYP, with
input from across the Agency, to ensure research conducted continues to support the Agency's mission to protect human health
and the environment.
                                        Superfund-75

-------
published scientific information to risk  assessment needs is described in the HHRA MYP10.
These MYPs were developed with participation from scientific staff in the Superfund program
and the regional offices.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The FY 2007 HHRA program directly supports key elements of EPA's Strategic Plan relating to
Superfund—particularly the characterization of risks,  reduction of contaminant exposures, and
cleanup of contaminated sites. Risk assessment activities relevant to Superfund cleanups will
include (R&D Criteria: Relevance):

    •   Completing IRIS health hazard assessments for high priority chemicals found at multiple
       Superfund sites and thereby contributing to decision-making needs for Superfund and
       other Agency programs;
    •   Completing 25 new and 25  revised provisional peer reviewed toxicity values at the
       request of the Solid Waste and Emergency Response program;
    •   Completing a technical summary of dermal exposure methods,  thereby providing the
       latest science for application to human exposure estimates at contaminated sites; and,
    •   Providing technical support to Superfund site and program managers on human health
       risk assessment through the Superfund Technical Support Centers.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports community and ecosystem protection.  Research milestones
are identified in the program's multi-year planning documents, but there are currently no annual
performance  measures that meet the  requirements  of the  PART guidance (i.e.,  that can
demonstrate progress toward established long-term outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$24.9 / +1.5 FTE)   This  shift represents realignment from the contaminated sites
       program in the Land Preservation program under Goal 3  to the HHRA program for the
       preparation of Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity  Values (PPRTVs) for use by the
       Superfund program. Work will continue to support critical needs as the PPRTV values
       are a priority to the Superfund program.

    •   (+$67.3)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (-0.1 FTE) This decrease reflects  a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources,  skills, and Agency  priorities.
Statutory Authority:

SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA.
10 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan (2005). Intranet site to be
provided.

                                      Superfund-76

-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
                 Superfund-77

-------
                                                Research: Land Protection and Restoration
                                                    Program Area: Research:  Land Protection
                                                      Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                  Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$10,257.6
$699.3
$841.0
$23,322.6
$35,120.5
138.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,606.0
$634.0
$838.0
$22,927.0
$36,005.0
135.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,552.8
$651.3
$903.1
$21,963.9
$34,071.1
142.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,053.2)
$17.3
$65.1
($963.1)
($1,933.9)
7.4
Program Project Description:

In order to accelerate cleanup of contaminated sites and reduce risk of contaminant exposure,
research focuses on three main themes: addressing questions in characterizing sites and deriving
more definitive sediments, multi-media, and ecological risk assessments; reducing specific gaps
in our understanding of human exposure; and expanding the number of remedial alternatives
with documented performance.

Research within this program project is  responsive to the Superfund law  requirements under
Section 209(a) of Pub. L. 99-499.  The law states "...a comprehensive and  coordinated Federal
program of research,  development, demonstration, and training for the purpose of promoting the
development of alternative  and innovative treatment technologies that can be used in response
actions under the CERCLA program, to provide incentives for the development and use of such
technologies, and to improve the scientific capability to assess, detect, and evaluate the effects on
and risks to human health from hazardous  substances."

Research is guided by the long term Waste  Research Strategy11,  which was developed with
participation from major clients and outlines research needs and priorities. These research efforts
are guided by multi-year plans (MYPs)12, developed with input from across the Agency, which
outline steps for meeting the  needs of Agency programs and for evaluating progress through
annual performance goals and measures.  Specific human health risk and exposure assessments
and methods are discussed and conducted under the Human Health Risk Assessment program.
  EPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Research Strategy (Washington: EPA). For additional information please go
to: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/wastepub.pdf
12 For additional information, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/osp/mvp
The Waste Research Strategy outlines the research needs and priorities at the time it was prepared. To guide these research
efforts as progress is made and new needs emerge, EPA develops multi-year research plans that are revised periodically. EPA is
currently merging the Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans (MYPs) into one cohesive Land Research MYP, with
input from across the Agency, to ensure research conducted continues to support the Agency's mission to protect human health
and the environment.
                                        Superfund-78

-------
EPA requested an independent review of the Contaminated Sites and RCRA multi-year plans by
the Science Advisory Board (SAB)13. The review panel found the plans to be programmatically
and scientifically sound (R&D Criteria: Quality) and commended the research and development
program's  close coordination with the program office (R&D Criteria: Relevance) and use of
leveraging  opportunities. The panel endorsed EPA's proposal to merge the two plans, which in
part address closely related research needs.

The Board of Scientific Counselors  (BOSC), a distinguished body of scientists and engineers
who are recognized non-government  experts from  academia  and  industry, evaluates  the
Agency's research programs,  national laboratories, centers, and offices,  and management
practices, and provides peer review,  including evaluation of the program's peer review policies
and research  plans  and  products.  The Land Protection and Restoration research program was
reviewed by the  BOSC in FY 2006 (December,  2005).  The BOSC will report its findings to the
Agency in the 2nd quarter of 2006.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2007, research will continue to advance EPA's ability to
accurately   characterize  the  risks  posed  by   contaminated
sediments,  and determine the range and scientific  foundation for
remedy selection options by  improving risk characterization, site
characterization,  and understanding  of remedial  options (R&D
Criteria:  Relevance).  In  FY  2007, contaminated  sediments
research  will  provide  a  consensus  framework  for modeling
                                                                Performance Assessment:
                                                                The  Land  Research  and
                                                                Restoration   program   is
                                                                scheduled for PART review
                                                                in 2006.  The program has
                                                                begun   developing    and
                                                                refining     outcome-based
                                                                performance  measures  in
     ,. ,   ,.             ,            ,   ,.      ,              ,    order to demonstrate results.
remedial  alternatives in large  water bodies and  estuaries,  and
evaluate  the significance of changes  (R&D Criteria: Relevance,
Performance) in bioavailability of organic and inorganic contaminants following resuspension
into  the  water  column  and resettlement to the sediment bed. EPA will continue to develop
remediation alternatives, conduct evaluations of their short- and long-term performance, and test
several remedies to identify approaches that have potential cost and performance advantages
(R&D Criteria:  Performance). The research is responsive to program office priorities to evaluate
conventional  and innovative treatment options so that site managers can better select cost
effective remedies (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance).

In the area of  ground water, products  in FY 2007  will include assessments of the  utility of
geophysical techniques for characterizing dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) distribution
in the subsurface and of the  long term impacts of source treatment and characterization of
reactive minerals responsible for natural attenuation of DNAPLs (R&D Criteria: Performance).
Treatment technologies  will be combined to accelerate successful DNAPL site cleanup, with a
focus on advanced  thermal treatment  and  flushing processes.  EPA  developed alternative
approaches, such as permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) that will also be evaluated for their
applicability to remediate ground water contaminants such as arsenic and mercury.  Although
PRBs are a recently-developed technology, they are being selected more often for Superfund
13 EPA-SAB-05-009 Advisory on the Office of Research and Development's Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans.
For additional information please go to: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/contaminated_sites_rcra_sab-05-009.pdf


                                      Superfund-79

-------
sites based on documented performance and cost advantages of the systems14 (R&D  Criteria:
Performance).

In FY 2007, research will continue toward developing a synthesis document in FY 2008 on
experience with alternative landfill covers to continue transferring the results of this research to
project managers (R&D Criteria: Performance). High interest in this area of research is evident
from substantial participation in EPA's 2005 Third International Phytotechnologies Conference15
(R&D Criteria: Relevance).

EPA  will  continue  to provide  technical  support to  Superfund project  managers  via  seven
technical support centers (TSCs) and two modeling assistance websites that provide site-specific
technical support to more than 100 cleanup program sites in the form of responses to scientific
questions (e.g., human health and  environmental  toxicity),  and technology transfer products to
EPA program offices and other stakeholders (R&D Criteria: Performance). TSCs provide direct,
practical, expert assistance to EPA program offices, Regions and other stakeholders. They  also
provide information  based on research  results to increase the  speed and  quality of Superfund
cleanups  and  reduce associated  cleanup  costs  (R&D  Criteria:  Quality,  Performance).
Development of human health toxicity values and technical support activities are discussed and
conducted under the Human Health Risk Assessment program.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports restoring land.  Research  milestones are identified in  the
program's  multi-year  planning  documents, but  there  are  currently no  annual performance
measures that meet the requirements of the PART guidance (i.e., that can  demonstrate progress
toward established long-term  outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars  in Thousands):

    •   (+$847.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (+9.7 FTE) This change in workyears reflects a redirection of workyears from the SITE
       program  which is being terminated in FY  2007.  These workyears  will support research
       in the areas of contaminated sediments remediation, groundwater transport, and landfill
       research.

    •   (-$1,631.7)  This reflects a reduction of funding for work to develop field deployable
       bioanalytical  measurement  techniques for Superfund analytes, statistical guidances for
       field sampling, and measurement methods for organic chemicals in soils in  support of
       Superfund.
14 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Capstone Report on the Application, Monitoring, and Performance of
Permeable Reactive Barriers for Ground-Water Remediation. (EPA/600/R-03/045) Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office. (2003).
  For more information please go to: (http://clu-in.org/phytoconf/agenda.cfm).


                                      Superfund-80

-------
   •  (-$178.8,  -1.5 FTE)  This shift represents a realignment of work  years  from the
      Contaminated Sites program to the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) program for
      the preparation of Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) for use by the
      Superfund program. Work will continue to support critical needs as the PPRTVs are a
      priority to the Superfund program. This decrease in work years is in alignment with our
      Human Capital Planning priorities.

Statutory Authority:

SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
                                    Superfund-81

-------
                                                              Research: SITE Program
                                                 Program Area: Research: Land Protection
                                                  Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                               Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$6,730.9
$6,730.9
6.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$1,206.0
$1,206.0
9.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,206.0)
($1,206.0)
-9.7
Program Project Description:
                                                   ,16
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)  program has conducted high-quality
field demonstrations of remediation technologies at sites that pose high risks to human health and
the environment. Complex sites where existing remediation methods are inadequate, do not exist,
are unsafe for the surrounding communities, and/or are  too  costly were the focus of these
advances in technology. Since 1987, the  SITE program has helped private  sector technology
developers accelerate implementation of their innovative technologies and gain market share.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the SITE program  will be  terminated.   As the  Superfund program matured,
innovative  approaches evaluated through the SITE program  and other  mechanisms  became
standard tools for remediation (R&D Criteria: Quality, Relevance, Performance).

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports restoring land.  Research  milestones are identified in the
program's  multi-year planning  documents, but  there are currently no  annual performance
measures that meet the requirements of the PART guidance (i.e., that can  demonstrate progress
toward established long-term outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$508.0)  This is  a reduction of the funds from the  SITE program, which is  being
       terminated.  The  SITE  program concluded  demonstration of innovative remediation,
       monitoring, and measurement approaches in FY 2006.

   •   (-$698.0)  This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and  cost of living
       increases for existing FTE,  combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
       workforce costs.
 ' For more information about EPA's SITE program, see http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/
                                     Superfund-82

-------
   •  (-9.7 FTE)  Workyears associated with the SITE program are being redirected to land
      protection and restoration research.

Statutory Authority:

SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
                                    Superfund-83

-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
                Superfund-84

-------
                                                                    Research: Sustainability
                                                      Program Area: Research:  Sustainability
                                            Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                  Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$36,354.6
$501.0
$36,855.6
111.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$25,803.0
$292.0
$26,095.0
76.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$21,404.9
$0.0
$21,404.9
77.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($4,398.1)
($292.0)
($4,690.1)
1.1
In FY 2006, Program/Project Research: Pollution Prevention (B6) was eliminated and Program/Projects Research: Economics
and Decision Sciences (EDS) (H7) and Research: Sustainability (H8) established.

Program/Project Description:

In addition to conducting research related to human health and environmental threats, EPA is
committed to promoting Sustainability—achieving economic prosperity while protecting natural
systems and quality of life.  One of the specific Sustainability research areas includes the Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program.17 As required by the Small Business Act as
amended,18 EPA sets aside 2.5% of its extramural  research budget for  contracts  to  small
businesses to develop and  commercialize new environmental technologies.   EPA is drafting a
new Sustainability research strategy and Multi-Year Plan. In the interim, research will be guided
by the agency's Pollution Prevention Research Strategy19 and draft Multi-Year Plan.20

Performance Targets:

Work  under  this program  supports compliance and  environmental stewardship.   Research
milestones are identified in the program's  multi-year planning documents, but there are  currently
no annual performance measures that meet the requirements of the PART guidance (i.e., that can
demonstrate progress toward established long-term outcome goals).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$292.0) This reflects an adjustment for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).

Statutory Authority:

CAA;  CWA;  FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SBA; SARA; TSCA.
17 For more information, visit: 
18 U.S. Public Law 219. 79th Congress, 2nd session, 22 July 1982. Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. More
information is available on the Internet at: 
19 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Pollution Prevention Research Strategy (Washington: EPA, 1998). Available on
the Internet at: 
20 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Draft Pollution Prevention and New Technologies for Environmental Protection
Multi-Year Plan (Washington: EPA, 2003).
                                        Superfund-85

-------
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
             Superfund-86

-------
                                           Superfund:  Emergency Response and Removal
                                                          Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
                                                     Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                                 Objective(s): Restore Land
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$197,032.3
$197,032.3
290.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$193,584.0
$193,584.0
293.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$192,398.9
$192,398.9
281.4
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,185.1)
($1,185.1)
-12.4
Program Project Description:

The Emergency Response and Removal Program ensures all releases of chemical, biological, and
radiological incidents to the environment are appropriately addressed through either a Federally-
funded lead action or by providing technical support to state, local, and other Federal responders.
Through authorities spelled out in various statutes and the National Contingency Plan (NCP),
EPA, as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), evaluates and responds to thousands of small
to large releases. This activity ensures that spills are appropriately addressed to protect human
health and the environment.  EPA leads  and/or provides support  at over 365 removal actions
each year, including emergencies, time-critical incidents, and important but less urgent non-time
critical threats.  This activity  also supports the development and maintenance of the necessary
response infrastructure to enable  EPA to effectively respond to accidental  and intentional
releases as well as natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:     	
In FY 2007, funding for Removal and Removal
Support  activities  will  assist Federal  OSCs,
who conduct and/or provide support at removal
assessments,  respond to emergency responses,
and  complete 315  removal  actions.   This
number excludes  actions at Federal  facilities
and  actions by potentially  responsible  parties
with enforcement instruments.

The  Agency  will  continue  to  improve  its
effectiveness  and   efficiency  for responses
conducted  at  removal  sites that  may require
more complicated  cleanup options.    These
complicated sites  involve more expertise and
expensive resources and frequently take longer
to complete.   In addition, they often require personnel with specific knowledge  on harmful
substances, health and safety issues, complex options or the utilization of emerging technologies.
Performance  Assessment:     The  Superfund
Removal Program received its first PART review in
FY 2003 and its second PART review in FY 2005.
It addresses releases,  and  threats of releases,  of
hazardous substances  into the  environment that
present a threat to the public health or welfare. The
initial PART review completed in FY 2003 had  an
overall  rating  of  "Results Not Demonstrated"
because the program lacked adequate performance
measures or an efficiency measure.   In FY 2005,
the Removal program received an overall rating  of
"Moderately Effective" from OMB's PART review
because it established  performance and  efficiency
measures.  In  addition to  implementing the new
measures, EPA is taking  steps  to improve data
accuracy  and  completeness  through  continuing
efforts to modernize the program's data  repository
(CERCLIS).
                                       Superfund-87

-------
EPA will improve its  ability to respond effectively to incidents that may involve harmful
chemical, biological, and radiological  substances.   As part of its  strategy  for improving
effectiveness, the Agency will improve response readiness using data provided in the after-action
reports prepared by EPA emergency responders.  Lessons learned from these reports are used to
develop smarter  technical  solutions  for the OSC community.  The Agency will continue to
maintain highly skilled technical personnel in the field, ensuring their readiness to respond to
releases of dangerous materials without compromising health and safety. EPA also will continue
to strengthen its site communications  as well as collection and exchange of information.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Superfund-lead
removal actions
completed annually.
FY 2005
Actual
172
FY 2005
Target
195
FY 2006
Target
195
FY 2007
Target
195
Units
removals
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Voluntary removal
actions, overseen by
EPA, completed.
FY 2005
Actual
137
FY 2005
Target
105
FY 2006
Target
110
FY 2007
Target
115
Units
removals
Measure
Type

Efficiency

Measure
Superfund-lead
removal actions
completed annually per
million dollars.
FY 2005
Actual

1.54

FY 2005
Target

2.10

FY 2006
Target

0.91

FY 2007
Target

0.92

Units

removals

During the FY 2005 PART process, EPA developed four new performance measures  for its
Removal program, including two annual output measures and two long-term output measures as
well as  an efficiency measure.  EPA has developed baselines for each of these performance
measures using FY 2004 data. The Agency will now track annual and long-term Superfund-lead
removal  action completions and  voluntary  removal action  completions overseen by EPA.
Measuring removal  actions will assess the reduction and/or  elimination of exposure risks to
human health and the environment.  Measuring  voluntary  removal  actions will  assess the
reduction  in the need for EPA intervention, thereby  allowing EPA's technical  expertise to be
used to  reduce the risks to human  health and the environment at  other removal  sites.  The
efficiency measure will track the total number of removal  actions completed by EPA per total
EPA resources obligated for each of those removal actions.

FY 2007 Change  from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-$1,877.1) This reflects a reduction to Headquarters technical support activities related
      to training  opportunities provided to regional emergency response personnel.
                                     Superfund-88

-------
   •   (+$692.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (-2.4 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (-10 FTE)  This change reflects a redirection of FTE from the Emergency  Removal
       program to the Remedial program to properly characterize activities performed by the
       Environmental Response Team.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA Sections 104, 105, 106; CWA; OPA.
                                     Superfund-89

-------
                                              Superfund:  EPA Emergency Preparedness
                                                        Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
                                                   Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                               Objective(s): Restore Land
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$11,387.4
$11,387.4
32.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$10,540.0
$10,540.0
44.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$8,863.1
$8,863.1
44.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,676.9)
($1,676.9)
-0.4
Program Project Description:

EPA implements the Emergency Preparedness Program in coordination with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS)  and other Federal agencies to deliver Federal assistance to states,
local, and Tribal governments during natural disasters and other major environmental incidents.
The Agency carries out this responsibility under multiple statutory authorities as well as the
National Response Plan  (NRP), which  provides the framework and  structure for managing
national emergencies.  EPA is the designated lead for the NRP's Emergency Support Function
covering hazardous materials, oil, and other contaminants.  As such, the Agency participates in
high-level DHS and other interagency committees and workgroups to develop national planning
and implementation policies at the operational level.

EPA  also chairs the interagency  National  Response  Team (NRT)  and co-chairs multiple
Regional Response Teams  (RRTs) throughout the U.S.  The teams coordinate the  actions of
Federal partners to prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies.

In addition to  helping the Federal government respond to natural or accidental environmental
emergencies, the NRP framework is critical to help the Federal government respond to chemical,
biological,  and  radiological  releases  resulting from terrorists incidents.   EPA  efforts to
effectively  prepare for and respond to terrorist incidents are funded under  the  Homeland
Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Program.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Preparedness on a national level is essential to ensure that EPA, other Federal agencies, and state
and local emergency responders are able  to deal with multiple emergencies. This program will
continue to enhance the  Agency's readiness  capabilities by improving  internal and external
coordination with those agencies.

EPA chairs the 16-Agency NRT and co-chairs the 13 RRTs throughout the U.S. The NRT and
RRTs  coordinate Federal partner  actions to  prevent, prepare for,  and respond to releases of
hazardous substances and other emergencies, whether accidental or intentional.  Building on
current efforts to enhance  national emergency response management,  NRT agencies will
                                     Superfund-90

-------
continue implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the NRP.
NRT  agencies will  improve notification and response procedures, develop response technical
assistance documents, and continue to implement and test incident command/unified command
systems  across all  levels of  government  and the private  sector as well  as  assist in the
development of Regional  Contingency Plans  and  Local Area  Plans.   Technical assistance,
training, and exercises will be provided to  continue fostering a working relationship  between
state,  local,  and Federal responders implementing the system. The NRT will also continue to
assist web-based responder training and innovative use of incident  notification technologies,
hazardous material research, and health and safety issues.

EPA will continue to provide staff support as needed during a national disaster, emergency and
other high profile, large-scale responses enacted under the NRP. As required under the NRP, the
EPA and other coordinating agencies were activated during  Hurricane Katrina/Rita response
activities. EPA supported  activities at the NRT, RRTs, National Response Coordination Center
and the Interagency Incident Management Group.

EPA will also provide support  to the Homeland Security Operations Center as needed  during a
nationally significant incident,  including a terrorist event. EPA staff will deliver presentations
on the NRP to national forums and will participate in nationwide exercises to test and  improve
the Federal government's preparedness and response system and its capabilities.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports restoring land.  Currently, there are no performance measures
specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-0.4 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (-$23.9) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living increase
       for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
       costs.

   •   (-$1,653.0)  This reduces funding for EPA participation in  committees, including those
       with cross-Agency  membership, which provide guidance to state and local governments
       on  emergency  preparedness  concerns,  such as developing and exercising  federal
       emergency plans and developing local hazardous material team capabilities.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA; CWA; OP A; Stafford Act.
                                      Superfund-91

-------
                                                             Superfund:  Federal Facilities
                                                          Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
                                                     Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                                  Objective(s): Restore Land
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$31,063.4
$31,063.4
138.2
FY 2006
Enacted
$31,336.0
$31,336.0
134.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$31,486.6
$31,486.6
133.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$150.6
$150.6
-1.5
Program Project Description:

From nuclear weapons plants and military bases to landfills and fuel distribution stations, the
U.S. government operates thousands of facilities across the country that promote the security and
welfare of American citizens.  After years of vital service and operation, some of these facilities,
however, have releases of environmental contamination,  such as hazardous wastes, unexploded
ordnance, radioactive wastes  or  other toxic substances.  EPA  collaborates with other Federal
agencies, states, Tribes, state associations and others to implement its responsibilities to ensure
that cleanup  and property  reuse decisions are made in a transparent manner.21  The Superfund
Federal Facilities Response Program also works with other EPA cleanup programs (Superfund
Remedial, Federal  Facility  Enforcement,  RCRA  Corrective  Action,  Brownfields,  and
Underground Storage Tanks)  in expediting the  cleanup  and property transfer of Federal lands.
The Agency  also has  statutory responsibilities  regarding the transfer  of contaminated Federal
properties including, but not limited to:  reviewing and commenting on documents related to the
transfer  of property; assisting local reuse authorities;  certifying that the  cleanup remedy is
operating properly and successfully;  and facilitating early transfers.22

Federal facility cleanups face unique challenges due to the types of contamination present, the
size of the  facility,  complex community  interactions,  ongoing operations/missions and the
complexities  of use/reuse related to environmental issues,  as in the case at military base closures.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will continue its  core mission  of remedy selection and  overseeing the cleanup of Federal
facilities on the NPL with a goal of achieving site-wide construction completions and facilitating
property transfer.  Of those  Federal facilities that need  response,  158 are on  the  National
Priorities List (NPL) - and another  14 were deleted, and 6 are  currently proposed to be added.
By the end of FY 2005, 47 sites had achieved  site  construction completion and 61 sites had a
final remedy selected.  Even with this  success,  there  still  remains extensive work to  be
performed.   As of October 2005, there are 410 ongoing Remedial Investigations/Feasibility
Studies and 220 ongoing Remedial Actions at the NPL facilities.
21 For more information on this program of EPA's efforts to work closely with other agencies, please visit www.epa.gov/fedfac/
and www.epa. gov/fedfac/stakeholder.htm.
22 For more information on EPA's responsibilities in the Federal land transfer process, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/baseclosure.htm.
                                       Superfund-92

-------
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response Program will continue monitoring the progress  of
five-year reviews being conducted at Federal sites where waste has been left in place, and land
use is restricted as a result of that contaminated waste.  These reviews are statutorily mandated
and also make an important statement to the public about remedy protectiveness where waste has
been left in place and, were the remedy to  fail, the public would no longer be protected.  There
are currently  117 Federal facility  sites with completed five-year reviews.  The program  is
currently planning on reviewing 19 five-year review reports at Federal facility NPL sites in FY
2007.

The Program will continue to support  and encourage citizen involvement by working with the
Department  of Defense  (DoD)  and the  Department  of Energy  (DOE),  and the  181
Restoration/Site Specific Advisory  Boards (RABs)/(SSABs), respectively.  EPA will continue
addressing concerns cited in a May 2005 National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee
report on environmental justice issues at Federal facilities.

EPA will  continue managing the  Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, which
is mandated by CERCLA 120(c).  The Docket identifies Federal facilities which have released or
have the potential to release hazardous  substances to the environment. In addition to identifying
Federal facilities which require site characterization, the Docket also serves as a reference tool
for Federal and state regulators as well as  the general public for identifying areas which could
pose a threat to human health and  the environment.

The Program  will  continue  supporting DoD at selected BRAC  1-4 installations.  EPA's
participation  in the  acceleration  process of the first four rounds of BRAC  has  been funded
through an interagency agreement  which  expires on  September 30, 2008.  BRAC Round  5,
which  was finalized  on  November  9,  2005, will  likely result  in additional  EPA  work
requirements at selected BRAC 5 installations beginning in FY 2006.  This includes, but is not
limited to, meeting and expediting statutory obligations related to cleanup to facilitate property
transfer.  This FY 2007 request does not include support for BRAC-related services to DoD at
BRAC 5  facilities;  if EPA services  related to  BRAC 5  facilities are required, the Agency
assumes DoD will reimburse EPA for the costs the Agency incurs to provide BRAC-related
services.
 Performance Assessment:   The purpose  of  the Superfund  Federal
 Facilities Response Program is to facilitate 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.
 „,„,,„,,„  .rt.   D       _      .          . ,.       sites  including  oversight of
 The Superfund Federal Facilities Response Program focuses oversight on
                                                               some     Formerly     Used
                                                               Defense Sites (FUDS) with
                                                               munitions such as the Spring
                                                               Valley site  in Washington,
                                                               DC.   FUDS are properties
                                                               formerly   owned,   leased,
                                                               possessed,  or  operated  by
                                                               DoD that are now owned by
a non-DoD party.  The Government Accountability Office estimates that over  15 million acres
no longer under DoD control in the U.S. may be contaminated  with military munitions and

                                       Superfund-93
those sites on the NPL where  cleanup is being done by other Federal
agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the Department of
Energy.  By definition, NPL sites are the Nation's highest priority sites.
The program underwent a PART assessment in FY 2005, and received an
overall rating of "Moderately Effective." As follow-up to the PART, the
program will be working with the other Federal agencies to attain long-
term environmental measures and will conduct an evaluation on an aspect
of the program in FY 2006.
                                                             There will be continued EPA
                                                             involvement    at    DoD's
                                                             military  munitions response

-------
related constituents.23  EPA is working on several initiatives with DoD, states, and Federal land
managers to address DoD's military  munitions challenges.  EPA will continue working with
DOE to accelerate cleanup across DOE sites.

In FY 2007,  EPA will continue addressing emerging contaminants  as  new science, toxicity
values and occurrence data becomes available.  These include chemicals such as perchlorate, 1,
4-Dioxane, trichloroethylene (TCE), naphthalene, and tungsten alloys.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Program dollars
expended annually per
operable unit
completing cleanup
activities.
FY 2005
Actual
647
FY 2005
Target
1,100
FY 2006
Target
1,000
FY 2007
Target
960
Units
thousand
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Number of Federal
Facility Superfund
sites where all
remedies have
completed
construction.
FY 2005
Actual


47


FY 2005
Target


46


FY 2006
Target


51


FY 2007
Target


56


Units


sites


Measure
Type





Outcome





Measure
Federal Facility
Superfund sites with
contaminated
groundwater under
control (exposure
pathways eliminated or
potential exposures
under health-based
levels for current use
of land/water
resources.
FY 2005
Actual





84





FY 2005
Target





80





FY 2006
Target





81





FY 2007
Target





82





Units





sites





Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of Federal
Facility Superfund
sites where the final
FY 2005
Actual
61
FY 2005
Target
56
FY 2006
Target
61
FY 2007
Target
67
Units
remedies
23 GAO. "Military Munitions: DOD Needs to Develop a Comprehensive Approach for Cleaning Up Contaminated Sites.'
Available through the Internet: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04147.pdf.

                                        Superfund-94

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
remedial decision for
contaminants at the site
has been determined.
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target

Units

Measure
Type




Outcome




Measure
Federal Facility
Superfund sites with
human exposures
under control
(exposure pathways are
eliminated or potential
exposures are under
health-based levels for
current use of land or
water resources).
FY 2005
Actual




131




FY 2005
Target




127




FY 2006
Target




129




FY 2007
Target




132




Units




sites




During the FY 2005 PART process, EPA developed a new efficiency measure which focuses on
the average program dollar obligated annually for each Operable Unit (OU) completing remedial
activities. The targets project an increasing efficiency by reducing the annual dollars obligated
annually per OU. An OU is a discrete portion of a facility or site where a certain remedy will be
employed to address the contamination present.

Performance goals  and measures  for the Superfund Federal Facilities Response  Program are
currently a  component of the overall Superfund Remedial Program's measures. The Agency's
ability to meet its annual Superfund targets is partially dependent on work performed at NPL
Federal  facility  sites.   In  FY  2007, the Superfund  Federal Facilities Response Program is
expected to achieve five construction completions.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-1.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will  help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

   •   (-$444.2)  This decrease will  result in less support for Department of  Defense  and
       Department of Energy's accelerated cleanup and property reuse efforts.

   •   (+$594.8)  This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA/SARA; RCRA; Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988, 1990, 1992, and
1994, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Acts and the Base Closure Community
Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act; CERFA; DERA; and NEPA.
                                     Superfund-95

-------
                                                                   Superfund:  Remedial
                                                         Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
                                                   Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                  Objective(s): Restore Land; Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$711,969.6
$711,969.6
970.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$588,905.0
$588,905.0
948.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$581,594.9
$581,594.9
950.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($7,310.1)
($7,310.1)
1.9
Program Project Description:

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 makes land
available for reuse.  The technical support provided by this program is used by other programs
including RCRA  Corrective Action,  Underground Storage  Tanks, Brownfields and  state
voluntary cleanup programs.  Resources in this program are used to:  (1) collect and analyze data
on sites to  determine the need for an EPA  Federal CERCLA response; (2) conduct or oversee
investigations and studies to select remedies; (3) design and construct or oversee construction of
remedies and post-construction activities at non-Federal facility sites; (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.   In addition to  Agency  research, EPA  stays abreast  of state-of-the-art
analytical methods and remediation technologies, working in partnership with academia, other
Federal agencies, and industry to identify and deploy promising technologies and strategies. For
more information about the program, please  refer to www.epa.gov/superfund/about.htm.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the Superfund Remedial Program will  continue to give a priority to its cleanup and
response work to  reduce current  and direct human exposures  to hazardous pollutants.  For
example, the Superfund Remedial Program will  provide  alternative drinking water supplies,
when appropriate, to people at all Superfund sites to protect them from contaminated ground and
surface water.  In addition, the program will relocate people at all Superfund sites where life and
health are threatened by uncontrolled hazardous wastes. Finally, the program will address costly
issues, such as  contaminated soil in residential areas, which can cause human health problems.
All  of these efforts demonstrate  the Agency's commitment to protecting human health  and
groundwater from site-related contamination.

The program's  ongoing priorities are reflected in its five performance measures, which are:  (1)
making final site assessment decisions at all sites under review; (2) selecting final remedies
(clean-up targets) at National Priorities List  (NPL) sites; (3) preventing any unacceptable human
exposure to hazardous  contaminants under  current site conditions at NPL sites; (4) preventing
                                      Superfund-96

-------
migration of contaminant groundwater  at NPL sites;  and 5) completing construction of the
selected remedies at NPL sites.  In FY 2007, the program plans to accomplish the following:
       (1) 350 Remedial Final Site Assessment Decisions, for a cumulative total of 39,372;
       (2) 25 Final Remedy Selections, for a cumulative total of 1,139;
       (3) 10 sites with Human Exposures under Control, for a cumulative total of 1,250;
       (4) 10 sites with Groundwater Migration under Control, for a cumulative total of 918; and
       (5) 40 Construction Completions, for a cumulative total of 1,046.

Through FY 2005, cleanups have been completed at 966 sites.   For more information regarding
the program's cumulative accomplishments through FY 2005, please refer to the Goal 3 Chapter
of the Agency's FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report at www.epa.gov/ocfo.

In addition,  Superfund is emphasizing several additional areas to improve program management
and increase efficiency.   In FY 2007, the Agency will have  four major Superfund program
efforts in this regard: (1) groundwater optimization; (2) institutional controls;  (3) benchmarking
of site-specific charging;  and (4) use of the  latest advancements in science and technology.

Groundwater optimization is an effort to examine the use and effectiveness of groundwater pump
and treat systems utilized at Superfund  sites, with a goal  of applying successful strategies for
improved performance throughout  the  program.  Institutional  Controls  (ICs)  are legal  and
administrative tools,  such as environmental easements, that are used to minimize the potential for
human exposure to contamination and to protect the integrity  of the cleanup remedy.  EPA is
exploring ways to ensure the long-term  durability,  reliability and effectiveness of remedies
involving institutional controls,  with an  emphasis on sites that have reached the stage of
construction complete. The Agency also will review its site-specific payroll charging process due
to the importance of properly accounting for Superfund staff time and resources. EPA expects to
implement best practices  based on the results of this review in FY 2007.
 Performance  Assessment:   The  Superfund Remedial  Action
 program was  initially  assessed  under PART in FY 2004, and
 received an overall rating of "Adequate".   The  PART Program
 Summary  found  the  Program's two long-term  outcome-based
 measures,  Human Exposures Under  Control and Groundwater
 Migration  Under Control,  support the  cleanup  and reuse  of
 contaminated  land  by  tracking  progress  in  controlling   all
 unacceptable human exposure contaminant pathways at sites listed
 on the NPL. EPA agreed to measure the efficiency of the program,
 as represented by the  percentage of the  Superfund appropriation
 obligated site-specifically. This interim efficiency measure  will  be
 replaced in FY 2007 by  a new efficiency measure that will track NPL
 sites with human exposures under control per million dollars. As
 follow-up to the PART, EPA is working to modernize the program's
 data repository  (CERCLIS) to ensure  accurate  and complete
 information on program performance and financial management, and
 will implement the recommendations of the Agency's 120-day study
 on management of the Superfund program.
The Superfund program also will
continue    to   improve    the
efficiency  and  effectiveness  of
remediation through the use  of
the latest advancements in science
and technology.    Four  major
types of activities are anticipated,
including:  a)  use  of  the  Triad
approach at one or more projects
in each region, which has been
shown to decrease lifecycle costs
for  site investigation,  cleanup,
and monitoring while  increasing
confidence  in the protectiveness
of    project     decisions;     b)
development    and    use    of
better/optimized   practices   for
                                       Superfund-97

-------
operating cleanup facilities and long-term monitoring of groundwater;  c) initiatives to better
assess  and treat  sites with difficult  to  manage groundwater  pollutants  by improving the
information available to project managers; and d) improved data management at sites by leading
projects that  integrate electronic  data and decision  support  software  and  help deploy new
advancements in sensor technology.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
Annual number of
Superfund sites with
remedy construction
completed.
FY 2005
Actual

40

FY 2005
Target

40

FY 2006
Target

40

FY 2007
Target

40

Units

completions

Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Superfund final site
assessment decisions
completed.
FY 2005
Actual
551
FY 2005
Target
500
FY 2006
Target
419
FY 2007
Target
350
Units
assessments
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percentage of
Superfund spending
that is obligated to
individual sites each
year.
FY 2005
Actual
54.30
FY 2005
Target
56
FY 2006
Target
54.8
FY 2007
Target
discontinued
Units
percent
The Superfund program also has developed a new outcome-oriented human health measure that
better describes human health protection resulting from cleanup actions.  This measure, the
Long-Term Human Health Environmental Indicator, indicates whether contamination levels at a
site fall within the levels specified by EPA as safe, or if they do not, whether adequate controls
are in place to prevent unacceptable human exposure to contamination. The new measure will
track the progress in achieving human  exposure  control at Superfund sites  for both current
conditions and  long term remediation.   For example,  it will  allow the  Agency  to  describe
successes made in reducing health threats in one  or more  contaminated media but not all; or
where main  parts  of very large sites have been cleaned  up but some work remains  to be done.
For GPRA purposes, EPA will continue to report the net number of sites that achieve human
exposure under control (or greater). First year reporting will begin in FY 2006 based on a revised
FY 2005 baseline.

Even though the  Superfund program  met its FY 2005 targets  for a majority  of  its existing
performance measures, challenges remain for the coming years.  The program has a number of
projects ready for construction, while it also needs to fund several large, complex remedial
projects at an optimal pace.  In addition, as the program has matured,  it has become necessary for
                                     Superfund-98

-------
the Agency to devote more resources toward post construction activities, including long-term
remedial actions and five-year reviews.

Therefore, the Agency proposes to redirect resources from  earlier phase  activities  toward
construction in FY 2007.   Combined  with the impact of reduced resources overall,  it is
anticipated that Remedial Final Assessment Decisions  will be  affected, with  performance
decreasing from 419 in FY 2006 to 350 in FY 2007. The program does not anticipate any other
changes to its current year performance targets as a result of changes in funding.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$4,384.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (-8.1 FTE)  This decrease reflects a change in  EPA's workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

    •   (+10 FTE)   This change reflects a redirection  of FTE from the Emergency Removal
       Program to the Remedial Program to properly  characterize activities performed by the
       Environmental Response Team.

    •   (-$11,694.3) Reduces funds to support activities under this program project.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA  of 1980, Section 104, as amended by SARA of 1986, as reauthorized through October
1994 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
                                     Superfund-99

-------
                                         Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies
                                                       Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
                                                  Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                              Objective(s): Restore Land
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$5,444.0
$5,444.0
0.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$9,540.0
$9,540.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$8,575.4
$8,575.4
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($964.6)
($964.6)
0.0
Program Project Description:

Other Federal agencies contribute to the Superfund program by providing services in areas where
EPA does not possess the necessary specialized expertise.  These agencies provide numerous
Superfund-related services  which  Superfund resources  support.   Contributors include the
Department  of Interior  (DOT),  the Federal  Emergency  Management Agency  (FEMA), the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the Agency will continue to provide resources through Interagency Agreements to
support other Federal agencies. The following table illustrates the levels of funding proposed to
be provided to each Federal agency in EPA's FY 2007 request:

                            Other Federal Agency Funding
Agency
DOI
FEMA
NOAA
OSHA
USCG
Total
FY 2006 Enacted
$ 891.6
$ 980.7
$ 2,184.3
$ 579.5
$ 4,903.9
$ 9,540.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$ 801.1
$ 324.1
$ 1,963.0
$ 520.8
$ 4,966.4
$ 8,575.4
DOI will provide response preparedness and management assistance that supports the National
Response Team/Regional Response Teams (NRT/RRTs). DOI also provides Trustee Assistance
and Damage Assessment Capability (TA/DAC) which builds capacity among state and Federal
trustee officials for conducting natural damage assessments resulting from hazardous substance
releases.

FEMA will provide technical and financial assistance to support the National Contingency Plan
through development of preparedness exercises and hazardous materials training.
                                    Superfund-100

-------
NOAA will continue to provide technical support during hazardous waste site investigations, to
identify and evaluate the severity of risks posed to natural resources from hazardous waste sites,
and evaluate strategies/methods of minimizing those risks. NOAA will also assist in developing
and conducting field testing of advanced chemical sampling and analytical equipment used for
efficient response operations. In addition, NOAA will apply new technology and information to
identify effective countermeasures during response operations.

OSHA,  under existing safety and health standards,  has the primary responsibility for worker
protection at Superfund sites. OSHA will continue to carry out this responsibility by inspecting
Superfund sites for compliance with OSHA standards. As a function of its responsibility, OSHA
will also continue to provide EPA with immediate access to its technical experts so that EPA has
the most up to date information to assist our health and  safety  personnel  in protecting EPA
employees and others at Superfund sites.

The  USCG,  serving  as  a Federal  On-Scene Coordinator (OSC),  will  conduct  small  scale
Superfund removals in the coastal zone of any release or threatened release into the environment
of hazardous substances, or pollutants or contaminants which may present an imminent  and
substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the environment.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports  preserving and restoring land.   Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$964.6)   Reduces funding  for  specialized  services from  other Federal  agencies
       supporting the Superfund program. The USCG is funded  slightly above the FY 2006
       Enacted level because EPA's need for its services to  respond to natural disasters  and
       homeland security events has increased in recent years. Funding will support the USCG's
       efforts  to  conduct Superfund  removals via  its  support  of EPA's National  Response
       Center.  To mitigate the impact of the other reductions, specialized services from other
       Federal agencies will be targeted to the regional offices most in need of support.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA Sections 104, 105, 106; CWA; OPA.
                                     Superfund-101

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                     Superfund

Acquisition Management	2, 5, 75, 76
Air Toxics	1, 7, 8
Air Toxics and Quality	1, 8
Alternative Dispute Resolution	1, 4, 65
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations	1,11
Brownfields	6,11,101,106
Brownfields Projects	6
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	2, 5, 79
Civil Enforcement	1, 2,16,18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 30, 32, 34, 37, 39
Clean Air	8,43
Clean Water	43
Compliance ..1, 2,14,15,16,18,19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 33, 35, 39, 40, 44, 60, 93,102
Compliance Assistance and Centers	1, 2,15
Compliance Incentives	1, 2,16,18,19, 22, 25
Compliance Monitoring	1, 2,16,18, 20, 22, 24, 25
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations	1, 4, 52
Corrective Action	101,106
Criminal Enforcement	1,2,26,27
Decontamination	3, 47
Drinking Water	56, 63
Energy Star	73
Enforcement	1, 2,16,18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 52, 80,101
Enforcement Training	1, 2,16,18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30
Environmental Information	11, 42, 49, 52, 54, 58, 60, 65, 67, 70, 72, 75, 77, 79
Environmental Justice	1, 2, 31, 32,102
Exchange Network	1, 4, 54, 55, 58, 60, 61, 62
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	2, 4, 72
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management	2, 4, 70
Forensics Support	1,2,33
Homeland Security	1, 2, 3, 4, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 58, 73, 74, 99,100
  Communication and Information	1, 2, 42
  Critical Infrastructure Protection	1, 3, 44
  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	1, 3, 46, 99
  Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	1, 3, 49
Human Health Risk Assessment	2, 5, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89
Human Resources Management	2, 5, 77
Information Exchange / Outreach	1, 4, 51, 52, 54
Information Security	1, 4,12, 42, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62
IT / Data Management	1, 4, 57, 58, 60
IT / Data Management / Security	1, 4, 57, 58, 60
Laboratory Preparedness and Response	2, 3
                                   Superfund-102

-------
Land Protection	2,85,87
Land Protection and Restoration	87
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review	1, 4, 64, 65, 67
Legal Advice
  Environmental Program	2, 4, 67
Oil	15, 24, 43, 44, 48, 60, 72, 86
Operations and Administration	2, 4, 5, 69, 70, 72, 75, 77, 79
Pollution Prevention	93
Radiation
  Protection	1, 8
Research
  Human Health and Ecosystems	5, 82
  Land Protection	2, 5, 86, 90
  Land Protection and Restoration	2, 5, 86
  SITE Program	2, 5,90
  Sustainability	2, 5,92,93
Science Advisory Board	87
Superfund
  Emergency Response and Removal	2, 5, 96
  Enforcement	1, 2, 35
  EPA Emergency Preparedness	2, 5, 99
  Federal Facilities	2, 5,  101
  Federal Facilities Enforcement	1, 2, 39
  Remedial	2,6,  106
  Support to Other Federal Agencies	2, 6,  110
Superfund Cleanup	2, 5, 6, 95, 96, 99,101,106,110
Underground Storage Tanks	15, 60, 72, 75, 77, 79, 86,101,106
                                   Superfund-103

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Resource Summary Table	1
Program Projects in LUST	1
Program Area: Compliance	3
   Compliance Assistance and Centers	4
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security	6
   IT / Data Management	7
Program Area: Operations and Administration	9
   Acquisition Management	10
   Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	12
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	14
   Human Resources Management	16
Program Area: Research: Land Protection	17
   Research: Land Protection and Restoration	18
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)	20
   LUST/UST	21
   LUST Cooperative Agreements	24

-------

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

               APPROPRIATION: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
                              Resource Summary Table
                               (Dollars in Thousands)

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations

$70,589.5
72.1
FY 2006
Enacted

$79,953.0
77.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$72,759.0
76.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

($7,194.0)
-0.5
          BILL LANGUAGE: LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM

For necessary  expenses to carry  out leaking underground storage  tank  cleanup activities
authorized by section 205 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and
for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation,  and renovation of facilities, not to exceed
$85,000 per project, [$73,027,000] $72,759,000, to remain available until expended. [For an
additional amount for "Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program", not  to exceed $85,000
per project, $8,000,000, to remain available until expended, for necessary expenses related to
the consequences of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in calendar year 2005: Provided, That the
amount provided under this heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2006.]

                             Program Projects in LUST
                               (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
Acquisition Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Human Resources Management
FY 2005
Obligations

$531.6

$108.0

$337.0
$730.4
$982.9
$5.0
FY 2006
Enacted

$711.0

$182.0

$358.0
$1,010.0
$894.0
$3.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$839.1

$175.9

$360.8
$1,014.8
$916.8
$3.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

$128.1

($6.1)

$2.8
$4.8
$22.8
$0.0
                                      LUST-1

-------
Program Project
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST / UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
Subtotal, LUST Cooperative Agreements
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /
UST)
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,055.3

$699.3

$10,146.4
$57,048.9
$57,048.9
$67,195.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$2,265.0

$634.0

$10,514.0
$65,647.0
$65,647.0
$76,161.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,295.4

$651.3

$10,590.1
$58,207.2
$58,207.2
$68,797.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$30.4

$17.3

$76.1
($7,439.8)
($7,439.8)
($7,363.7)
LUST-2

-------
Program Area: Compliance
          LUST-3

-------
                                                      Compliance Assistance and Centers
                                                               Program Area: Compliance
                                                   Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                 Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$27,207.0
$531.6
$270.1
$0.0
$28,008.7
200.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$27,935.0
$711.0
$284.0
$11.0
$28,941.0
212.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$28,890.7
$839.1
$280.2
$22.2
$30,032.2
212.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$955.7
$128.1
($3.8)
$11.2
$1,091.2
-0.3
Program Project Description:

To improve compliance with environmental laws, regulated entities, Federal agencies and the
public benefit from easy access to tools that help them understand these laws and find efficient,
cost-effective means for putting  them into practice. To protect our Nation's groundwater and
drinking water from  petroleum releases from underground storage tanks, EPA will continue to
provide compliance assistance tools, technical  assistance, and training to promote and enforce
UST systems compliance.  For more information visit: www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/index.htm.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
                                                              Performance Assessment:
                                                              The    Civil    Enforcement
                                                              Program was rated adequate in
                                                              the    last   PART   review
                                                              completed for the Program in
                                                              2004 based on preparation of a
                                                              Measures  Improvement  Plan
                                                              (MIP)  to better  characterize
                                                              pollutant   reductions   with
                                                              respect to hazard and exposure.
During FY 2007 the  Agency  will continue its work to obtain
states'   commitments  to  increase  their   inspection   and
enforcement  presence,  where  state-specific  UST  compliance
goals are not met.  The Agency and states will use innovative
compliance approaches, along with outreach and education tools,
to bring more underground storage tanks into compliance.   The
Agency will also continue to provide guidance to foster the use
of new technology to enhance compliance.

Performance Targets:

This program was included in  the Civil Enforcement PART review in 2004, which received an
overall rating of Adequate.  One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at
the overall reduction in pollution  as a result of enforcement actions.   We are exploring
methodologies to extend the measure by:  1) adding components that deal with pollutant hazard;
and 2)  identifying an indicator of the population that would have been exposed to the pollutant.
Work under this program supports the Preserve Land Goal.   Currently, there are no performance
measures specific to this program project.
                                        LUST-4

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$2.6) This reflects an increase in resources that support training to promote and
       enforce UST systems compliance.

   •   (+$125.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

PPA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA.
                                     LUST-5

-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
                   LUST-6

-------
                                                                IT / Data Management
                                           Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$84,371.1
$4,141.3
$108.0
$39.5
$17,734.0
$106,393.9
510.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$94,567.0
$4,173.0
$182.0
$31.0
$17,053.0
$116,006.0
486.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$96,807.2
$4,268.0
$175.9
$32.5
$17,120.4
$118,404.0
488.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,240.2
$95.0
($6.1)
$1.5
$67.4
$2,398.0
1.6
Program Project Description:

The LUST IT/Data Development supports the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making.
The  program implements the Agency's  e-Government  responsibilities as  well  as  designs,
develops and manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet resources including the Integrated
Portal.  In addition, the IT/Data Management program supports the development, collection,
management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both point source and ambient data)
to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in strategic planning at the national,
program,  and  regional  levels,  and  provides  a secure,  reliable,  and capable  information
infrastructure based on  a sound enterprise  architecture which includes data standardization,
integration, and public access.  The program manages the Agency's Quality System ensuring
EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines, and supports LUST
information  technology  infrastructure,  administrative and environmental  programs,  and
telecommunications. These functions are integral to the implementation of Agency information
technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX,
http://www.epa.gov/cdx)      and      Permit       Compliance       System       (PCS,
http ://www. epa. gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html)  Agency    Offices   rely  on   the  IT/Data
Management program and its capabilities to develop and implement tools for ready access to
accurate and timely data.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007 the LUST resources continue to support EPA's 'Readiness to Serve' infrastructure
program.  The  program delivers secure information  services to ensure that the Agency  and
                                       LUST-7

-------
program  have a full range of information technology  infrastructure components (e.g., user
equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application hosting,  and remote access) that make
information accessible across the spectrum of mission needs at all locations.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports  multiple  objectives.   Currently there  are no performance
measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-$6.1)  The  reduction reflects efficiencies  gained in  the  'Readiness  to Serve'
       infrastructure program.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
CAA and amendments; CWA and amendments; Environmental Research, Development,  and
Demonstration Act; TSCA; FIFRA; Food Quality Protection Act; Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments;  Federal Food, Drug  and Cosmetic Act; Emergency Planning and  Community
Right-to-Know;  RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act;
FOIA; Computer Security Act; Privacy Act; EFOIA; EPAct.
                                      LUST-8

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
                   LUST-9

-------
                                                              Acquisition Management
                                             Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$21,830.4
$337.0
$17,464.2
$39,631.6
343.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$23,265.0
$358.0
$19,727.0
$43,350.0
364.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,418.3
$360. 8
$23,514.3
$49,293.4
357.2
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,153.3
$2.8
$3,787.3
$5,943.4
-7.6
Program Project Description:

Sound contract management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs.
LUST resources in this program  support contract  and acquisition  management activities at
Headquarters, regional offices, Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati offices. EPA focuses on
maintaining  a high level of integrity in  the  management of its LUST-related procurement
activities,  and in fostering relationships  with state and  local governments,  to support the
implementation of environmental programs.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency will improve electronic government capabilities and enhance the education of its
contract workforce.  The Agency  will work  to  eliminate paper-processing  in  the LUST
acquisition process and manage acquisition  records electronically. In FY 2007 EPA plans to
acquire and to begin implementing a new acquisition system.  The new system will provide data
on contracts  that support mission oriented planning and evaluation. This will allow the Agency
to reach President's Management Agenda (PMA)  goals, e-government requirements  and the
needs of Agency personnel resulting in more efficient process implementation.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$1.6) This reflect an increase for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.
                                       LUST-10

-------
   •   (+$1.2) This increase will  support the Agency in improving its electronic government
       capabilities and in enhancing the education of its contract workforce.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's environmental statutes; Annual Appropriations Act; FAR; contract law.
                                       LUST-11

-------
                                              Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
                                             Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$68,045.9
$730.4
$20,620.3
$89,396.6
520.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$73,680.0
$1,010.0
$24,349.0
$99,039.0
548.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$83,548.1
$1,014.8
$25,540.8
$110,103.7
537.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$9,868.1
$4.8
$1,191.8
$11,064.7
-10.4
Program Project Description:

Activities  under the Central  Planning, Budgeting  and Finance program/project  support the
management  of integrated  planning,  budgeting,  financial  management,  performance  and
accountability  processes  and systems  to  ensure effective  stewardship of  resources.   (See
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm for additional information).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will continue efforts to modernize  the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
The modernization  effort will reduce  cost,  comply with  Congressional direction,  and new
Federal  financial systems requirements.   This work is  framed by the Agency's Enterprise
Architecture and will make  maximum use of enabling technologies  for  e-Gov initiatives
including e-Procurement, e-Payroll, and e-Travel.

EPA plans further improvements to its budgeting and planning system, financial data warehouse,
business intelligence tools and reporting capabilities. These improvements will support EPA's
"green"  score in financial performance on the  President's Management Agenda scorecard by
providing  more accessible  data  to support  accountability, cost accounting,  budget  and
performance integration, and management decision-making.

 In FY 2007, EPA will continue to strengthen its accountability and effectiveness of operations
through improved coordination and integration of internal  control assessments as required under
Revised OMB Circular A-123.  Improvements  in internal controls will further support EPA's
President's Management Agenda initiatives for improved financial performance.
                                       LUST-12

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports  multiple objectives.  Currently, there are no performance
measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$5.3) This increase will support costs associated with the financial management in
       support of the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks program.

   •   (-$0.5) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living increases
       for  existing FTE, combined  with a reduction  based  on the recalculation  of base
       workforce costs.

Statutory Authority:

Annual  Appropriations  Act;  Clinger-Cohen Act;  CERCLA;  Computer  Security Act;  E-
Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPA's Environmental Statutes, and the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement  Act; Federal Activities  Inventory Reform Act;  Federal  Acquisition
Regulations, contract law and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts  30, 31, 35, 40,45,46,
47);  Federal  Manager's Financial  Integrity  Act  (1982);  FOIA; GMRA  (1994);  Improper
Payments Information Act; Inspector General Act of 1978 and Amendments of 1988; Paperwork
Reduction Act;  Privacy  Act; The  Chief Financial Officers Act  (1990);  GPRA (1993);  The
Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5 United States Code; EPAct.
                                      LUST-13

-------
                                                 Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
                                              Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$317,744.7
$8,892.1
$32,244.5
$982.9
$552.1
$65,156.8
$425,573.1
364.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$343,908.0
$8,511.0
$28,295.0
$894.0
$500.0
$69,667.0
$451,775.0
437.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$294,760.1
$70,239.5
$28,430.9
$916.8
$499.3
$73,944.7
$468,791.3
438.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($49,147.9)
$61,728.5
$135.9
$22. 8
($0.7)
$4,277.7
$17,016.3
1.4
Program Project Description:

LUST resources in the Facilities Infrastructure  and Operations Program Project are used to
manage activities and support services in many centralized administrative areas such as health
and safety, environmental compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness/wellness
and safety, and environmental management functions at EPA.  LUST Resources for this program
also support  a  full range  of  ongoing  facilities  management  services including:  facilities
maintenance  and operations; Headquarters security; space planning;  shipping  and receiving;
property management; printing and reproduction; mail management; and transportation services.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

    •   The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with GSA and other private
       landlords by conducting rent reviews and verifying that monthly billing statements are
       correct.

    •   EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order
       13ISO1 "Federal Workforce Transportation."
 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
                                       LUST-14

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives. Performance information is included in
the Program Performance and Assessment section.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$28.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost-of-living for existing FTE.

   •   (-$5.6) This reduces resources for basic  facilities  management services  in  EPA's
       Headquarters and ten regions.

Statutory Authority:

FPASA; PBA; annual Appropriations Acts; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act; EO 10577 and
12598; United States Marshals  Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities Report;
Homeland Security FDD 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
                                       LUST-15

-------
                                                      Human Resources Management
                                            Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$46,795.7
$5.0
$5,250.8
$52,051.5
344.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$41,275.0
$3.0
$5,665.0
$46,943.0
297.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$40,202.5
$3.0
$5,270.2
$45,475.7
297.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,072.5)
$0.0
($394.8)
($1,467.3)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

LUST resources in this program support activities related to the provision of human capital and
human resources management services to the entire Agency.  EPA supports  organizational
development and management activities through Agency-wide and  interagency councils and
committees and through participation in interagency management improvement initiatives.  The
Agency continually evaluates human resource and workforce functions, employee development,
leadership development, workforce planning, and succession management.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to meet the Department of Labor requirements for distributing
workmen's compensation and disability.

Performance Targets:

Performance information for this program is included in the corresponding narrative in the
Environmental Program and Management section.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars  in Thousands):

   •  No change in program funding.

Statutory Authority:

Title V USC.
                                      LUST-16

-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
                 LUST-17

-------
                                                Research: Land Protection and Restoration
                                                    Program Area: Research: Land Protection
                                                      Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                  Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$10,257.6
$699.3
$841.0
$23,322.6
$35,120.5
138.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,606.0
$634.0
$838.0
$22,927.0
$36,005.0
135.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,552.8
$651.3
$903.1
$21,963.9
$34,071.1
142.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,053.2)
$17.3
$65.1
($963.1)
($1,933.9)
7.4
Program Project Description:

Research applicable to leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) addresses assessment and
cleanup  of leaks for  fuels  and various  fuel additives,  including methyl  tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE). Assessment focuses on development of source term and transport modeling modules
that can be  applied  by  state  project  managers.  Remediation  research  addresses  multiple
remediation approaches applicable to spilled fuels, with or without oxygenates.

Research is guided by the  long term Waste Research Strategy , which was developed with
participation from major clients and outlines research needs and priorities. These research efforts
are guided by multi-year plans (MYPs)3, developed with input from across the Agency, which
outline steps for meeting  the needs of Agency programs and  for evaluating  progress through
annual performance goals and measures.  Specific human health risk and exposure assessments
and methods are discussed and conducted under the Human Health Risk Assessment program.

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a distinguished body  of scientists and engineers
who  are recognized  non-government experts  from  academia  and industry, evaluates the
Agency's  research  programs,  national  laboratories,  centers,  and  offices,  and  management
practices, and provides peer review, including evaluation of the program's peer review policies
and research plans and products.  The Land Protection and Restoration research program was
 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Research Strategy (Washington: EPA). For additional information please go
to: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/wastepub.pdf
3 For additional information, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/osp/mvp
The Waste Research Strategy outlines the research needs and priorities at the time it was prepared. To guide these research
efforts as progress is made and new needs emerge, EPA develops multi-year research plans that are revised periodically. EPA is
currently merging the Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans (MYPs) into one cohesive Land Research MYP, with
input from across the Agency, to ensure research conducted continues to support the Agency's mission to protect human health
and the environment.
                                          LUST-18

-------
reviewed by the BOSC in FY 2006 (December, 2005).  The BOSC will report its findings to the
Agency in the 2nd quarter of 2006.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
                                                        Performance Assessment:  The
                                                        Land Research  and  Restoration
                                                        program is scheduled for PART
                                                        review in FY 2006. The program
                                                        has begun developing and refining
                                                        outcome-based      performance
                                                        measures in  order to demonstrate
                                                        results.
Leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) assessment
research will focus on the development of online transport
models that can be used by state project managers (R&D
Criteria: Relevance). Remedies being investigated include
active water treatment and monitored  natural attenuation,
with performance  influenced by  the  nature of  the  fuel
oxygenate. A  capstone  report  on  ex  situ biological
treatment  methods will be produced so that the  program
office and project managers can evaluate alternative remedies (R&D Criteria: Performance).

A major concern of EPA is the fate of pollutants released from leaking underground tanks into
ground water (R&D Criteria: Relevance). The Tools for Analysis of Contaminated Sites (TAGS)
version 2  contains methodologies and software to aid in the analysis of field data from these
types of sites. The TAGS utilizes a two-tiered structure, allowing for analysis of sites with either
limited or extensive data sets to address important site management issues such as:  contaminant
plumes  (contracting,  stable, or  expanding); and the occurrence  (or  non-occurrence)  of
biodegradation. (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance)

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports restoring land.  Research milestones are  identified in the
program's multi-year planning  documents,  but  there  are  currently no annual  performance
measures that meet the requirements of the PART guidance (i.e., that can demonstrate progress
toward established long-term outcome goals).
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$16.1)  This change is the net result of technical adjustments of support resources to
       more accurately align with Agency research priorities. This includes a net increase for
       payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (+$1.2)  This change is the net result of technical adjustments of support resources to
       more accurately align with Agency research priorities.

Statutory Authority:

SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
                                       LUST-19

-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks
             (LUST / UST)
                LUST-20

-------
                                                                           LUST / UST
                                  Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
                                                   Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                               Objective(s): Restore Land

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$6,459.2
$10,146.4
$16,605.6
112.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$7,763.0
$10,514.0
$18,277.0
114.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,713.7
$10,590.1
$22,303.8
131.3
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$3,950.7
$76.1
$4,026.8
17.2
Program Project Description:

The  Leaking Underground  Storage Tanks  (LUST) program promotes  rapid  and effective
responses  to releases  from Federally-regulated underground storage tanks (USTs)  containing
petroleum by enhancing state, local, and Tribal enforcement and response capability.

EPA provides technical information, forums for information exchange and training opportunities
to states,  Tribes and  Intertribal  Consortia to  encourage  program  development  and/or
implementation of the LUST program and helps to address groundwater and  drinking water
contamination  from oxygenates.   These activities support the LUST cooperative agreements,
awarded by EPA to states to  assist them in implementing their oversight and programmatic role.
For more information,  visit http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/20clenup.htm.

EPA works with state  UST programs to clean up LUST  sites, promote innovative approaches to
corrective action  to streamline the remediation  process, and measure and evaluate national
program progress and performance. The Agency has primary responsibility for implementing
the LUST program in  Indian Country,  and uses a  portion of its LUST funding to implement the
program in Indian Country (including, but not limited to cleanup activities and enforcement).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance  Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to work with the  states to complete more  cleanups each year in
an effort to reduce the backlog of 119,240 cleanups not yet completed.4 Since the beginning of
the LUST program, EPA has cleaned up almost 74 percent of all reported releases (332,799).

EPA's LUST Program priorities are to continue  to focus on cleaning up LUST sites;  address
contaminants of concern; and promote the continued use, reuse, and long-term management of
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum, FY 2005 Semi-Annual End-of-Year Activity Report, from
Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, dated December 15, 2005.  See http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca 05 34.pdf
                                       LUST-21

-------
LUST sites.   EPA also will  continue to  measure and improve  LUST program performance
reporting  and tracking, e.g., projecting cleanup goals,  analyzing trends,  looking at new and
existing performance measures  and their definitions,  and developing diagnostic tools to help
EPA and state managers optimize cleanups.  (See http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/index.htm.)

EPA also will continue to:
       Coordinate the efforts of the LUST program and EPA's Water program to jointly work
       with the states to address contamination in areas that are the sources of drinking water.
       Work  with its partners in  making  progress in assessing,  cleaning  up and reusing
       abandoned gas stations and other sites with USTs while exploring ways to  encourage
       public and private partnerships to leverage financial, technical, and managerial resources
       to  advance  the  cleanup   and   reuse  of  abandoned   gas  station   sites  (see
       http://www.epa.gov/OUST/rags/index.htm).
       Help state and EPA regulators respond to releases and sites  in a proactive manner, by
       providing a national  web-based training module that addresses topics such as basic
       hydrogeology,  source  control,  sampling techniques, remediation  technologies,  and
       performance monitoring (see http://www.epa.gov/OUST/virtual.htm).
       Encourage     the     use     of     multi-site      cleanup     approaches     (see
       http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ms_refs.htm) to expedite the cleanup, identifying ways to
       optimize traditional cleanup methods, and use performance-based contracting  to achieve
       LUST program objectives. UST owners and operators undertake nearly all cleanups
       under the supervision of state or local agencies.
       Carry  out LUST  cleanup  activities,  including  those with  methyl tertiary butyl ether
       (MTBE) contamination5
       Perform its oversight responsibilities.
To educate owners and operators about the requirements
 Performance Assessment: The Leaking Underground Storage
 program was initially assessed under PART in 2002, and in FY
 2004, received an overall rating of "Adequate" from OMB's third
 PART review.  To achieve an adequate rating, EPA was asked to
 create two  long-term  performance measures that  focus on
 environmental outcomes reducing the  number of cleanups that
 exceed state risk-based standards  for  human exposure and
 groundwater migration a  new measure  of program  efficiency
 compares LUST cleanups completed over  a three-year rolling
 average with public and private sector cleanup costs.  Due to the
 recent legislative changes from the Energy Act of 2005, EPA and
 the states are re-evaluatine this measure.
for addressing leaking USTs in Indian
 Country,   EPA  will   continue  to
 provide support for site assessments,
 investigations    and   remediation;
 enforcement   against   responsible
 parties;   cleanup  of  soil   and/or
 groundwater;     alternate     water
 supplies  and  cost  recovery against
 UST owners and operators; technical
 expertise  and assistance by utilizing
 in-house  personnel, contractors  and
 grants/cooperative   agreements   to
 Tribal  entities;  response  activities;
5For more information, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=l09 cong_public Iaws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf
(scroll to Title XV - Ethanol and Motor Fuels, Subtitle B - Underground Storage Tank
Compliance, on pages 500-513 of the pdf file) for information on the UST/LUST provisions.
                                         LUST-22

-------
oversight of responsible party lead cleanups; and support and assistance to Tribal governments.
The Agency estimates that cleaning up all known and yet-to-be-discovered releases in Indian
Country will take several years.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
Number of cleanups
that meet risk-based
standards for human
exposure and
groundwater migration
on Indian Country.
FY 2005
Actual


53


FY 2005
Target


30


FY 2006
Target


30


FY 2007
Target


30


Units


cleanups


FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-0.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

    ••   (+$159.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

    •   (-$83.3) This reduces assistance to educate owners and operators about the requirements
       for addressing leaking USTs.

Statutory Authority:

States:  Solid  Waste  Disposal  Act  (SWDA) of  1976,  as  amended  by  the Superfund
Reauthorization  Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle I),  Section 9003(h); Section 8001 (a) Tribal
Grants:  P.L. 105-276.
                                       LUST-23

-------
                                                           LUST Cooperative Agreements
                                   Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
                                                    Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                                 Objective(s): Restore Land

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$57,048.9
$57,048.9
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$65,647.0
$65,647.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$58,207.2
$58,207.2
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($7,439.8)
($7,439.8)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The  Leaking  Underground  Storage Tanks (LUST)  program  promotes  rapid  and  effective
responses to releases from Federally-regulated underground  storage tanks (USTs) containing
petroleum by  enhancing state, local, and Tribal enforcement and response  capability.  EPA
provides resources to 49 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories (Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands,  the Northern Mariana Islands,  American Samoa,  and  Guam) through  cooperative
agreements authorized under Section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) for the
oversight and cleanup of  petroleum releases  from USTs.  EPA will  also  continue  to fund
research, studies and training under Section 8001 (a)(l) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act that
directly supports state oversight and cleanup of LUST sites under Section 9003(h) of the SWDA.

States  are the primary implementing agencies (except in Indian country).   Forty-nine states
receive   LUST    funding   from     EPA    to    implement    the     program    (see
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/20clenup.htm). These states and territories have the  authority to
respond to petroleum releases from USTs using LUST Trust funds where owners and operators
are unknown, unwilling, or unable to take corrective actions. States and territories use the LUST
Trust Fund  to administer  their corrective  action programs,  oversee cleanups by responsible
parties, undertake necessary enforcement  actions, and pay  for cleanups in cases  where  a
responsible  party  cannot  be found or  is  unwilling or  unable  to pay  for a cleanup (see
                                                        http://www.epa.gov/OUST/ltffacts.ht
                                                       m).   States and territories may also
                                                       oversee  and  enforce  responsible
                                                       party cleanups and  cost recover from
                                                       responsible   parties    who    are
                                                       unwilling to pay for cleanups. When
                                                       the LUST  Trust Fund is used, tank
                                                       owners/operators are  liable  to  the
                                                        state  for  costs  incurred  and  are
                                                        subject to cost recovery actions.
Performance Assessment:  The Leaking Underground Storage
program was initially assessed under PART in 2002, and in FY
2004, received an overall rating of "Adequate" from OMB's third
PART review. To achieve an adequate rating, EPA was asked to
create  two long-term performance measures that focus  on
environmental outcomes reducing the number of cleanups that
exceed  state risk-based  standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration a new measure of program efficiency
compares LUST cleanups completed over a three-year rolling
average with public and private sector cleanup costs.  Due to the
recent legislative changes from the Energy Act of 2005, EPA and
the states are re-evaluating this measure.
                                                       EPA, with few exceptions, does not
perform the cleanup of LUSTs. Thirty-seven states have active state cleanup funds to pay for the
                                        LUST-24

-------
majority of owners' and operators' cleanup costs.  The vast majority of LUST cleanups are paid
for by state LUST cleanup funds and not by private parties; state funds are separate from the
Federal LUST Trust Fund.  For statutory  reasons, EPA will not use LUST appropriations to
implement any provision of the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005 (USTCA)
that is not also a leaking underground storage tank activity authorized by Section 205 of SARA.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to work with the states to achieve more cleanups completed each
year,  and reduce the FY  2005 backlog of 119,240 cleanups  not yet completed.  Since the
beginning of the UST  program, EPA has cleaned up almost  74 percent (or  332,799) of all
reported releases. At the FY 2007 request level the Agency will provide not less than 80 percent
(80%) of LUST appropriated funds to states to carry out specific purposes.6  EPA will  distribute
LUST funding to states  under a previously established allocation process.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
Number of cleanups
that meet state risk-
based standards for
human exposure and
groundwater migration
(tracked as the number
LUST cleanups
completed).
FY 2005
Actual



14,583



FY 2005
Target



14,500



FY 2006
Target



18,300



FY 2007
Target



13,000



Units



cleanups



In FY 2005, EPA and state tank programs completed 14,583 cleanups in states and territories; 53
cleanups were completed in Indian Country.

The LUST Program developed a measure of program efficiency in FY 2004 that will compare
LUST cleanups completed over a 3-year rolling average with public and private sector cleanup
costs.  The rolling average of cleanups will create a more meaningful and stable measure of
efficiency as cleanups completed can vary  significantly from year to year.  EPA is in the process
of developing and re-evaluating this efficiency measure  with  the states based  on legislative
changes to the program.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted  Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$560.2)  This increase will support the states'  activities to achieve more cleanups
       completed.
6 Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005 (USTCA), which was enacted as Title XV, Subtitle B of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976, as amended by the Superfund
Reauthorization Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle I), Section 9004(f).
                                       LUST-25

-------
   •   (-$8,000.0)  Reduction reflects funds received in  FY  2006 supplemental for Katrina
       Relief activities.

Statutory Authority:

States: Solid  Waste  Disposal  Act  (SWDA)   of  1976,  as  amended  by  the  Superfund
Reauthorization Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle  I),  Section 9003(h); Section 9004(f); Section
8001(a)(l); Tribal Grants:  P.L. 105-276.
                                       LUST-26

-------
                         Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                        Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Acquisition Management	1, 2,10
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	1, 2,12
Civil Enforcement	4
Compliance	1, 3, 4, 7, 23, 26
Compliance Assistance and Centers	1, 4
Drinking Water	8
Environmental Information	7,10,12,14,16
Exchange Network	7
Facilities Infrastructure and  Operations	1, 2,14
Gulf of Mexico	1
Homeland Security	15
Human Health Risk Assessment	19
Human Resources Management	1, 2,16
Information Security	8
IT / Data Management	1, 6, 7
IT / Data Management / Security	1, 6, 7
Land Protection	1,18,20
Land Protection and Restoration	20
LUST / UST	1, 2, 22
LUST Cooperative Agreements	1,2,25
Oil	4,7,14,19
Operations and Administration	1, 2, 9,10,12,14,16
Puerto Rico	25
Research
  Land Protection	1,2, 19
  Land Protection and Restoration	1, 2, 19
Underground Storage Tanks	1, 2, 4, 7,10,12,13,14,16,19, 21, 22, 25, 28
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /UST)	1, 2, 21, 22, 25
                                    LUST-27

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Oil Spill	

Resource Summary Table	1
Program Projects in Oil Spills	1
Program Area: Compliance	2
   Compliance Assistance and Centers	3
Program Area: Enforcement	5
   Civil Enforcement	6
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security	8
   IT / Data Management	9
Program Area: Oil	11
   Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response	12
Program Area: Operations and Administration	15
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	16
Program Area: Research: Land Protection	18
   Research: Land  Protection and Restoration	19

-------

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                        APPROPRIATION: Oil Spill Response
                              Resource Summary Table
                               (Dollars in Thousands)

Oil Spill Response
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations

$17,594.9
91.9
FY 2006
Enacted

$15,629.0
99.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$16,506.0
98.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

$877.0
-0.5
                        BILL LANGUAGE: OIL SPILL RESPONSE

For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental Protection Agency's responsibilities
under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, [$15,863,000] $16,506,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended.

                            Program Projects in Oil Spill
                               (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Oil
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and
Response
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Subtotal, Research: Land Protection and
Restoration
FY 2005
Obligations

$270.1

$1,900.7

$39.5

$13,991.5

$552.1

$841.0
$841.0
FY 2006
Enacted

$284.0

$1,910.0

$31.0

$12,066.0

$500.0

$838.0
$838.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$280.2

$1,826.3

$32.5

$12,964.6

$499.3

$903.1
$903.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

($3.8)

($83.7)

$1.5

$898.6

($0.7)

$65.1
$65.1
                                     Oil Spill-1

-------
Program Area: Compliance
          Oil Spill-2

-------
                                                       Compliance Assistance and Centers
                                                                Program Area: Compliance
                                                    Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                                 Objective(s): Restore Land
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$27,207.0
$531.6
$270.1
$0.0
$28,008.7
200.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$27,935.0
$711.0
$284.0
$11.0
$28,941.0
212.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$28,890.7
$839.1
$280.2
$22.2
$30,032.2
212.1
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$955.7
$128.1
($3.8)
$11.2
$1,091.2
-0.3
Program Project Description:

The  Compliance Assistance  program  is  designed to  prevent oil  spills using  Compliance
Assistance and Civil Enforcement tools  and strategies,  and to prepare for and respond to any oil
spill affecting the inland waters of the United States.  EPA's oil program has a long history of
effective response to major oil  spills,  and the lessons learned have  helped to improve our
country's prevention and response capabilities.
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Pursuant to  the  Clean Water Act  Section  311 (oil  spill  and
hazardous substances)  requirements, in FY 2007 the Agency
will continue  to  provide compliance  assistance to  regulated
entities to assist them in understanding their legal requirements
under the Clean  Water  Act,  and to provide them with  cost
effective compliance strategies to help prevent oil spills.


Performance Targets:
Performance Assessment:
The    Civil    Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the    last   PART   review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement  Plan
(MIP)  to better  characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of regulated
entities receiving direct
compliance assistance
from EPA reporting
that they improved
BMP as a result of
EPA assistance.
FY 2005
Actual
72
FY 2005
Target
50
FY 2006
Target
30
FY 2007
Target
50
Units
Percentage
                                        Oil Spill-3

-------
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
Percentage of regulated
entities receiving direct
assistance from EPA
reporting that they
reduced, treated, or
eliminated pollution, as
a result of EPA
assistance.
FY 2005
Actual



13



FY 2005
Target



25



FY 2006
Target



10



FY 2007
Target



12



Units



Percentage



This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART assessment for 2004 which received
an overall rating of Adequate. More information is included in the Program Performance and
Assessment Section. For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/prevent.htm.

No prior data exists to evaluate the performance of these measures over a multi-year period.  A
baseline will be established in FY 2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-$13.9) This reflects a decrease in resources for Oil Spills enforcement.

    •  (+$10.1) This reflects  an increase for payroll and cost of living  increases for existing
       FTE.

Statutory Authority:

OP A; CWA; CERCLA;  PPA; NEPA;  PHSA;  DREAA; SOW A; Executive Order  12241;
Executive Order 12656.
                                      Oil Spill-4

-------
Program Area: Enforcement
          Oil Spill-5

-------
                                                                       Civil Enforcement
                                                               Program Area: Enforcement
                                                    Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                                 Objective(s): Restore Land
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$113,719.7
$1,900.7
$625.2
$116,245.6
933.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$117,807.0
$1,910.0
$796.0
$120,513.0
960.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$120,777.7
$1,826.3
$883.0
$123,487.0
958.5
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,970.7
($83.7)
$87.0
$2,974.0
-2.2
Program Project Description:

This portion of the Civil Enforcement program is designed to prevent oil spills using civil
enforcement and compliance assistance approaches, and to prepare for, and respond to, any oil
spills affecting the inland waters of the United States. EPA's oil program has a long history of
effective response to oil spills,  including several major incidents.  The lessons learned have
helped to improve  our country's prevention  and response capabilities.  For more  information
visit: www.epa.gov/oilspill/index.htm.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
                                                               Performance Assessment:
                                                               The    Civil    Enforcement
                                                               Program was rated adequate in
                                                               the    last   PART    review
                                                               completed for the Program in
                                                               2004 based on preparation of a
                                                               Measures  Improvement Plan
                                                               (MIP)  to better  characterize
                                                               pollutant    reductions   with
                                                               respect to hazard and exposure.
Pursuant  to  Clean  Water  Act  Section 311  (Oil  Spill  and
Hazardous Substances) requirements, EPA's Civil Enforcement
program will develop  policies;  issue administrative  cleanup
orders and/or judicial actions for injunctive relief; assess civil
penalties for violations of those orders or  for spills into the
environment;  and  assist in  the recovery  of cleanup  costs
expended by the government. In FY 2007, the program will also
provide support for field investigations and inspections of spills,
as well as Spill Control Countermeasure compliance assistance.

Performance Targets:

This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART assessment in 2004, which received
an overall  rating of Adequate.  One of the  program measures, pounds  of pollutants reduced,
looks at the overall reduction in pollution as  a result of enforcement actions.  We are exploring
methodologies to extend the measure by: 1) adding components that deal with pollutant hazard;
and 2) identifying an indicator of the population that would have been exposed to the pollutant.
Work under this program supports the Preserve  Land Goal. Currently, there are no performance
measures specific to this program project.
                                        Oil Spill-6

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+$12.3) This increase will be used to issue administrative cleanup orders and other civil
       enforcement actions relating to the oil spills requirements under the Clean Water Act,
       Section 311.

   •  (-$96.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll  and cost of living  for
       existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
       costs.

Statutory Authority:

OP A; CWA; CERCLA; NEPA; Pollution Prosecution Act.
                                      Oil Spill-7

-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
                   Oil Spill-8

-------
                                                                 IT / Data Management
                                            Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management  (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                  (Dollars in  Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$84,371.1
$4,141.3
$108.0
$39.5
$17,734.0
$106,393.9
510.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$94,567.0
$4,173.0
$182.0
$31.0
$17,053.0
$116,006.0
486.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$96,807.2
$4,268.0
$175.9
$32.5
$17,120.4
$118,404.0
488.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$2,240.2
$95.0
($6.1)
$1.5
$67.4
$2,398.0
1.6
Program Project Description:

The Oil IT/Data Management program supports the development of the Agency's Enterprise
Architecture and  develops  analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound
environmental  decision-making.  The  program  implements  the  Agency's   e-Government
responsibilities  as well as designs, develops and manages the Agency's Internet and  Intranet
resources  including the Integrated Portal.   In addition, the IT/Data Management  program
supports  the  development,  collection, management, and analysis  of environmental  data (to
include both point source and ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the
Agency in strategic planning at the national, program, and regional levels, and provides a secure,
reliable, and capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which
includes  data  standardization, integration,  and public access.   The  program manages  the
Agency's Quality  System ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal
guidelines,  and  supports  Oil   information  technology infrastructure,  administrative  and
environmental  programs,  and  telecommunications.   These  functions   are integral  to  the
implementation of Agency  information technology programs and systems like the Exchange
Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX, http://www.epa.gov/cdx) and Permit  Compliance
System (PCS,  http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html)  Agency  Offices rely  on  the
IT/Data Management program and its capabilities to develop and implement  tools for ready
access to accurate and timely data.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007 the Oil Spill resources continue to support EPA's 'Readiness to Serve' infrastructure
program.   This program delivers  secure information services to ensure  that the Agency and
                                       Oil Spill-9

-------
program have  a full range of information technology infrastructure  components (e.g.,  user
equipment,  network  connectivity,  e-mail,  application hosting,  remote access)  that make
information accessible across the spectrum of mission needs at all locations.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports multiple performance objectives.  Currently there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$1.5) This resource adjustment reflects additional use  of Agency's information
       technology infrastructure components for the Oil appropriation.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act; Government Information Security Reform Action; CERCLA;
CAA and amendments; CWA and  amendments; Environmental  Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act; TSCA; FIFRA; Food Quality Protection Act;  Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments;  Federal Food, Drug and  Cosmetic Act; Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; Clinger-Cohen Act; Paperwork Reduction Act;
FOIA; Computer Security Act; Privacy Act; EFOIA; EPAct.
                                     Oil Spill-10

-------
Program Area: Oil
      Oil Spill-11

-------
                                          Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
                                                                           Program Area: Oil
                                                      Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                                   Objective(s): Restore Land

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Oil Spill Response
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$13,991.5
$13,991.5
81.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$12,066.0
$12,066.0
82.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,964.6
$12,964.6
82.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$898.6
$898.6
-0.5
Program Project Description:

The Oil Program protects U.S.  waters by effectively preventing, preparing for, responding to
and/or monitoring oil spills.  EPA conducts oil  spill prevention, preparedness, and enforcement
activities associated  with the over half million non-transportation-related oil storage  facilities
that EPA regulates through  its  spill  prevention program.   The  Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) regulation and the Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations  establish
EPA's oil program regulatory framework.   In addition to its prevention responsibilities, EPA
serves as the lead responder for cleanup of all inland zone spills, including transportation-related
spills from pipelines, trucks, and  other transportation  systems.  EPA accesses the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund, administered by the U.S. Coast Guard, to obtain reimbursement for site
specific spill response activities.  Over 24,000 oil spills occur in the U.S. every year, with half of
these spills to the inland zone over which EPA has jurisdiction. On average, one spill of greater
than 100,000 gallons occurs every month from EPA-regulated oil storage facilities and the inland
oil transportation network.
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA intends to finalize regulatory
changes that are to be proposed in mid-2006.
These changes are designed to clarify a number
of technical issues  associated with the  SPCC
rule requirements and to address specific sector
adjustments that arise from regulatory work to
be completed in calendar year 2006 on  small
businesses,    farms    and   other   sectors.
Substantial  supporting  work,  including  data
gathering activities and  responding  to  public
comments  on  the  proposed  rule, will   be
necessary to complete rule finalization by June
2007.  EPA also expects to revise and update
guidance that was issued in calendar year 2005
to ensure it reflects  current rule requirements
Performance Assessment: EPA's Oil Spill Program
was  assessed  under  PART in FY 2005.   The
program's purpose is  to carry out, in part,  the
national  policy that prohibits  oil  discharge from
vessels and facilities.  EPA's role  is  to prevent,
prepare for and respond to oil discharges from non-
transportation-related onshore facilities to navigable
waters of the US and adjoining shorelines. Program
resources are  allocated to EPA headquarters, which
provides  regulatory support and coordinates regional
activities and  EPA's  ten regional  offices, which
implement the regulations, perform inspections and
maintain spill response infrastructure. In 2005, the
Oil  Program received  an  overall  rating   of
"Adequate" from OMB's PART review because it
established performance and efficiency measures.
EPA will issue draft guidance in spring 2006  to
regional program managers for use in understanding
and reporting on performance measures.
                                         Oil Spill-12

-------
and input from stakeholders.  The Agency also intends to complete a proposed rulemaking for
the National  Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Subpart J, which
required  EPA to prepare a schedule of chemical and biological oil spill countermeasures.  In
2007, the Agency expects to respond to or monitor 300 oil spill responses.

The largest oil storage facilities and refineries must prepare Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to
identify response resources and ensure their availability in the event of a worst case discharge.
FRPs establish  communication, address  security, identify  an individual  with authority  to
implement removal actions, and describe training and testing drills at the facility. In FY 2007,
EPA will continue  to review/approve FRPs and conduct inspections at 200 FRP facilities. EPA
will emphasize emergency preparedness, particularly through the use of unannounced drills and
exercises, to ensure facilities and responders can effectively implement response plans.

Working with area committees (state, local and Federal officials in a given geographic location),
EPA will continue to enhance the existing National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program
by strengthening area and regional contingency  plans (ACPs, RCPs).  The ACPs detail the
responsibilities of various parties in the event  of  a spill/release, describe unique geographical
features,  sensitive  ecological  resources,  and drinking water  intakes for the area covered, and
identify available response  equipment and its location.  EPA conducts a small number  of ACP
exercises each year to evaluate and strengthen the plans.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Compliance rate of
inspected facilities
subject to Facility
Response Plan (FRP)
regulations.
FY 2005
Actual
77
FY 2005
Target
100
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Output


Measure
Compliance rate of
inspected facilities
subject to Spill
Prevention, Control
and Countermeasures
(SPCC) regulations.
FY 2005
Actual
100


FY 2005
Target
100


FY 2006
Target
100


FY 2007
Target
100


Units
percent


As part of the 2005 PART process, EPA developed five new performance measures for its Oil
Program, including two annual output measures, one long-term outcome measure, one efficiency
measure and one long-term output measure.  EPA has also developed baselines for each of these
performance measures using data from 2003  and 2004.

To increase data accuracy and completeness for the new measures, EPA will take the following
steps: 1) issue guidance  in spring 2006 to  Regional  program managers to be utilized  during
                                      Oil Spill-13

-------
assessing performance measures; 2) implement a web-based performance measure reporting
system by the end of FY 2006; and 3) complete analysis of the National Response Center's
database and report recommendations for changes to improve data quality by the  end of FY
2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$771.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

   •   (+$126.7)   This  increase will support continued audits and inspections at regulated
       facilities.

   •   (-0.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Water Pollution Control  Act as amended by  the  OPA of 1990.   The regulatory
framework  includes the  Oil and Hazardous  Substances NCP  (40 CFR Part 300) and the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulation (40 CFR Part 112) which covers the SPCC, and FRP program
requirements.
                                     Oil Spill-14

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
                  Oil Spill-15

-------
                                                 Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
                                              Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$317,744.7
$8,892.1
$32,244.5
$982.9
$552.1
$65,156.8
$425,573.1
364.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$343,908.0
$8,511.0
$28,295.0
$894.0
$500.0
$69,667.0
$451,775.0
437.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$294,760.1
$70,239.5
$28,430.9
$916.8
$499.3
$73,944.7
$468,791.3
438.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($49,147.9)
$61,728.5
$135.9
$22.8
($0.7)
$4,277.7
$17,016.3
1.4
Program Project Description:

Oil Spill account resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Project are
used to manage activities and support services in many centralized administrative areas such as
health  and  safety,  environmental  compliance,   occupational  health,  medical  monitoring,
fitness/wellness and safety, and environmental management functions at EPA. Oil appropriation
resources for this program also support a full range of ongoing facilities management services
including: facilities maintenance and operations; Headquarters security; space planning; shipping
and  receiving; property  management; printing  and  reproduction;  mail  management;  and
transportation services.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

    •   The Agency will continue  to  manage  its  lease agreements with the General Services
       Administration  (GSA) and  other private  landlords  by  conducting rent reviews  and
       verifying that monthly billing statements are correct.

    •   EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order
       13ISO1 "Federal Workforce Transportation."
 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
                                       Oil Spill-16

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives.  Performance information is included in
the Program Performance and Assessment section.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$0.7) This decrease is the net effect of increases for facility operations  support,  and
       payroll and cost of living increases for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on
       the recalculation of base workforce costs.

Statutory Authority:

FPASA; PBA; annual Appropriations Acts; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act; Executive Orders
10577 and  12598; United  States Marshals Service, Vulnerability  Assessment of Federal
Facilities Report; Homeland  Security Presidential Decision Directive 63  (Critical Infrastructure
Protection).
                                      Oil Spill-17

-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
                 Oil Spill-18

-------
                                                Research: Land Protection and Restoration
                                                    Program Area: Research:  Land Protection
                                                      Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                  Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$10,257.6
$699.3
$841.0
$23,322.6
$35,120.5
138.9
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,606.0
$634.0
$838.0
$22,927.0
$36,005.0
135.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,552.8
$651.3
$903.1
$21,963.9
$34,071.1
142.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,053.2)
$17.3
$65.1
($963.1)
($1,933.9)
7.4
Program Project Description:

Land  protection  research in  the oil  spills area  focuses  on  three  aspects:  test  protocol
development, fate and transport modeling, and remediation. EPA develops and uses protocols for
testing various spill  response  product classes to  pre-qualify  products  as  required by the
preparedness and response requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Research is  guided by  the  long term  Waste Research Strategy2, which was developed with
participation from major  clients and outlines research needs and priorities.  Testing  products
ensures they work as claimed and provides access to effective means to reduce damage when an
oil spill occurs. These research efforts are guided by multi-year plans (MYPs)3, developed with
input from across the Agency, which outline steps for meeting the needs of Agency programs
and  for evaluating progress through annual performance goals and measures. Specific human
health risk and exposure assessments and methods are discussed and conducted under the Human
Health Risk Assessment program.

The  Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a  distinguished body of scientists  and engineers
who  are recognized  non-government  experts  from  academia  and  industry,  evaluates the
Agency's  research  programs, national laboratories,  centers,  and offices,  and management
practices, and provides peer review, including evaluation  of the program's peer review policies
and  research plans and products.  The Land Protection and Restoration research program was
 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Research Strategy (Washington: EPA). For additional information please go
to: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/wastepub.pdf
3 For additional information, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/osp/mvp
The Waste Research Strategy outlines the research needs and priorities at the time it was prepared. To guide these research
efforts as progress is made and new needs emerge, EPA develops multi-year research plans that are revised periodically. EPA is
currently merging the Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans (MYPs) into one cohesive Land Research MYP, with
input from across the Agency, to ensure research conducted continues to support the Agency's mission to protect human health
and the environment.
                                         Oil Spill-19

-------
reviewed by the BOSC in FY 2006 (December 2005).  The BOSC will report its findings to the
Agency in the 2nd quarter of 2006.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
Oil spill model development will include linkage of EPA's
Research  Object  Oriented  Oil  Spill Model  (ERO3s)  to
uncertainty analysis tools (R&D Criteria: Performance), and
                                                            Performance  Assessment: The
                                                            Land Research and  Restoration
                                                            program is  scheduled for  PART
incorporation of exposure simulation with various  modeled    |"eview "J 20ฐ6'. The p"ogram has
     r            r                                         begun  developing  and refining
                                                            outcome-based      performance
                                                            measures in order to demonstrate
                                                            results.
response actions  (R&D Criteria: Relevance).   Remediation
research continues on physical, chemical, and biological risk
management methods for petroleum and non-petroleum oils
spilled  to  freshwater  and marine  environments. Research
products are presented at meetings and posted or  linked on EPA's oil spills web site for use by
oil spill managers (R&D Criteria: Quality, Performance).

For example, research on dispersion has led to development of a wave tank that more accurately
simulates breaking wave conditions and the effectiveness of dispersants (R&D  Criteria: Quality,
Performance). This research is also highlighted on the Oil  Spills  Program's website4. Research
products are posted on this website for easy access by spill managers and responders5.

Performance Targets:

Work under  this  program supports restoring land.   Research milestones are  identified in the
program's  multi-year planning  documents, but  there  are  currently no annual performance
measures that meet the requirements of the PART guidance (i.e.,  that can demonstrate progress
toward established long-term outcome goals).
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$56.7) This increase for research will support efforts in remediation research and oil
       spill model uncertainty analysis.

    •   (+$8.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
4 For additional information please go to: http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/wavetank.htm
5 For additional information please go to: http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/science.htm
                                       Oil Spill-20

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency

           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                     Oil Spill

Civil Enforcement	1, 4, 5, 7
Clean Water	4,7,8
Compliance	1, 3, 4,10,14
Compliance Assistance and Centers	1, 4
Drinking Water	11
Enforcement	1, 4, 6, 7
Environmental Information	10,17
Exchange Network	10
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	1,17
Homeland Security	18
Human Health Risk Assessment	20
Information Security	11
IT / Data Management	1, 9,10
IT / Data Management / Security	1, 9,10
Land Protection	1,19,20
Land Protection and Restoration	20
Oil	1, 4, 5, 7,10,11,13,14,15,17, 20, 21,  22
Oil Spill
  Prevention, Preparedness and Response	1,  13
Operations and Administration	1,16,17
Pollution Prevention	15
Research
  Land Protection	1,20
  Land Protection and Restoration	1,  20
Underground Storage Tanks	4,10,17,  20
                                    Oil Spill-21

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Resource Summary Table	1
Program Projects in STAG	3
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality	14
   Clean School Bus Initiative	15
Program Area: Brownfields	16
   Brownfields Projects	17
Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance	20
   Infrastructure Assistance:  Alaska Native Villages	21
   Infrastructure Assistance:  Clean Water SRF	23
   Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program	25
   Infrastructure Assistance:  Drinking Water SRF	27
   Infrastructure Assistance:  Mexico Border	29
   Infrastructure Assistance:  Puerto Rico	31
Program Area: Categorical Grants	32
   Categorical Grant:  Beaches Protection	33
   Categorical Grant:  Brownfields	35
   Categorical Grant:  Environmental Information	37
   Categorical Grant:  Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance	39
   Categorical Grant:  Homeland Security	41
   Categorical Grant:  Lead	43
   Categorical Grant:  Nonpoint Source (Sec.  319)	45
   Categorical Grant:  Pesticides Enforcement	48
   Categorical Grant:  Pesticides Program Implementation	50
   Certification and Training/Worker Protection	50
   Categorical Grant:  Pollution Control (Sec. 106)	52
   Categorical Grant:  Pollution Prevention	56
   Categorical Grant:  Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)	58
   Categorical Grant:  Radon	60
   Categorical Grant:  Sector Program	62
   Categorical Grant:  State and Local Air Quality Management	64
   Categorical Grant:  Targeted Watersheds	67
   Categorical Grant:  Toxics Substances Compliance	69
   Categorical Grant:  Tribal Air Quality Management	71
   Categorical Grant:  Tribal General Assistance Program	73
   Categorical Grant:  Underground Injection Control (UIC)	76
   Categorical Grant:  Underground Storage Tanks	79
   Categorical Grant:  Wetlands Program Development	82

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                 APPROPRIATION: State and Tribal Assistance Grants
                               Resource Summary Table
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations

$3,608,479.6
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted

$3,147,709.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$2,797,448.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

($350,261.0)
0.0
                 BILL LANGUAGE: STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANT

For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, including capitalization grants for
State revolving funds and performance partnership grants, [$3,261,696,000] $2,797,448,000  to
remain available until expended, of which [$900,000,000] $687,555,000 shall be for making
capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act,  as amended (the "Act");[of which up to $50,000,000 shall be
available for loans, including interest free loans as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(l)(A),  to
municipal, inter-municipal, interstate, or State agencies or nonprofit entities for projects that
provide treatment for or that minimize sewage or stormwater discharges using one or more
approaches which  include,  but are not limited to, decentralized or distributed stormwater
controls, decentralized wastewater treatment, low-impact development practices, conservation
easements, stream buffers, or  wetlands restoration; $850,000,000] $841,500,000  shall be for
capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, as amendedf, except that, notwithstanding section 1452(n) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as amended, hereafter none of the funds made available under this heading
in this or previous appropriations Acts shall be reserved by the Administrator for health effects
studies on drinking water contaminants;][$50,000,000]; $24,750,000 shall be for architectural,
engineering,  planning,  design,  construction and  related activities in  connection with the
construction  of high priority water and wastewater facilities in  the area  of the  United States-
Mexico Border,  after consultation with  the  appropriate border commission;[$35,000,000]
$14,850,000  shall be for grants to the State of Alaska to address drinking water and waste
infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages [: Provided, That, of these funds: (1) the
State of Alaska shall provide a match of 25 percent; (2) no more than 5 percent of the funds may
be used for administrative and overhead expenses; and (3) not later than October 1, 2005 the
State of Alaska shall make awards consistent with the State-wide priority list established in 2004
for all water, sewer, waste disposal, and similar projects carried out by the State of Alaska that
are funded under section 221 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301) or the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.  1921 et seq.) which shall allocate not
less  than  25 percent  of the funds  provided for projects in  regional  hub communities;
$200,000,000 shall be for making special project grants for the construction of drinking water,
wastewater and storm water infrastructure and for water quality protection in accordance with
the terms and conditions specified for  such grants in the joint explanatory  statement of the
                                        STAG-1

-------
managers  accompanying this Act, and, for purposes of these grants,  each grantee  shall
contribute not less than 45 percent of the cost of the project unless the grantee is approved for a
waiver by  the Agency; $90,000,000]; $89,119,400 shall be to carry out section 104(k)  of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended, including grants, inter agency agreements, and associated program support costs;
$49,500,000 for grants  under  sections 791-797 of  the Energy Policy Act of 2005;  and
[$7,000,000 for making cost-shared grants for school bus retrofit and replacement projects that
reduce diesel emissions;] [and $1,129,696,000] $1,089,183,600 shall be for grants, including
associated program support costs, to States, federally recognized tribes,  interstate agencies,
tribal consortia, and air pollution control agencies for multi-media or single  media pollution
prevention,  control and abatement and related activities,  including activities  pursuant  to the
provisions  set forth under this heading in Public Law  104-134, [and for making grants under
section 103 of the Clean Air Act for particulate  matter monitoring and data collection activities
subject  to   terms and conditions specified by the Administrator,] of which [$50,000,000]
$49,494,900 shall be for carrying out  section 128 of CERCLA, as amended, [$20,000,000]
$14,850,000  shall be for  Environmental Information Exchange Network grants, including
associated program support costs, $18,500,000  of the funds available for grants under section
106 of the Act shall be for water quality monitoring activities that meet EPA standards for
statistically representative monitoring programs,  $37,566,700 to make grants to States under
section 2007(f)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, and to federally recognized
tribes under Public Law  105-276, and to provide financial assistance to states and federally-
recognized tribes for the purposes authorized by Title XV, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of
2005, with the  exception of leaking underground storage tank cleanup activities that are
authorized by section  205 of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization  Act of 1986,  and
[$16,856,000] $6,930,000 shall be for making competitive  targeted water shed grants: Provided
further,  That [for fiscal year 2006 and thereafter, State authority under section 302(a) of Public
Law 104-182 shall remain in effect: Provided further, That] notwithstanding section 603(d)(7) of
the Federal Water Pollution  Control Act, the  limitation on the amounts in a State water pollution
control revolving fund that  may be used by a  State to administer the fund  shall not apply to
amounts included as principal in loans made by such fund in fiscal year [2006] 2007 and prior
years where such amounts  represent costs  of  administering the fund to  the extent that such
amounts are or  were deemed reasonable by the Administrator, accounted for  separately from
other assets in the fund,  and used for eligible purposes of the fund, including administration:
Provided further, That for fiscal year [2006] 2007, and notwithstanding section 518(f) of the Act,
the Administrator is authorized to use the amounts appropriated for any fiscal year under section
319 of that Act to make grants to federally recognized Indian tribes pursuant to sections 319(h)
and 518(e) of that Act: Provided further, That for fiscal year [2006] 2007, notwithstanding the
limitation on amounts  in section  518(c) of the Act, up to a total of 1  1/2 percent of the funds
appropriated for State Revolving Funds under title  VI of that Act may  be reserved by the
Administrator for grants under   section 518(c) of that Act: Provided further, That no funds
provided by this [legislation] appropriations Act to address the water,  wastewater and other
critical infrastructure needs  of the colonias in the United States along the United States-Mexico
border shall be made available to a county or municipal government unless  that government has
established an enforceable  local ordinance,  or other zoning  rule,  which prevents in  that
jurisdiction the development or construction of any additional colonia areas, or  the development
within an existing colonia the construction of any new home,  business,  or other structure which
                                        STAG-2

-------
lacks  water,  wastewater,  or  other  necessary  infrastructure  [:Provided further,  That,
notwithstanding  this or  any  other appropriations Act,  heretofore  and  hereafter,  after
consultation with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and for the purpose of
making technical corrections,  the Administrator is authorized to award grants under this
heading to entities and for purposes other than those listed in the joint explanatory statements of
the managers accompanying the Agency's appropriations Acts for the construction of drinking
water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and for water quality protection. In addition,
$80,000,000 is hereby rescinded from prior year funds in appropriation accounts available to
the Environmental Protection Agency:  Provided, That  such rescissions shall be taken solely
from amounts associated with grants, contracts, and inter agency agreements whose availability,
under the original project period for such grant or inter agency agreement or contract period for
such contract, has expired: Provided further, That such rescissions shall include funds that were
appropriated under this heading for special project grants in fiscal year 2000 or earlier that
have not been obligated on an approved grant by September 1, 2006].

                               Program Projects in STAG
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Air Toxics and Quality
Clean School Bus Initiative
Brownfields
Brownfields Projects
Infrastructure Assistance
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native
Villages
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
Subtotal, Infrastructure Assistance
STAG Infrastructure Grants / Congressional
Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Categorical Grants
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
FY 2005
Obligations

$0.0

$88,065.1

$50,866.5
$1,110,473.7
$0.0
$847,519.2
$66,176.9
$0.0
$2,075,036.3

$255,255.6

$13,262.7
$47,411.0
$19,837.0
FY 2006
Enacted

$6,897.0

$88,676.0

$34,485.0
$886,759.0
$0.0
$837,495.0
$49,264.0
$0.0
$1,808,003.0

$197,058.0

$9,853.0
$49,264.0
$19,706.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$0.0

$89,119.4

$14,850.0
$687,555.0
$49,500.0
$841,500.0
$24,750.0
$990.0
$1,619,145.0

$0.0

$9,900.0
$49,494.9
$14,850.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

($6,897.0)

$443.4

($19,635.0)
($199,204.0)
$49,500.0
$4,005.0
($24,514.0)
$990.0
($188,858.0)

($197,058.0)

$47.0
$230.9
($4,856.0)
                                        STAG-3

-------
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Categorical Grant: Lead
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Water Quality Monitoring Grants
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control
(Sec. 106) (other activities)
Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Pollution
Control (Sec. 106)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Categorical Grant: Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality
Management
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances
Compliance
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality
Management
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance
Program
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection
Control (UIC)
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator
Training
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program
Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Wetlands
Program Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
FY 2005
Obligations
$105,786.4
$4,988.8
$14,169.0
$225,194.2
$20,468.4
$13,347.2

$0.0
$211,124.6
$211,124.6
$5,161.7
$104,043.6
$8,739.4
$2,464.3
$233,758.6
$17,706.0
$5,516.4
$12,977.1
$72,212.5
$11,537.5
$12,073.1
$943.0
$12,372.9
$15,027.2
$15,027.2
$1,190,122.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$101,944.0
$4,926.0
$13,499.0
$204,278.0
$18,622.0
$12,907.0

$18,228.0
$197,944.0
$216,172.0
$4,926.0
$98,279.0
$7,439.0
$2,217.0
$220,261.0
$16,608.0
$5,074.0
$10,887.0
$56,654.0
$10,838.0
$11,774.0
$1,182.0
$0.0
$15,765.0
$15,765.0
$1,113,075.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$103,345.5
$4,950.0
$13,563.1
$194,040.0
$18,711.0
$12,968.9

$18,500.0
$203,161.0
$221,661.0
$5,940.0
$99,099.0
$8,073.5
$2,227.5
$185,179.5
$6,930.0
$5,098.5
$10,939.5
$56,925.0
$10,890.0
$37,566.7
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
$1,089,183.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,401.5
$24.0
$64.1
($10,238.0)
$89.0
$61.9

$272.0
$5,217.0
$5,489.0
$1,014.0
$820.0
$634.5
$10.5
($35,081.5)
($9,678.0)
$24.5
$52.5
$271.0
$52.0
$25,792.7
($1,182.0)
$0.0
$1,065.0
$1,065.0
($23,891.4)
STAG-4

-------
                                      FY 2007 President's Request
                                           STAG Resources
                                        (Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2005
Obligations*
$3,968.0
$50,866.5
$88,065.1
$0.0
$1,110,473.7
$251,287.6
$0.0
$847,519.2
$66,176.9
$1,190,122.6
$0.0
$0.0
$3,608,479.6
FY 2006
Enacted
Budget**
$0.0
$34,485.0
$88,676.0
$6,897.0
$886,759.0
$197,058.0
$0.0
$837,495.0
$49,264.0
$1,113,075.0
$0.0
-$66,000.0***
$3,147,709.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$14,850.0
$89,119.4
$0.0
$687,555.0
$0.0
$49,500.0
$841,500.0
$24,750.0
$1,089,183.6
$990.0
$0.0
$2,797,448.0
Alaska - Above Ground Leaking Fuel Tanks

Alaskan Native Villages

Brownfields Infrastructure Projects

Clean School Bus Initiative****

Clean Water State Revolving Fund

Congressional Projects

Diesel Emission Reduction Grants

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

Mexico Border

State/Tribal Categorical Grant Assistance

Puerto Rico

Unallocated

TOTAL
* Reflects FY 2005 Enacted 0.83% rescission.
** Reflects FY 2006 1.0% and 0.476% rescission.
*** Part of the  FY 2006 $80 M rescission of prior year funds.
**** The Clean School Bus Initiative activities are now part of the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants program.
                                               STAG-5

-------
Program Projects In STAG
  (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Brownfields Projects
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Categorical Grant: Environmental
Information
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Categorical Grant: Lead
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source
(Sec. 319)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides
Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control
(Sec. 106)
Categorical Grant: Pollution
Prevention
Categorical Grant: Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air
Quality Management
Categorical Grant: Targeted
Watersheds
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances
Compliance
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality
Management
Categorical Grant: Tribal General
Assistance Program
Categorical Grant: Underground
Injection Control (UIC)
Categorical Grant: Underground
Storage Tanks
Categorical Grant: Wastewater
Operator Training
Categorical Grant: Water Quality
Cooperative Agreements
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program
Development
Clean School Bus Initiative*
FY 2005
Obligations
$88,065.1
$13,262.7
$47,411.0
$19,837.0
$105,786.4
$4,988.8
$14,169.0
$225,194.2
$20,468.4
$13,347.2
$211,124.6
$5,161.7
$104,043.6
$8,739.4
$2,464.3
$233,758.6
$17,706.0
$5,516.4
$12,977.1
$72,212.5
$11,537.5
$12,073.1
$943.0
$12,372.9
$15,027.2
$0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$88,676.0
$9,853.0
$49,264.0
$19,706.0
$101,944.0
$4,926.0
$13,499.0
$204,278.0
$18,622.0
$12,907.0
$216,172.0
$4,926.0
$98,279.0
$7,439.0
$2,217.0
$220,261.0
$16,608.0
$5,074.0
$10,887.0
$56,654.0
$10,838.0
$11,774.0
$1,182.0
$0.0
$15,765.0
$6,897.0
FY 2007 Pres
Bud
$89,119.4
$9,900.0
$49,494.9
$14,850.0
$103,345.5
$4,950.0
$13,563.1
$194,040.0
$18,711.0
$12,968.9
$221,661.0
$5,940.0
$99,099.0
$8,073.5
$2,227.5
$185,179.5
$6,930.0
$5,098.5
$10,939.5
$56,925.0
$10,890.0
$37,566.7
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$0.0
FY 2007
Request v. FY
2006 Enacted
$443.4
$47.0
$230.9
($4,856.0)
$1,401.5
$24.0
$64.1
($10,238.0)
$89.0
$61.9
$5,489.0
$1,014.0
$820.0
$634.5
$10.5
($35,081.5)
($9,678.0)
$24.5
$52.5
$271.0
$52.0
$25,792.7
($1,182.0)
$0.0
$1,065.0
($6,897.0)
       STAG-6

-------
                                     Program Projects In STAG
                                       (Dollars in Thousands)
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska
Native Villages
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water
SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking
Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico
Border
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
$255,255.6
$50,866.5
$1,110,473.7
$847,519.2
$66,176.9
$0.0
$197,058.0
$34,485.0
$886,759.0
$837,495.0
$49,264.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14,850.0
$687,555.0
$841,500.0
$24,750.0
$990.0
($197,058.0)
($19,635.0)
($199,204.0)
$4,005.0
($24,514.0)
$990.0
*Clean School Bus Initiative activities are now part of the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants program.
                                             STAG-7

-------
                    CATEGORICAL GRANTS PROGRAM (STAG)
                                   (Dollars in millions)
       $l,200-fx
       $1,000-
        $800
        $600-
        $400-
        $200-
                       2001
                       Ena.
2003
Ena.
2005     2006    2007
Ena.     Ena.  Request
In FY 2007, the President's Budget  requests a total of $1,089 million for 22 "categorical"
program grants for state, interstate organizations, non-profit organizations, intertribal consortia,
and Tribal  governments. EPA will continue to pursue its strategy of building and supporting
state,  local and Tribal capacity to implement, operate, and enforce the Nation's environmental
laws.  Most environmental laws envision establishment of a decentralized nationwide structure to
protect public health and the environment.  In this way, environmental goals will ultimately be
achieved  through the  actions,   programs,  and  commitments  of  state,   Tribal and local
governments, organizations  and citizens.

In FY 2007,  EPA will continue to offer flexibility to state and Tribal governments to manage
their environmental programs  as well as provide technical and financial assistance to achieve
mutual  environmental goals.   First,  EPA and its  state and Tribal partners will  continue
implementing the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS).  NEPPS is
designed to allow states more flexibility to operate their programs, while increasing emphasis on
measuring and reporting environmental improvements. Second, Performance Partnership Grants
(PPGs)  will  continue to allow states  and Tribes  funding flexibility to combine categorical
program grants to address environmental priorities.

To improve both of these processes, EPA will develop a standardized template that all states will
use to develop and submit  their state  grant agreements.   This new template will include clear
linkages to EPA's  Strategic  Plan  and long-term and  annual goals, as well  as  consistent
requirements for regular performance reporting. It also will allow for meaningful comparisons
between various  states' past and  planned  activities and  performance, making  progress more
visible and programs more transparent.
                                        STAG-8

-------
HIGHLIGHTS:

State & Local Air Quality Management, Radon, and Tribal Air Quality Management Grants

The FY  2007 request includes $204.2 million for Air State and Local Assistance grants to
support state, local, and Tribal air programs as well as radon programs.  State and Local Air
Quality Management and Tribal Air Quality Management  grant funding is requested in the
amount of $185.2  million and $10.9 million, respectively.  These funds provide resources to
state, local, and Tribal air pollution control agencies for the development and implementation of
programs for the prevention and control of air pollution or for the implementation of national
primary and secondary ambient air standards.  In FY 2007, EPA will place particular emphasis
on  implementing the  Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)  and developing 8-hour ozone  state
implementation plans (SIPs), which states must submit to EPA  in FY 2007.  States also will
begin work on  fine particle  (PM-2.5) SIPs,  and will incorporate  regional haze reduction
strategies, developed by  regional planning organizations, into their Regional Haze SIPs. States
must submit both the PM and Regional Haze SIPs to EPA  in January 2008.  Lastly, this request
includes  $8.1 million for Radon grants, to provide funding for  state  radon  programs.  In FY
2007,  EPA expects 190,000  additional  homes  to have  radon reducing  features  (90,000
mitigations  and  100,000 new homes  with radon resistant  new  construction), bringing the
cumulative number of U.S. homes with radon reducing features to 2.4 million.

Pesticide Enforcement, Toxics Substance Compliance, & Sector Program Grants

In FY 2007, the President's Budget includes $26.0 million to build environmental enforcement
partnerships with states and Tribes and to strengthen their ability to address environmental and
public  health threats.    The enforcement  state grants  request consists of  $18.7 million for
Pesticides Enforcement, $5.1 million for Toxic Substances Enforcement Grants, and $2.2 million
for Sector Grants.  State and Tribal  enforcement grants will be awarded to assist in the
implementation of compliance and enforcement provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)  and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  These grants
support state and Tribal compliance activities to protect the environment from harmful chemicals
and pesticides.

Under the Pesticides Enforcement Grant program, EPA  provides resources to states and Indian
Tribes to conduct FIFRA compliance inspections and take appropriate enforcement actions and
implement programs for farm worker protection. Under the Toxic Substances Compliance Grant
program, states receive  funding for compliance inspections of asbestos  and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and for implementation of the state lead abatement enforcement program. The
funds will complement  other Federal program grants for  building  state  capacity for  lead
abatement, and enhancing compliance with disclosure, certification and training requirements.

Pesticides Program Implementation Grants

The President's FY 2007 Budget includes $13.0 million for Pesticides Program Implementation
grants. These resources will assist states and Tribes in implementing the safer use of pesticides,
including: worker  protection; certification and training of pesticide applicators; protection of
                                        STAG-9

-------
endangered  species;  Tribal  pesticide  programs;  and  integrated  pest  management  and
environmental stewardship.  In FY 2007, EPA plans to complete a cumulative 96 percent of all
Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions which  often include changes to allowable use patterns for
pesticides already in the market. Pesticides Program Implementation Grants help state programs
stay current with changing requirements.

Lead Grants

The President's FY 2007 Budget includes  $13.6 million for Lead grants.  This funding  will
support the  development of authorized programs  in both  states  and Tribes  to  prevent  lead
poisoning through the training of workers who remove lead-based paint, the accreditation of
training programs, the certification of contractors, and renovation education programs.  Another
activity that this funding will support is the collection of lead data to  determine the nature and
extent of the lead problem within an area so that states, Tribes and the Agency can better target
remaining areas  of high risk.  In FY 2007, EPA expects to reduce the number of child  lead
poisoning cases by 17,000.

Pollution Prevention Grants

The FY 2007 request includes $6.0  million for Pollution Prevention grants.  The  program
provides grant funds to deliver technical assistance to small and medium-sized businesses.  The
goal is to assist businesses and industries with identifying improved environmental strategies and
solutions for reducing waste at the source.  The program demonstrates  that source reduction can
be a cost-effective way  of meeting or exceeding Federal and state regulatory requirements. In
FY 2007, EPA is targeting a cumulative 30 percent  reduction in annual pollution releases to the
environment.

Environmental Information Grants

In FY 2007, the President's Budget includes $14.9  million to  continue the Environmental
Information  Exchange Network (Exchange Network) grant  program. Started  in 2002, the
Exchange Network grant program  provides  states,  territories, Tribes,  and Tribal consortia
assistance to develop the information management and technology (EVI/IT) capabilities they need
to participate  in  the Exchange Network and  thus improve environmental decision making,
increase environmental data quality and accuracy, and reduce burdens on those who provide and
those who access information.  In FY 2007, EPA, states, Tribes, and territories will continue to
re-engineer data systems so that information previously not available or not easily available can
be  exchanged using  common data standards.  By  the  end  of 2007  all fifty  states  and
approximately ten Tribes will  have established nodes on the  Exchange Network and will be
mapping data for sharing with partners and submission to EPA.

State and Tribal Underground Storage Tanks Program

The President's FY 2007 Budget includes $37.6 million for Underground  Storage Tank grants.
In FY 2007, EPA will provide assistance to states to help them meet  their new responsibilities
under  the Energy Policy  Act of 2005.   This  includes  performing additional  inspections,
                                       STAG-10

-------
developing operator training requirements, prohibiting fuel deliveries  at non-compliant UST
facilities,  and requiring  secondary containment for new and  replaced tanks and piping  or
financial responsibility for tank installers and manufacturers.  States and tribes will use these
resources to ensure that UST owners and operators routinely and correctly monitor all regulated
tanks and piping in accordance with regulations, and also to develop programs with sufficient
authority and enforcement capabilities to operate in lieu of the Federal program.

Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants

In FY 2007, the  President's Budget includes  $103.3 million for Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance grants. Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance grants are used for the implementation
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA)  hazardous  waste program, which
includes permitting, authorization, waste minimization, enforcement, and  corrective action
activities.  In FY  2007, EPA expects to increase the number of hazardous waste facilities with
permits by 2.4% in order to meet  the 2008 goal of 95% coverage and increase the percent of
annual permit renewals in line with 2008 requirements of a 50% annual renewal rate.

Brownfields Grants

In FY 2007,  the President's Budget includes $49.5 million to continue the Brownfields grant
program that provides  assistance to states and  Tribes to develop and enhance their state and
Tribal response programs.   This funding will help  states  and Tribes develop  legislation,
regulations,  procedures, and guidance, to establish  or enhance the administrative and legal
structure of their response programs.   In addition, grant funding will help  states  and Tribes
capitalize  Revolving Loan Funds for Brownfields cleanup, purchase environmental insurance,
and conduct site-specific related activities such as assessments at Brownfields sites. In FY 2007,
the funding provided will result in the assessment of 1,000 Brownfields properties. Brownfields
grantees will leverage $900,000 in cleanup and redevelopment funding.

Water Pollution Control (Clean Water Act Section 106) Grants

In FY 2007, the President's Budget includes  $221.7 million for Water Pollution Control grants.
These funds  enable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)  permitting,
enhance water quality monitoring activities, support  Total Maximum Daily Load  (TMDL)
development, and will  lead to improved water quality standards.  In 2007 EPA will work with
states to implement the new rules governing  discharges from  Concentrated Animal  Feeding
Operations (CAFOs) such that most CAFOs  will be permitted by 2008.  EPA will  also review
and update state and Tribe water quality standards so that over 91 percent of submissions will be
approvable in 2007. Lastly, EPA's goal for 2007 is that over 66 percent of states will have
updated their standards to reflect the latest scientific information in the past three years.

Wetlands Grants

In FY 2007,  the President's Budget includes  $16.8 million  for Wetlands Program Grants.
Through Wetlands Program Development Grants, states, Tribes, and local governments receive
technical and financial assistance  that will  support the Administration's goal of protecting,
                                        STAG-11

-------
restoring,  and enhancing 3 million acres of wetlands  These  grants will  do this through the
development and implementation  of  state  and Tribal  wetland programs  that improve  water
quality in watersheds throughout the country as well as assist private landowners, educate local
governments, and monitor and assess wetland quantity and quality.

Public Water System Supervision Grants

In FY 2007, the President's Budget includes $99.1 million for Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS) grants.   These grants provide assistance to implement and enforce National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations to ensure  the safety of the Nation's drinking water resources and to
protect public health.  In FY 2007,  the Agency will emphasize that states use their PWSS funds to
ensure that drinking water systems of all sizes achieve or remain in compliance and drinking water
systems of all sizes are meeting new health-based standards that came into effect in FY 2006, e.g.
arsenic and uranium.

Indian General Assistance Program Grants

In FY  2007, the  President's Budget includes $56.9 million for the Indian General Assistance
Program  (GAP)  to  help Federally  recognized  Tribes  and  inter-Tribal consortia  develop,
implement and assume environmental  programs.  In FY 2007,  517 federally-recognized Tribes
and inter-Tribal Consortia, or 90 percent of a universe of 572 eligible entities, will have access to
an environmental  presence, or representative, to administer environmental programs.

Homeland Security Grants

In FY 2007, the President's Budget includes $5.0 million for homeland security grants to support
states'  efforts to  work with drinking  water and wastewater systems to develop and enhance
emergency operations plans; conduct training in the implementation of remedial plans in small
systems; and develop detection, monitoring and treatment technology to enhance drinking water
and wastewater security.  EPA homeland  security grants will be awarded to 56 states  and
territories.

Underground Injection Control (VIC) Grants

The FY 2007 President's Budget includes $10.9 million for the Underground Injection Control
grants  program.   Ensuring safe underground injection of waste  materials  is  a fundamental
component of a comprehensive source water protection program.  Grants are provided to states that
have primary enforcement authority  (primacy) to implement and maintain UIC programs. EPA and
the states will address 95 percent or higher of Classes I, II, and III existing wells determined to
be in  violation   and  Class  V  existing  wells determined to be  in violation in FY  2007.
Additionally, EPA and the  states  will  close or permit 80 percent of Motor Vehicle Waste
Disposal wells (Class V) identified  during FY 2007.
                                        STAG-12

-------
Targeted Watershed Grants

The President's FY 2007 Budget funds Targeted Watershed grants at $6.9 million.  The program
supports competitive grants to watershed stakeholders ready to undertake immediate action to
improve water quality, and to improve watershed protection measures with tools, training and
technical assistance.   Special  emphasis will be  given  to  projects  that promote  water  quality
trading  opportunities to more  efficiently achieve water quality benefits through  market-based
approaches.

BEACH Act Grants

The President's FY 2007 budget includes $9.9 million for the 35 states and territories with Great
Lakes or coastal shorelines to protect  public health  at the Nation's  beaches.   The Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal  Health Act (BEACH Act)  of October 2000 authorizes
EPA to  award grants to help eligible states and territories develop and implement beach bacteria
monitoring and notification programs.  These programs inform the public about the  risk of
exposure to disease-causing microorganisms in  coastal waters (including the Great Lakes).

Non-Point Source Program Grants (NFS — Section 319)

In FY 2007, the President's  Budget includes $194.0 million for Non-Point Source Program
grants to states, territories, and Tribes.  These grants enable states to use a range of tools to
implement  their programs  including:  both non-regulatory and  regulatory programs, technical
assistance,  financial  assistance, education, training, technology transfer,  and  demonstration
projects. The request also eliminates the statutory one-third of one-percent cap on Clean Water
Act Section 319 Non-point Source Pollution grants that may be  awarded to Tribes.  The annual
output measures  are to annually reduce the  amount  of runoff of phosphorus,  nitrogen,  and
sediment through 319-funded projects by 4.5 million pounds, 8.5 million pounds, and 700,000
tons, respectively.
                                        STAG-13

-------
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
               STAG-14

-------
                                                              Clean School Bus Initiative
                                                     Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                       Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)



State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY 2005
Obligations
$0.0
$0.0
0.0

FY 2006
Enacted
$6,897.0
$6,897.0
0.0

FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($6,897.0)
($6,897.0)
0.0
The FY 2005 Budget Authority for this program was $7,440.OM. The funds will be obligated in FY 2006.

Program Project Description:

This program includes development,  implementation, and evaluation of a competitive grant
program to equip school buses with diesel retrofit technology or to replace older school buses in
order to reduce toxics air  emissions.  Because school buses often remain in service for 20 or
more years,  this  program  helps  equip our  nation's school  bus  fleet  with low-emission
technologies and practices sooner than would otherwise occur through normal turnover of the
bus fleet to newer vehicles meeting more stringent emission standards. Older school buses can
be retrofitted with pollution  controls  through the use of ultra-low sulfur  diesel fuel  and the
installation of particulate matter (PM) filters, with the potential of reducing PM emissions by up
to 95 percent.  Other strategies include anti-idling programs, which lower engine idling time and
reduce harmful emissions, and  other  projects designed to raise awareness about  the  need to
reduce diesel emissions from school buses.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance  Plan:

The  Diesel  Emissions Reduction  Grant program  has assumed all  responsibilities formerly
associated with the Clean School Bus Grants program.

Performance Targets:

There are no FY 2007 performance targets associated with this Program Project  because the
funds are  transferred to Diesel Emissions  Reduction Grant program in the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) appropriation.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   • (-$6,897.0)  Funding  and program responsibilities  have  been  transferred to the Diesel
      Emissions Reduction Grant program in the State and Tribal Assistance  Grants (STAG)
      appropriation.
                                        STAG-15

-------
Program Area: Brownfields
          STAG-16

-------
                                                                   Brownfields Projects
                                                              Program Area: Brownfields
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                               Objective(s): Communities
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$88,065.1
$2,299.0
$90,364.1
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$88,676.0
$0.0
$88,676.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$89,119.4
$0.0
$89,119.4
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$443.4
$0.0
$443.4
0.0
Program Project Description:

Economic changes over several decades have left thousands of communities with contaminated
properties and abandoned sites  known as Brownfields.  The Agency's Brownfields program
coordinates a Federal, state,  Tribal,  and local  government  approach to assist in addressing
environmental  site assessment  and  cleanup  through  grants  and cooperative  agreements
authorized by CERCLA Section 104(k).

The  Agency's Brownfields program  assists in addressing environmental site  assessment  and
cleanup through competitive grants to eligible entities and cooperative agreements authorized by
CERCLA Section 104(k).  The statute requires the Brownfields program to allocate 25% of the
total available funds for CERCLA 104(k) grants to address  sites contaminated by petroleum.
With the funds requested, EPA will provide: (1) assessment and cleanup grants  for recipients to
inventory, characterize, assess,  and conduct cleanup and redevelopment planning related to
Brownfields sites;  (2) capitalization grants for Revolving Loan Funds  (RLFs) to  provide  low
interest loans  for  cleanups;  (3)  job  training  grants; (4) petroleum grants  and (5) financial
assistance to localities, states, Tribes, and non-profit organizations for research, training,  and
technical assistance.

In cooperation with other Federal agencies, EPA  developed the Brownfields Federal Partnership
Action Agenda in November 2002.  The Action Agenda describes the commitment of over 20
Federal agencies to help communities more effectively prevent, assess, safely clean up, and reuse
Brownfields.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Funding requested for FY 2007 will be used to support the following activities:

•  Funding and technical  support for 95  assessment grants for recipients to inventory, assess,
   and conduct cleanup and  redevelopment planning at Brownfields sites.  In FY 2007, the
   funding provided will result in the assessment of 1,000 Brownfields properties.  Brownfields
                                       STAG-17

-------
   grantees will leverage 5,000 cleanup and
   redevelopment jobs  and $900  million  in
   cleanup and redevelopment funding.

•  Capitalize RLF and award cleanup grants
   for  53  communities;  enabling  eligible
   entities  to  develop  cleanup  strategies,
   make  loans to clean up  properties, and
   encourage communities to leverage other
   funds  into  their RLF pools  and cleanup
   grants.     The   Agency   will   award
   cooperative agreements to capitalize RLF
   grants of up to $1,000,000 each and award
   direct  cleanup grants of up to  $200,000 per
   site to communities and non-profits.
Performance Assessment:  In 2003, the Brownfields
Program received an "adequate" PART rating, citing a
clear purpose and achievement of performance targets.
The Program continues to  implement  recommend-
dations on performance measurement and evaluation.
In 2006, the Program adopted "acres  made ready for
reuse" as a long-term measure and "acres made ready
for  reuse per  million  dollars"  as an efficiency
measure. The Program will also begin working with
other  Federal  agencies  to create  a cross-agency
Brownfields  measure  to determine the  number  of
acres actually returned to productive use. To reduce
data  lags and  improve  information  quality,  the
Program is modernizing its information collection
system.  Additionally, the Program  has adopted  a
protocol  and  schedule for  conducting  regional
reviews.
•  Assessment  and  cleanup  of abandoned underground  storage  tanks  (USTs)  and  other
   petroleum contamination  found on Brownfields  properties to address  approximately 45
   Brownfields communities.

•  Award Brownfields job training and development grants of up to $200,000 each over two
   years.  This  funding will provide for 10 new job training grants for community residents to
   take advantage of new jobs leveraged by the assessment  and cleanup of Brownfields.  Also,
   $2,000,000 for the National Institute of Environmental Health  Sciences will supplement its
   minority  worker  training  programs  that focus  on  Brownfields workforce  development
   activities.

•  Training, research and technical assistance grants and cooperative agreements as authorized
   under CERCLA Section 104(k)(6).

•  In  addition, EPA  will  continue to support the  existing 28  showcase  communities that
   demonstrate the benefits of interagency cooperative efforts in addressing environmental and
   economic issues related to Brownfields.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Brownfield properties
assessed.
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target
1,000
FY 2006
Target
1,000
FY 2007
Target
1,000
Units
assessments
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Billions of dollars of
cleanup and
redevelopment funds
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target
$0.9B
FY 2006
Target
0.9
FY 2007
Target
0.9
Units
funds
                                         STAG-18

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
leveraged at
Brownfields sites.
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target

Units

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+443.7)  This increase will support additional training, research and technical assistance
      grants.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA as amended by  SBLRBRA (P.L. 107-118); RCRA Section 8001; GMRA (1990);
SWDA; FGCAA.
                                     STAG-19

-------
Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance
                 STAG-20

-------
                                          Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
                                                      Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance
                                                                  Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                           Objective(s): Protect Water Quality

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$50,866.5
$50,866.5
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$34,485.0
$34,485.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$14,850.0
$14,850.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($19,635.0)
($19,635.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Alaska Rural and Native Village Program addresses the lack of basic drinking water and
sanitation infrastructure (i.e.,  flushing toilets and running water) in rural and Native  Alaska
communities. In many of these communities, honeybuckets and pit privies are the sole means of
sewage collection and disposal.  The grant to the  State of Alaska provides funding to construct
drinking water and wastewater facilities for these communities, thereby, improving the health
and sanitation conditions.    This program  also  supports  training, technical assistance,  and
educational programs related to the operation and maintenance of sanitation systems.  (For more
information, visit http://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/indian/anvrs.htm.)

FY 2007 Activities and  Performance Plan:
In FY  2007,  the  Agency  will  continue to
provide grant funding to the State of Alaska to
meet the  sanitation infrastructure needs of
rural communities  and  Native  Villages as
effectively and efficiently as possible despite
harsh weather and  poor soil  conditions  that
pose unique challenges to  the region. In FY
2005,  EPA  made  personnel  and  policy
changes to enable more focused and intensive
oversight of the  Alaska Native Village grant
program,  through  cost analysis,  post-award
monitoring and project close-out.   EPA  also
collaborated with Alaska to establish program goals and objectives which are now incorporated
directly into the  state priority system  for selecting  candidate projects.  EPA also collaborated
with Alaska to establish program goals and objectives which are now incorporated directly into
the state priority system for selecting candidate projects.
Performance Assessment:   During FY 2004,  the
Alaska Native Village Program underwent a PART
review and received a rating of ineffective.  EPA is
negotiating a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
with the State which will include the development and
maintenance of tools for tracking  specific progress
made  to  date by the State of Alaska in addressing
management issues and to determine if further steps,
such as the promulgation of regulations are necessary.
The MOU will be executed in FY  2006. EPA also
will   develop   program  regulations  to  improve
accountability, and ensure that the funds benefit the
intended recipients. EPA is establishing baselines and
targets for their measures for reporting in FY 2006.
                                          STAG-21

-------
Performance Targets:

The  Alaska Native Village Program is  administered by the State of Alaska and provides
infrastructure funding to Alaska Native Villages and rural Alaska communities which lack access
to basic sanitation.    The Agency is working to develop baselines and targets for performance
measures established during the PART review process. The Agency expects to have the baseline
information available during the spring 2006 and will report on the status of accomplishments at
the end of fiscal year 2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$19,635.0) This reduction is a result of program management and financial deficiencies
       identified in audits by the State of Alaska,  EPA's IG and the PART review.  EPA will
       continue to work with the program to improve management and fiscal practices.

Statutory Authority:

SOW A Amendments of 1996.
                                      STAG-22

-------
                                              Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
                                                     Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance
                                                                 Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                          Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$1,110,473.7
$1,110,473.7
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$886,759.0
$886,759.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$687,555.0
$687,555.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($199,204.0)
($199,204.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) provides funds to capitalize state revolving
loan funds that finance infrastructure improvements for public wastewater systems and projects
to improve water quality.  The CWSRF is the largest source of Federal funds for states to provide
loans  and other  forms  of assistance for construction  of  wastewater treatment facilities,
implementation of nonpoint source management plans, and development and implementation of
estuary conservation and management plans.  This program also includes a provision for a set-
aside of funding for tribes to better address serious water infrastructure problems  and attendant
health impacts. The Federal investment is designed to be used in concert with other sources of
funds   to   address   water   quality    needs.          (For   more   information,   visit
http ://www. epa. gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrf.)

CWSRFs provide low  interest loans to help finance wastewater treatment facilities and other
water quality projects.  These projects are critical to the continuation of the public health and
water quality gains of the past 30 years. As of early 2006, the Federal government had invested
$23  billion in the CWSRFs.  The revolving nature of the funds and  substantial additions from
states have magnified that investment to make available more than $55 billion for loans since the
program's inception.1   The CWSRF  program measures and tracks the  average national rate at
which available funds are loaned, assuring that the fund is working hard to support water quality
infrastructure.
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Recognizing the substantial  remaining need for
wastewater  infrastructure,  EPA will  provide
annual  capitalization to the  CWSRFs  through
2011.  This continued Federal investment, along
with  other  traditional sources  of  financing
(including increased local  revenues), will result
in substantial  progress toward  addressing the
Performance Assessment: The Clean Water State
Revolving   Fund  (CWSRF)   Grant   Program
underwent the PART for the first time in 2003. The
purpose of this program is  to  support  states  in
helping wastewater systems  finance the cost  of
infrastructure  improvements  needed to  achieve  or
maintain compliance with the CWA requirements
and to protect public health and the environment.
The program received a PART rating of adequate in
2004.
1 Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management System. US EPA, Office of Water, National Information
Management System Reports:   Clean Water  State  Revolving Fund (CWSRF).   Washington, DC.   Available  at
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf.)
                                         STAG-23

-------
Nation's wastewater  treatment  needs which will  significantly  contribute to the long-term
environmental goal of watershed's attaining designated uses.

EPA continues to work with states to meet several key objectives: fund projects designed as part
of an integrated watershed approach; link projects to environmental results;  and maintain the
CWSRFs' excellent fiduciary condition.

The 2002 World Summit in Johannesburg adopted the goal of reducing the number of people
lacking access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 50 percent by 2015.  EPA will
support this goal through the Indian Set-Aside, which will provide for the development of
sanitation facilities in tribes and Alaska Native Villages.

Performance  Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Fund utilization rate
fortheCWSRF
FY 2005
Actual
95.4%
FY 2005
Target
90%
FY 2006
Target
93.3%
FY 2007
Target
93.4%
Units
Rate
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
Annual percentage of
waterbody segments
identified by States in
2000 as not attaining
standards, where water
quality standards are
now fully attained
(cumulative).
FY 2005
Actual



8



FY 2005
Target



2



FY 2006
Target



5



FY 2007
Target



9



Units



%
Miles/Acres



    •   Nationally since 2001, fund utilization has remained relatively stable and strong at over
       90%. The national ratio is an aggregate of fund activity in the 51  individual  CWSRF
       programs (50 states and Puerto Rico).  As such, small year-to-year fluctuations in the
       value of the national ratio are to be expected and reflect annual funding decisions made
       by each state based on its assessment and subsequent prioritization of state water quality
       needs  and  the  availability  of financial  resources.    The  Agency expects the loan
       commitment rate to continue to be strong.  In addition, because the total capitalization
       relatively remains the same, the program  is projected  to meet its long-term revolving
       level target  of $3.4 billion.   As of June 30, 2005,  approximately $2.6  billlion was
       available for loans.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$199,204.0) The FY 2007 budget funds the CWSRF at $688 million.  At this funding
       level, the total capitalization provided between FYs 2004 through 2011 will total $6.8
       billion  and the program is projected to meet its long-term revolving level target of $3.4
       billion.

Statutory Authority:

CWA.
                                        STAG-24

-------
                                              Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
                                                   Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance
                                                Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                        Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$49,500.0
$49,500.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$49,500.0
$49,500.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

These grant funds, authorized in Sections 791-797 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, will support
the National Clean  Diesel  program.  Through this program EPA will focus on reducing
particulate  matter (PM) by up to 95% from existing diesel engines, including both on-highway
and nonroad equipment.  This program will also reduce other smog-forming emissions such as
nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. Existing diesel engines are not subject to new, more stringent
emissions standards that take effect in 2007 and later.  These engines often remain in  service for
20 or more years, and this program will help provide  immediate reductions by retrofitting these
engines with emission control technologies sooner than would otherwise occur through normal
turnover of the fleet.

This program  will support diesel engine retrofits, rebuilds and replacements, and  anti-idling
measures.  Five sectors are targeted for emissions reductions from the existing fleet: freight,
construction, school buses, agriculture, and ports. Grants will  be provided to eligible entities in
areas of the country that are not meeting ambient air quality standards.  Up to 30 percent of the
funds appropriated for diesel emissions reduction grants will be used to provide formula grants to
states to establish and support state grant or loan programs.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA expects to fund  at least 200 new grants deploying technology in various sectors using diesel
engines.  Funds  will continue  to support the Agency's well  established Clean School  Bus
Program. Specifically,  a  portion of these funds will  be used to award competitive  grants for
replacing older buses, repowering and retrofitting them with emission control technology, such
as diesel particulate  filters (DPFs),  with the potential of reducing PM emissions by up to 95
percent.  Other strategies include anti-idling  programs,  which lower  engine idling time  and
reduce harmful emissions.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
TonsofPM-2.5
FY 2005
Actual
61,217
FY 2005
Target
61,217
FY 2006
Target
73,460
FY 2007
Target
85,704
Units
Tons
                                        STAG-25

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target

Units

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

Through the National Clean Diesel Campaign,  EPA awarded a total of approximately 30 grants
in FY05 and FY06.  The Clean School Bus USA program awarded a total of approximately 70
grants in FY 2003 through FY 2005.  By the end of FY 2006, approximately 10,000 buses will
have been switched to a cleaner fuel,  retrofitted with emissions control equipment, or replaced.
EPA estimates that the $49.5 million for National Clean Diesel Campaign grants will leverage at
least an additional $100 million in funding assistance and reduce PM by  approximately 7,000
tons, achieving up to an estimated two billion dollars in health benefits.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$49,500.0) This increase is provided  under Sections 791-797 of the Energy Policy Act
       of 2005 to support grants for diesel retrofits.  EPA estimates that the $49.5 million for
       National Clean Diesel Campaign grants will leverage at least an additional $100 million
       in funding assistance and reduce PM by approximately 7,000 tons, achieving up to an
       estimated two billion dollars in health benefits.  This funding is for financial assistance to
       eligible entities. This includes $6,897,000 transferred from the Clean School Bus USA
       program in the  State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)  appropriation account and
       $4,679,300 transferred from the National Clean Diesel Campaign in the Environmental
       Programs Management (EPM)  appropriation account

 Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments, Title I (NAAQS); CAA Amendments, Title III (Air Toxics); CAA, Sections
103, 105, and 106 (Grants), Energy Policy Act of 2005, Sections 741 and 791-797.
                                       STAG-26

-------
                                          Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
                                                    Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance
                                                               Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                        Objective(s): Protect Human Health
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$847,519.2
$847,519.2
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$837,495.0
$837,495.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$841,500.0
$841,500.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$4,005.0
$4,005.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program is designed to support states in helping public water systems finance the costs of
infrastructure improvements  needed to achieve or  maintain  compliance with  Safe  Drinking
Water Act requirements  and  to protect public health.  Capitalization grant funds may also be
used by  states  to provide  other types of assistance to promote  prevention and to encourage
stronger drinking water system management programs.  To reduce occurrences of serious public
health threats and to ensure safe drinking water sources nationwide, EPA is authorized to make
capitalization grants to states, so that they can provide low-cost  loans and other assistance to
eligible public  water  systems.  Resources  may also  fund Interagency Agreements to other
Federal agencies, such as the Indian Health Service in the Department of Health and Human
Services, that provide  safe  drinking water activities in  support of the tribes.  The program also
emphasizes providing  funds  to  small  and  disadvantaged communities and  to  programs that
encourage   pollution  prevention   as   a  tool  for  ensuring  safe   drinking  water.   (See
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf html for more information.)

FY 2007 Activities  and Performance Plan:
Providing drinking water  that meets health
safely standards often requires an investment
in the construction or maintenance of drinking
water infrastructure.  Through the Drinking
Water   State   Revolving  Fund  (DWSRF)
program, states offer low interest loans to help
public water systems  across the nation make
Performance Assessment: The Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Grant Program underwent
a PART assessment for the first time in 2002.  The
purpose of this program is to support states in helping
public  water  systems   finance   the  costs  of
infrastructure improvements  needed to achieve or
maintain compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act
requirements and to  protect public health.   The
program received an OMB rating of adequate in 2004.
improvements   or    upgrades   to   their
infrastructure.   Also,  the DWSRF  provides additional  financial  support to  small  and
disadvantaged communities through low or  zero-interest loans.  Every state that administers
DWSRF funds must provide a minimum of 15 percent of available funds for loans to small
communities, and has the option of providing  up to 30 percent of available funds to state-defined
disadvantaged communities.   In November  2006, the DWSRF program will  report  on the
resources made  available to finance  infrastructure improvement projects  nationwide  and the
number of projects that have been financed in FY 2006.  For FY 2007, the DWSRF program has
                                        STAG-27

-------
set a target of providing  over 600 additional loans to public water systems for infrastructure
improvement projects.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Fund utilization rate
fortheDWSRF.
FY 2005
Actual
84.7
FY 2005
Target
81.9
FY 2006
Target
83.3
FY 2007
Target
84
Units
% Rate
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of additional
projects initiating
operations.
FY 2005
Actual
439
FY 2005
Target
415
FY 2006
Target
425
FY 2007
Target
433
Units
Projects
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent community
water systems in
compliance with
drinking water
standards.
FY 2005
Actual
89.2
FY 2005
Target
93
FY 2006
Target
93.5
FY 2007
Target
94
Units
% Systems
This program was included in the DWSRF PART review for 2002, which received an overall
rating of Adequate.  The 2004 reassessment of the program found that the Drinking Water SRF
program had implemented  acceptable performance measures.  The program also tracks the
national long-term  average  revolving level  of the fund to assess long-term  sustainability.
Currently, the program is on target to reach the long-term revolving level target of $1.2 billion by
2018.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$4,005.0)  This  increase  will  support  safe  drinking  water  activities by offering
       additional low interest loans to public water systems for improvements or upgrades to
       their infrastructure.

Statutory Authority:

SDWA.
                                       STAG-28

-------
                                                Infrastructure Assistance:  Mexico Border
                                                    Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                 Objective(s): Communities
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$66,176.9
$66,176.9
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$49,264.0
$49,264.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$24,750.0
$24,750.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($24,514.0)
($24,514.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The United States and Mexico share more than 2,000 miles of common border.  More than 12.6
million people live in the border area, mostly in fifteen "sister city pairs".  The rapid increase in
population and  industrialization in the border cities has  overwhelmed  existing wastewater
treatment and drinking water supply facilities.  Untreated and industrial sewage often flows north
into the U.S. from Tijuana, Mexicali, and Nogales, and into the Rio Grande.  EPA works closely
with the appropriate partners to evaluate environmental needs and to facilitate the construction of
environmental infrastructure through the provision of grant funding for the planning, design, and
construction of high priority water and wastewater treatment facilities along the border. Further
information about this program can be found at http://www.epa.gov/r6border/index.htm.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
                                               Performance Assessment:  The  Mexico  Border
                                               program underwent the PART for the first time in
                                               FY 2004. The purpose of the program is to serve the
                                               U.S. - Mexico border area population with drinking
                                               water,  wastewater collection,  and  wastewater
                                               treatment services. The program submitted 3 long-
                                               term measures  and one efficiency measure, and is
                                               currently working on baselines  and targets for
                                               reporting in FY  2006.  The program received a
                                               PART rating of adequate in 2004.
The U.S. - Mexico Border 2012 Program, in a
joint  effort between  the  U.S. and Mexican
governments, will continue to work with the 10
border states and local communities to improve
the region's public and environmental health.
The U.S. and  Mexican governments will  work
to  improve water quality  along  the border
through a range of pollution control sanitation
projects, with the goal of restoring the quality
of  the majority  of  the  currently  impaired
significant shared and transboundary surface waters by the year 2012.  This effort will reduce
health risks to residents who may currently lack access to safe drinking water.  Similarly, by
increasing the number of homes with access to basic sanitation by the same amount, EPA and its
partners will reduce the discharge of untreated domestic wastewater into surface  and ground
water.

In order to enhance fiscal management, the Agency  has taken  specific actions in FY 2005 to
strengthen  the  program and  establish new controls  to  manage the  Border Environment
Infrastructure  Fund (BEIF).  These actions will allow timely outlaying of funds, and include:
new  program  guidance that  establishes  time  limits  for project development and  project
                                        STAG-29

-------
construction phases; a deadline to start BEIF disbursements; and a "by-pass" provision policy for
stalled projects.

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to support the construction of infrastructure that will connect and
serve the homes of the border area residents with safe drinking water and wastewater treatment.
The Agency also will continue to support the planned assessment of shared and transboundary
surface waters to facilitate the collection, management,  and exchange of environmental data
essential for effective water management. In addition, the Agency will support the protection of
public health at the border area coastal  beaches  and improvements in efficiency  of service
provider operations.

Performance Targets:

The Agency is working to develop baselines and targets for performance measures established
during the PART review.  We expect to have the baseline information available during the spring
2006 and anticipate reporting on the status  of our accomplishments at the end of fiscal year 2006.

The results of the recently  implemented prioritization process indicate that the FY 2007
investment of $25 million will leverage funding to provide clean and safe water to approximately
90,000 people.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted  Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-$24,514.0)  The program  has sufficient resources  to  carry out currently approved
      projects and provides $25 million to address new needs in FY 2007.

Statutory Authority:

Treaty entitled "Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States
on  Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area,
August 14, 1983, CWA.
                                       STAG-30

-------
                                                    Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
                                                     Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance
                                                                 Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                         Objective(s): Protect Human Health
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)



State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY 2005
Obligations
$0.0
$0.0
0.0

FY 2006
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0

FY 2007
Pres Bud
$990.0
$990.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$990.0
$990.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program focuses on the design for an upgrade of Metropolitano's Sergio Cuervas drinking
water treatment plant in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will support the design of infrastructure improvements for the largest drinking system in Puerto
Rico to strengthen its infrastructure and, in turn, reduce the health risk to its consumers.  Less than
30 percent of the population in Puerto Rico receives drinking water that meets all health-based
standards.2  To improve public health protection in Puerto Rico, the Agency will support the next
phase of the design of necessary infrastructure improvements.

Performance Targets:

This program will contribute significantly to the drinking water program measure regarding the
percent of the population  served by community water systems that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards through effective treatment  and source water protection.   The Agency
estimates  that approximately 1.5  million people will  benefit from safer, cleaner drinking water2
and risks of cancer, gastroenteritis,  and other waterborne diseases will be reduced when  all
upgrades are completed at this plant.

Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives.   Currently, there  are  no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$990.0) This increase provides funding to design  an upgrade of the drinking water
       treatment plant in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Statutory Authority:

SDWA.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED),
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED),
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html
                                         STAG-31

-------
Program Area: Categorical Grants
             STAG-32

-------
                                                  Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                              Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                       Objective(s): Protect Human Health
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$13,262. 7
$13,262.7
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$9,853.0
$9,853.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$47.0
$47.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA awards grants to eligible coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes to improve
water quality monitoring at beaches  and to notify the public of beach warnings and closings.
The BEACH grant program is a collaborative effort between EPA and states, territories, local
governments, and tribes to help ensure that recreational waters are safe for swimming. Congress
created the program  with the passage of the  Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act (BEACH Act) in October 2000, with the goal of improving water quality testing at
beaches and to help beach  managers better  inform the public when there  are water quality
problems.

EPA awards grants to eligible states, territories, and tribes using an allocation formula developed
in 2002 in consultation with states and other  organizations that takes into consideration: beach
season length, beach miles,  and beach use.   During FY 2006, the allocation formula will be
reviewed in consultation with Agency stakeholders to update the FY 2007  allocations.   (See
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches for more information.)
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

States  and territories currently  monitor 3,574 beaches.
monitoring beaches in FY 2007, EPA expects to:
To  continue  making  progress  on
       Make grant funds available to all 35 eligible states and territories to monitor beach water
       quality and to notify the public of beach warnings and closings;
       Continue to  make available to the public information, through EPA's Beach Advisory
       Closing On-line Notification (BEACON) system, on the status of beach closings at all
       monitored beaches; and
       Continue to  work with coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes to address
       monitoring issues.
                                        STAG-33

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome


Measure
Days (of beach season)
that coastal and Great
Lakes beaches
monitored by State
beach safety programs
are open and safe for
swimming.
FY 2005
Actual



96


FY 2005
Target



94


FY 2006
Target



94


FY 2007
Target



95


Units



Days/Season


EPA expects to see a continued increase in the percentage of beach season days that coastal and
Great Lakes beaches are open and safe for swimming as states continue their implementation of
the BEACH Act program.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$47.0) This increase will allow states and territories to perform additional monitoring
       at beaches.

Statutory Authority:

CWA; BEACH Act of 2000.
                                      STAG-34

-------
                                                        Categorical Grant: Brownfields
                                                        Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                               Objective(s): Communities
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$47,411.0
$47,411.0
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$49,264.0
$49,264.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$49,494.9
$49,494.9
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$230.9
$230.9
0.0
Program Project Description:

Brownfields are  real  property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of  which may be
complicated by the presence or potential presence of a  hazardous  substance, pollutant,  or
contaminant.   Unlike  Superfund  sites,  generally Brownfields  are not  highly  contaminated
properties and, therefore, present lesser health risks.  Economic changes  over  several decades
have left thousands of communities with these contaminated properties  and abandoned sites.
The Agency's Brownfields program coordinates a Federal,  state, Tribal, and local government
approach to assist in addressing environmental site assessment and cleanup.

Under CERCLA Section 128(a), grants are provided to states and Tribes  for their Brownfields
response programs.  The state/Tribal programs address contaminated  sites that do not require
Federal action, but need cleanup before the sites are considered for reuse.  States and Tribes may
use grant funding to develop a public record, capitalize a Revolving Loan Fund  for Brownfields
cleanup under CERCLA Section 104(k)(3), purchase environmental insurance, and conduct site-
specific related activities such as assessments at Brownfield sites.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Building the capacity of states and Tribes to regulate and oversee the cleanup and redevelopment
of Brownfields will  mean more sustained success at the local level, and potentially even higher
leveraging of Federal dollars to revitalize communities across the country.  The Agency requests
funds to establish or enhance state and Tribal response programs in 50 states, 30  Tribes, and two
territories.

EPA has signed 22 Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) memoranda of  agreement (MOAs) with
states through the end  of FY 2005.  VCP MO As clarify the roles and responsibilities of the
Federal/state relationship.  These  agreements  encourage  the  cleanup and redevelopment  of
contaminated properties.   In FY 2007,  EPA will  continue to negotiate with states,  signing
additional MOAs. Under the Brownfields law, state response programs that have a VCP MOA
are automatically eligible for CERCLA  128(a) grant funding, therefore streamlining the grant
award process.
                                       STAG-35

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program project supports the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Objective
and contributes to achievement of performance measures identified under the Brownfields
Projects program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$230.9) This increase provides additional grant funding to Tribes or states, supporting
       efforts to clean up additional Brownfields properties.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA as amended by SBLRBRA (P.L. 107-118):  GMRA (1990); FGCAA.
                                      STAG-36

-------
                                         Categorical Grant:  Environmental Information
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                          Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance
                                               through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$19,837.0
$19,837.0
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$19,706.0
$19,706.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$14,850.0
$14,850.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($4,856.0)
($4,856.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Exchange Network grants provide funding to states, territories, federally recognized Indian
tribes, and inter-tribal consortia to support their participation in the Environmental Information
Exchange Network.   The  Network is  an Internet and  standards-based,  secure information
network that facilitates electronic reporting and the sharing, integration, analysis, and use  of
environmental data from many different  sources.  The funding  supports the acquisition and
development of computer  hardware and software EPA's partners  need to connect  to the
Exchange Network.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the Exchange Network Grants Program will emphasize activities in three areas.
First, the development of tribal and territorial infrastructure will be emphasized, as all states are
expected to  have operating nodes at that point.  Second, the core focus of the Grants program
will be  on supporting  all  partners in the  development and exchange of regulatory and non-
traditional data flows through the Exchange Network.  Exchange Network partners will continue
to need  support in the  build out of the data available through their nodes.  These efforts will
support  the  exchange of data for regulatory programs,  but  more importantly, for the business
needs of the Exchange Network partners in terms of facilitating better  environmental and health
decisions.    Finally,  the  Grants Program will support multi-partner projects  that  facilitate
collaborative efforts to plan, mentor, and train Exchange Network partners, as well as develop
and exchange data. These projects help  to encourage broader participation of existing and new
partners, support innovation, and improve grant products because more input is obtained and the
products are used by a greater number of partners.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports  multiple performance objectives.   Currently, there  are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
                                       STAG-37

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$4,856.0) The reduction in resources reflects the shift in the Grant Program's emphasis
       from infrastructure needs to building data flows and Web services.

Statutory Authority:

Annual Appropriations Act.
                                      STAG-38

-------
                               Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
                                                        Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                   Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                 Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$105,786.4
$105,786.4
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$101,944.0
$101,944.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$103,345.5
$103,345.5
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,401.5
$1,401.5
0.0
Program Project Description:

The  Resource  Conservation and  Recovery  Act  (RCRA)  authorizes  EPA to  assist  state
governments through the Hazardous  Waste Financial Assistance Grants program.   The states
propose legislation and upgrade regulations to achieve equivalence with the Federal Hazardous
Waste Management Program, and apply to EPA for authorization to administer the program. The
state grants provide  for the implementation  of an  authorized hazardous waste management
program for the purpose of controlling the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes, including controlling and cleaning up past and continuing releases
from  hazardous waste management  facilities through corrective action. This  program  also
provides funding for the direct implementation of the RCRA program for the States of Iowa and
Alaska.  Funding distributed through  State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) also supports
Tribes, where appropriate, in conducting hazardous waste work on Tribal lands.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, the following activities will be accomplished by states and by EPA for Iowa and
Alaska, using RCRA Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance funds:

   •   Increase the number  of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or
       other approved controls by 2.4% in 2007 in order to meet the 2008 GPRA goal of 95%.
       This includes the following activities:
          o  Issue  operating  and  post-closure  permits  or  use  appropriate  enforcement
             mechanisms to address environmental risk at inactive land-based facilities.
          o  Approve closure  plans for interim status treatment and storage facilities that are
             not seeking permits to operate,  and work with the facilities to clean/close those
             units.
   •   Issue permit renewals for hazardous waste management facilities to keep permit controls
       up to date.  Permit renewals  are part of new GPRA targets for the 2006-2008  cycle
       requiring 50 permit renewals to be done nationally each year.
   •   Issues permit modifications as  needed.
                                       STAG-39

-------
   •   Issue  post-closure  permits  or use appropriate  enforcement mechanisms  to  address
       environmental risk at inactive land disposal facilities and put approved controls in place,
       as part of efforts toward the 2008 strategic goals and report on GPRA status.
   •   Approve post-closure plans for interim status treatment and storage facilities that are not
       seeking permits to operate, so these facilities can be brought under "approved controls"
       as part of the efforts toward the 2008 strategic goals.
   •   Review  and  decide on  permit  renewals  and  modifications  for  hazardous waste
       management facilities to keep permit controls up to date.
   •   Operate comprehensive compliance monitoring and enforcement actions related to the
       RCRA hazardous waste program.
   •   Provide funding for the direct implementation of the RCRA program by Region 7 for the
       State of Iowa and for  the State of Alaska, which have  not become authorized for the
       program.
   •   Work with facilities to complete site assessments, control human exposures,  control the
       migration of contaminated groundwater, select final  remedies, and make determinations
       that construction of final remedies has been completed as part of the efforts toward
       meeting the 2008 GPRA goals for the RCRA Corrective Action Program.
   •   Work with  facilities  to  make  determinations  that  construction  of  final  remedy
       components  are complete as part of the efforts  toward improving program efficiency
       under the RCRA Corrective Action Program efficiency measure.

Performance Targets:

This program was included in the PART review of the RCRA Base, Permits and Grants Program
for FY 2006 which received  an overall rating of Adequate.  This evaluation included OMB
discussions with  states that are the recipients  of STAG funds for support of hazardous waste
activities.  During the PART, EPA developed an efficiency measure that will  show, over time,
the RCRA facilities under control (permitted) per the total permitting costs.  Included in these
costs will be estimate of the permitting costs of the regulated entities plus appropriated dollars
for the program,  based on a  three  year rolling average.  The baseline  is currently under
development. FY 2007 will be the first year  in  which the RCRA program will report on the
permits and approved controls efficiency measure, based on calculations using  data from FY
2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$1,401.5)   This  increase  will support additional  state  hazardous waste  facility
       permitting activities and cleanups under the RCRA corrective action program.

Statutory Authority:

SOW A; Sections 3011 (a) and (c) as amended RCRA of 1976, as amended; Public Law 94-580,
42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development
and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act;  Public Law 105-276;  112 Stat, 2461,  2499
(1988).
                                       STAG-40

-------
                                                  Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                               Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                       Objective(s): Protect Human Health
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$4,988.8
$4,988.8
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$4,926.0
$4,926.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,950.0
$4,950.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$24.0
$24.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA provides grants for coordination activities for critical water infrastructure protection efforts
that include work with drinking water systems as well as with state, local, and Federal agencies.
These activities include coordinating and providing technical assistance, training, and education
within the  state  or territory on homeland  security  issues (particularly with homeland security
offices and emergency response officials) relating to:  ensuring the quality of drinking water
systems'  vulnerability assessments and associated security enhancements;  and developing and
overseeing emergency response and recovery  plans.  Emergency response and recovery plan
implementation activities include table-top workshops, exercises, drills, response protocols, or
other activities focusing on implementing security enhancements and improving the readiness of
individuals and groups involved in first response at a drinking water system.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will award homeland security grants to states and territories to support their
efforts to work with drinking water and wastewater systems to:

   •   Develop  and enhance  facility emergency operations plans to improve response  and
       preparedness capabilities;
   •   Conduct training in the implementation of remedial plans in small systems;
   •   Improve emergency response coordination and communications; and
   •   Develop specific materials focused on improving security.

EPA homeland security grants will  be  awarded to  56 states and  territories.  These grants will
improve  operations  of  drinking  water utilities through training and  improved  emergency
response coordination, communications, and preparedness.  In addition, these  resources will
facilitate the  development of materials  (e.g., documents, training materials)  focused  on
improving security and emergency response.

In the past,  EPA grants  have provided support for assisting community water  systems to
undertake  vulnerability  assessments,  develop emergency  response plans,  run  emergency
                                        STAG-41

-------
response exercises, and develop mutual aid compacts.  As a result, 100% of the more than 900
large and medium community water systems (serving 50,000 people or more, each) and 96% of
the nearly  8,000 community  water systems that each serve 3,301  - 50,000  people  have
completed required vulnerability assessments.  As  an example of the multiple benefits of water
security preparedness activities, mutual aid compacts developed by Gulf Coast states with these
funds enhanced response capabilities during recent hurricane seasons.

See http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecuritv/fmanceassist.cfm for more information.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports EPA's protect human health objective. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$24.0) This  increase  will support  coordination activities for  critical infrastructure
       protection grants to states and territories.

Statutory Authority:

SDWA; CWA; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002.
                                       STAG-42

-------
                                                                   Categorical Grant:  Lead
                                                            Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                  Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                         Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$14,169.0
$14,169.0
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$13,499.0
$13,499.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,563.1
$13,563.1
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$64.1
$64.1
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Lead Categorical Grant Program will continue providing assistance to states, territories, the
District of Columbia, and Tribes to develop and implement authorized programs for lead-based
paint remediation.   These programs provide specialized  individual  training,  accreditation of
training programs, and the certification of contractors engaged in lead-based paint remediation.
This grant program, with its focus on reducing the number of childhood lead poisoning cases, is
an Agency priority and part of the Strategic Plan.

EPA will continue to implement the lead-based paint activities in the Training and Certification
program through  EPA-authorized state, territorial and  Tribal  programs  and,  in areas  without
authorization, through direct implementation by the Agency. Activities conducted as part of this
program include issuing grants for the training and certification of individuals and firms engaged
in lead-based paint abatement and inspection activities and the accreditation of qualified training
providers.  Since  their inception in 1998, the state, Tribal  and Federal programs have certified
more than 24,000  individuals.
FY 2007 Activities  and Performance
Plan:

In  FY 2007, EPA will  continue  to
allocate grant funding through its new
grant initiative  to address areas with
high incidences of lead poisoning. EPA
will  continue  its   competitive   grant
program to address populations  still at
risk for elevated blood lead levels.  The
grants are available to a wide range of
applicants,  including  state  and  local
governments,     Federally-recognized
Indian  Tribes  and  Tribal  consortia,
territories,    institutions   of    higher
learning, and nonprofit organizations.
Performance Assessment:   The Lead  program  provides
human  health  standards,  abatement   program  national
oversight   and  certification  and  training,  notification
standards, and public outreach and education for lead hazards.
The program underwent its first PART in FY 2005, receiving
a Moderately Effective rating. In response to the PART, EPA
is introducing a new long-term measure  and annual results
measure (Percent difference  in the  geometric mean blood
level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the
geometric mean for non-low income  children 1-5 years old),
and a new efficiency  measure (Annual percentage of lead-
based paint certification and refund applications that require
less than 40 days of EPA effort to process) in the FY 2007
Budget Justification and Request. In FY  2007, EPA will be
implementing PART-recommended  Improvement  Plans to
improve  the   consistency  of  grantee   and   regional
accountability mechanisms, ensure  a clear  link  between
program goals and resource allocations, and target program
resources and activities on populations that face a significant
risk of being exposed to lead.
                                          STAG-43

-------
In addition to the Categorical Grant, the Lead program has a companion, "Lead Risk Reduction
Program."  This program focuses on EPA activities (e.g.,  rulemaking) other than assistance to
states, territories, the District of Columbia and Indian Tribes. Both of these programs contribute
to the  achievement of common strategic targets  and  annual performance goals.  For more
information, visit www.epa.gov/oppt.

Performance Targets:

Activities for this appropriation are supported by PART measures listed for Toxic Substances:
Lead Risk Reduction Program (EPM).

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in  Thousands):

   •   (+$64.1)  This increase will support expanded work by states to train and certify lead-
       based paint professionals, demand for whose services will increase upon promulgation of
       the recently proposed anticipated final Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting
       rule and EPA's work to review state and Tribal applications for program authorization.

Statutory Authority:

TSCA.
                                       STAG-44

-------
                                            Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
                                                           Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                                 Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                          Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$225,194.2
$225,194.2
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$204,278.0
$204,278.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$194,040.0
$194,040.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($10,238.0)
($10,238.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The national nonpoint source (NPS) program is EPA's primary program to combat the greatest
remaining source of surface and  ground water quality impairments and threats in the United
States.3   Grants  under Section 319  of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are provided to states,
territories, and tribes to help them implement  their EPA-approved nonpoint source (NPS)
management programs by  remediating NPS pollution that  has  occurred in the past and  by
preventing or minimizing new NPS pollution.

Section 319 broadly authorizes  states to use a range  of tools to implement their programs,
including:  both  non-regulatory  and  regulatory programs;  technical  assistance,  financial
assistance; education; training; technology transfer; and demonstration projects.  States currently
focus $100 million of their  Section  319  funds  on the  development and implementation of
watershed-based  plans that are designed to restore impaired (listed under Section 303(d)) waters
to meet water quality standards. For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
The pervasive nature of NPS pollution will
require cooperation and involvement from
EPA,  other Federal  agencies,  the states
and concerned  citizens   to  solve  NPS
pollution problems.  Therefore, EPA will
work closely  with and support the many
efforts of states, interstate agencies, tribes,
local   governments   and   communities,
watershed  groups, and others to develop
and implement their local watershed-based
plans  and  restore  surface  and  ground
waters nationwide.
Performance Assessment:  In calendar year 2004,
the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program received an
overall rating of "adequate" through PART review.
The purpose of the program is to provide  grants to
State, Territories, and Tribes to support a wide variety
of activities  that result in the reduction of polluted
runoff.   Funded activities may include:   technical
assistance, financial  assistance,  education,  training,
technology   transfer,    demonstration   projects,
watershed plans, and monitoring.    The  program
created three annual  output measures and one long-
term measure for the PART.
3 United States. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 National Water Quality Report. Washington, DC: GPO, August 2002.
EPA Document Number EPA-841 -1R-02-001.
                                         STAG-45

-------
States  will  continue  to  develop and  implement  watershed-based plans to restore  impaired
waterbodies to meet water quality standards. These watershed-based plans, a key emphasis of
the national nonpoint  source control program, will  move EPA toward the strategic goal of more
waters attaining designated uses.  These plans will  also enable states to determine the most cost-
effective means to meet their water quality goals through the analysis of sources of pollutants of
concern; the sources'  relative  significance; available cost-effective techniques to address those
sources; the availability of needed resources, authorities and community buy-in to effect change;
and monitoring that will enable states and local communities to track progress and make changes
over time as they deem necessary to meet their water quality goals.

EPA will continue to forge and strengthen strategic partnerships with agricultural, forestry,
development, and other communities that have an  interest in achieving water quality goals in a
cost-effective manner. Most particularly,  because agriculture  is the most significant source of
most remaining water quality impairments in the  United States, EPA will work with the US
Department of Agriculture (USD A) to ensure that Federal resources, including both Section 319
grants and Farm Bill funds, are managed and coordinated in an  effective manner to protect water
quality.  More broadly, EPA will work with states to  ensure that they develop and implement
their watershed-based plans in  close cooperation and consultation with state conservationists, soil
and water conservation districts, and all other interested parties within the watersheds.

EPA will continue to track the steady  increases in the cumulative dollar value and number of
projects financed with CWSRF loans that prevent polluted runoff, a major contributor to NPS
issues.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type


Output

Measure
Additional pounds (in
millions) of reduction
to total phosphorus
loadings
FY 2005
Actual


4.5

FY 2005
Target


4.5

FY 2006
Target


4.5

FY 2007
Target


4.5

Units


millions

Measure
Type

Output

Measure
Additional pounds (in
millions) of reduction
to total nitrogen
loadings
FY 2005
Actual

8.5

FY 2005
Target

8.5

FY 2006
Target

8.5

FY 2007
Target

8.5

Units

Ibs in
millions

Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Additional pounds of
reduction to total
sediment loadings
FY 2005
Actual
700,000
FY 2005
Target
700,000
FY 2006
Target
700,000
FY 2007
Target
700,000
Units
Ibs
                                        STAG-46

-------
The annual output measures track the reduction of phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment runoff
through 319-funded projects by  4.5 million pounds, 8.5  million pounds, and 700,000  tons,
respectively.  These measures were met in 2003. In 2004,  the measures were greatly exceeded
with regard to sediment, but the phosphorus and nitrogen totals fell somewhat below the annual
target.  EPA believes that these  differences reflect the natural variability of the type and scope of
projects implemented each year. For example, some states are currently focusing on remediating
waters  that  have been 303(d)-listed for other pollutants not  amenable to load  reduction
calculations, such as pathogens, temperature, or acidity.  The long-term outcome measure is:
250 waterbodies identified as being primarily NPS-impaired will partially attain or fully attain
designated uses by 2008 (and  700 primarily NPS-impaired waterbodies  will attain  designated
uses by 2012). EPA plans to begin tracking its progress towards meeting this outcome measure
in FY 2006.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars  in Thousands):

   •   (-$10,238.0)  Funding  provided by the Farm Bill programs  will ensure  that Federal
       agencies continue to strongly support high priority nonpoint source activities.  EPA will
       continue the current practice of  dedicating  $100 million towards the development and
       implementation of watershed-based plans that are designed to restore impaired (listed
       under  Section 303(d)) waters to meet water quality standards.  EPA will also continue to
       coordinate with USDA  to improve the  effectiveness and efficiency of both agencies'
       nonpoint source efforts.

Statutory Authority:

Annual Appropriations Acts; Certain Alaskan Cruise  Ship Operations  Act (PL 106-554); Clean
Vessel  Act; CWA; FIFRA; MPPRCA of 1987; MPRSA; NEPA; National Invasive Species Act
of 1996; Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988; OAPCA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; Shore Protection Act
of 1988; TSCA; WRDA; WWWQA of 2000; CZARA of 1990; and NAFTA
                                       STAG-47

-------
                                              Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$20,468.4
$20,468.4
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$18,622.0
$18,622.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$89.0
$89.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

Pesticide Enforcement grants  are used to ensure pesticide product and user compliance with
provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  Areas of focus
include problems  relating to  pesticide worker safety  protection, ineffective  antimicrobial
products, food safety, adverse effects,  and e-commerce.   The  program provides compliance
assistance to the regulated community through such resources as EPA's National Agriculture
Compliance Assistance Center, seminars, guidance documents, brochures, and outreach and of
communication, to foster knowledge of and compliance with environmental laws pertaining to
pesticides.  For additional information visit: http://epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/fifra.html.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
In  FY 2007,  EPA will  award  state  and  Tribal
enforcement grants to assist in the implementation of
the compliance and enforcement  provisions  of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide  and Rodenticide  Act
(FIFRA).    These  grants  support  state and  Tribal
compliance  and  enforcement  activities  designed to
protect the environment from harmful  chemicals and
pesticides.  EPA's support to state and Tribal pesticide
programs will  emphasize pesticide worker  protection
standards,  high  risk  pesticide  activities  including
antimicrobials,  pesticide misuse in urban areas, and the
misapplication  of structural  pesticides.  States   also
monitoring inspections on core pesticide  requirements.

Performance Targets:
  Performance  Assessment:   EPA refined
  PART measure data collection procedures
  with a federal and state workgroup in 2005.
  EPA will negotiate final commitments for the
  collection of  2006  data  for  pesticide
  enforcement  grant  PART  measures with
  states and tribes based on PART approved
  measures. EPA anticipates that preliminary
  data  for these PART  measures will  be
  available in January  2007. This data will be
  used in developing three-year rolling average
  baselines and targets.
will  continue to conduct  compliance
This program received an ineffective rating from the PART assessment completed in 2004. The
score reflected the absence  of data  needed to implement program outcome and efficiency
measures called for by the PART. To address this  problem, new measures were developed by
the program, and approved by  OMB  during the FY 2004 PART review.  For FY 2005, EPA
                                        STAG-48

-------
negotiated with grantees to report the data needed for the new outcome and efficiency measures.
In FY 2007, grantees will begin reporting this new data, and EPA will analyze and use the data
to help improve program management and demonstrate results.  There are new PART measures
for FY 2007.  No prior data exists to evaluate the performance of these measures over a multi-
year period. Work under this program supports Improve Compliance objective. Currently, there
are no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$89.0)  This increase  will  support  the implementation of  the  compliance  and
       enforcement provisions of FIFRA.

Statutory Authority:

FIFRA.
                                      STAG-49

-------
                                  Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                               Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                        Objective(s): Protect Human Health

                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                      Objective(s): Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$13,347.2
$13,347.2
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$12,907.0
$12,907.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,968.9
$12,968.9
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$61.9
$61.9
0.0
Program Project Description:

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) ensure that pesticide regulatory decisions made at a
national level are translated into results on the local level.  States and Tribes provide essential
support in  implementing pesticides field  programs,  giving input regarding effectiveness and
soundness  of regulatory decisions,  and  developing  data  to  measure  performance.   Under
pesticide statutes, responsibility for ensuring proper pesticide use is in large part delegated to
states and Tribes.  Grant resources allow  states and Tribes to be effective regulatory partners.
EPA's philosophy is to put the resources at the level closest to the potential risks from pesticides,
since they are in a position  to better evaluate risks and implement risk reduction measures.  The
Agency provides grants to states, Tribes, partners, and supporters for implementation of the
following Field Programs:

   •   Certification and Training / Worker Protection
   •   Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) Field Activities
   •   Tribal Program
   •   Pesticide Environmental  Stewardship Program

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Certification and Training/Worker Protection

Through the  Certification  and  Training/Worker Protection programs, EPA protects workers,
pesticide applicators/handlers, employers,  and  the  public from the  potential risks posed by
pesticides in their homes and work environments. EPA will continue to provide assistance and
grants to implement the Certification and Training/Worker Protection programs. Grant funding
will provide for maintenance and improvements in training networks,  safety training to workers
and handlers, development of  Train the  Trainer  courses,  workshops, and development and
distribution of outreach materials. The Agency's partnership with states and Tribes in educating
workers, farmers and employers on the safe use of pesticides and worker safety will continue to
                                        STAG-50

-------
be a major keystone in the success of the program.  For additional information, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/oppfod01/safety/applicators/applicators.htm.

Tribal

The  Agency  will support Tribal activities  in implementing pesticide field programs through
grants. Tribal Program outreach activities support Tribal capacity to reduce risk from pesticides
in Indian country.  This task is made more challenging because of the uniqueness of Native
Americans' lifestyles, which may involve unique chemical exposure scenarios. For additional
information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/tribes/.

Endangered Species Protection Program Field Activities (ESPP)

The ESPP protects animals and plants whose populations are threatened by risks associated with
pesticide use.  EPA complies with Endangered Species Act requirements to ensure that its
regulatory decisions are not likely to jeopardize species listed as endangered and threatened, or
harm habitat critical to those species'  survival.  EPA will provide grants to states and Tribes for
projects supporting endangered species protection.  Program implementation includes outreach,
communications,  education related  to  use limitations,  county  bulletins development  and
distribution, and mapping and development of endangered species protection plans.

Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP)

The  PESP  is a grant  program that supports voluntary partnerships among EPA  and national,
state, and local  organizations for projects that reduce the risks from pesticide use in agricultural
and non-agricultural settings.  EPA will continue to support risk reduction by  providing grants
promoting the use of safer alternatives to  traditional chemical methods of pest control.  EPA
grants will  also support the development and evaluation of new pest management technologies
through Integrated Pest Management and PESP, thus contributing to reduction in both health and
environmental  risks   from  pesticide  use.     For  additional  information,  please  visit
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppdl/PESP/index.htm.

Performance Targets:

Work under  this  program supports the Chemical,  Organism, and Pesticides  Risks objective.
Currently there  are no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+$61.9) This increase will support one or more of the Implementation grants.

Statutory Authority:

PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA; ESA.
                                       STAG-51

-------
                                           Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
                                                          Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                                Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                         Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$211,124.6
$211,124.6
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$216,172.0
$216,172.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$221,661.0
$221,661.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
$5,489.0
$5,489.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)  authorizes EPA to provide Federal  assistance to
states (including Territories and the District of Columbia), Tribes qualified under section 518(e),
and interstate agencies to establish and maintain  adequate measures for the prevention and
control of surface and ground water pollution from point and nonpoint sources. Prevention and
control measures supported through these grants include permitting, pollution control  studies,
water quality  planning, monitoring  and standards  and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
development,  surveillance and enforcement, pretreatment programs, advice and  assistance to
local agencies, training, public information, and oil and hazardous materials response. The grants
may  also  be  used to  fund  services  from  non-profit  organizations,  through the   Senior
Environmental Employment Program (SEEP).  The grants may also be used to provide "in-kind"
support through an EPA contract if a state or tribe requests that part of their allotment be used to
purchase     equipment      or     services.          For     more    information,     visit
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/pollutioncontrol.htm.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
                                              Performance Assessment:  The Pollution Control
                                              State Grants Program underwent the PART for the
                                              first time in FY  2005  and  received a  rating of
                                              adequate.   The purpose of this program is to make
                                              grants to  states to carry out their  Water Quality
                                              Programs which implement and enforce the National
                                              Clean  Water Act  Regulations and policies.   The
                                              program submitted one long-term measure, six annual
                                              measures, and one efficiency measure.
This program enables states to implement key
CWA programs that will restore and improve
the quality of rivers, lakes  and streams which
will allow the  Agency to achieve the long-
term national goal of restoring the quality of
25  percent of impaired  waters  by  2012.
Through the Section 106 grant program, the
Agency continues to support prevention  and
control  measures  supported by  State  Water  Quality  management  programs  which  include
standards  development, monitoring, permitting and enforcement;  advice and assistance to local
agencies;  and the provision of training and public information.  The Water Pollution Control
Program is helping to foster a watershed protection approach at the state level by encouraging
states to  address water quality  problems holistically,  thereby  targeting the use  of limited
resources  available for effective program management.
                                        STAG-52

-------
In FY 2007, EPA will collaborate with state and Tribal  partners to continue  supporting the
monitoring initiative that began in 2005 by collaborating on a statistically valid survey of the
nation's waters.  EPA state and tribal partners will take steps toward use of statistically valid
methods to  assess the condition of their waters.  This work will build on the  2004 National
Coastal Condition Report and  the 2006 wadeable streams study, with a  report on baseline
conditions of lakes due at the end of 2008. The intent is that surveys of the Nation's waters will
be repeated  periodically to track trends in water quality, giving decision makers and the public
the information  they need to  determine effectiveness  of  the Agency's investments in water
quality protection. In FY 2007, $18.5 million will be designated for  States that participate in
collecting this statistically valid water monitoring data.

States, interstate agencies, and tribes continue to foster a "watershed approach'  as the guiding
principle of their clean water programs. Development of TMDLs for an impaired waterbody is a
critical tool  for meeting water restoration goals. In watersheds where quality standards are not
attained, states will be developing TMDLs, watershed  plans or other appropriate mechanisms
that, when implemented, will result in attainment  of water quality standards. Watershed plans
and TMDLs will focus pollution control and restoration efforts for impaired waters on a range of
pollutant sources, including point  sources and nonpoint sources.  States and EPA have made
significant progress  in the development and  approval  of TMDLs (cumulatively  over  18,000
completed through FY 2005) and expect to maintain the current pace of more than 3,000 TMDLs
per year.

The  states and tribes will  continue to implement the  "Permitting for Environmental Results
Strategy," which focuses  limited  resources  on the most  critical environmental problems by
targeting three key areas:  developing and strengthening systems to ensure  the integrity of the
program; focusing on environmental results in the permitting program; and fostering efficiency
in permitting program operations.  Additionally, EPA will  finalize  a rule that incorporates
financial incentives for States that implement adequate NPDES fee systems.

New rules have  been finalized for discharges from Concentrated Animal  Feeding Operations
(CAFOs) and the states will work to assure that permits cover most CAFOs by  2008.   In
addition, States will continue to work toward the 2008 goal of 100 percent of National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)  programs  having issued general permits requiring storm
water management programs for Phase II municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)  and
requiring storm water pollution prevention plans for construction sites covered by Phase II of the
storm water  program.

States and authorized Tribes will continue to review and update their water quality standards as
required by the CWA. The Agency's goal is that over 85 percent of state and Tribal submissions
will be approvable in 2007.  EPA also encourages  states to continually review and update water
quality criteria in their standards to reflect the latest scientific information from  EPA and other
sources. EPA's goal for 2007 is that over 67 percent of states will have updated their standards
to reflect the latest scientific information  in the past three years.
                                        STAG-53

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Output


Measure
Number of TMDL's
that are established by
States and approved by
EPA on schedule
consistent with
national policy
(cumulative)
FY 2005
Actual



15,338


FY 2005
Target



14,462


FY 2006
Target



16,896


FY 2007
Target



21,329


Units



TMDLs


Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of high
priority state NPDES
permits that are
scheduled to be
reissued.
FY 2005
Actual
102
FY 2005
Target
95
FY 2006
Target
95
FY 2007
Target
95
Units
% permits
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Cost per water segment
restored.
FY 2005
Actual
828.6
FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target
1,358.4
FY 2007
Target
1,058.8
Units
water
segment
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of majors in
Significant
Noncompliance (SNC)
at any time during the
fiscal year
FY 2005
Actual
20.5
FY 2005
Target
Maintain
or
Improve
Baseline
of 22.5
FY 2006
Target
Maintain
or
Improve
Baseline
of 22.5
FY 2007
Target
Maintain
or
Improve
Baseline
of 22.5
Units
% majors
Measure
Type



Output



Measure
% of S/Terr/authorized
Tribes that, within the
preceeding 3-yr period,
submitted new or rvsd
WQ criteria acceptable
to EPA that reflect new
science info from
EPA/or sources not
considered in prev std
FY 2005
Actual



62



FY 2005
Target



62



FY 2006
Target



66



FY 2007
Target



67



Units



% S/T/Terr



                                   STAG-54

-------
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
Annual percentage of
waterbody segments
identified by States in
2000 as not attaining
standards, where water
quality standards are
now fully attained
(cumulative).
FY 2005
Actual



8



FY 2005
Target



2



FY 2006
Target



5



FY 2007
Target



9



Units



% Miles/Acres



A key performance measure for the Surface Water Protection program is the percentage of water
body segments, identified by  States in 2000 as  not attaining standards,  where water quality
standards are now attained. EPA state partners play a key role in developing and implementing
plans and documenting progress made in reaching the FY 2012 target for this measure.  EPA is
working with States to develop detailed plans documenting how stakeholders will work together
to achieve these goals.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in  Thousands):

   •   (+$5,489.0) This increase funding for the Section 106 base will help states implement
       high priority CAFOs and storm water permitting activities.

Statutory Authority:

CWA.
                                      STAG-55

-------
                                                Categorical Grant:  Pollution Prevention
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                          Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance
                                               through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$5,161.7
$5,161.7
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$4,926.0
$4,926.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,940.0
$5,940.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,014.0
$1,014.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA's Pollution Prevention (P2) programs  are focused  on approaches that merge business,
community  and consumer needs  with environmental  protection by  identifying processes,
products and opportunities that save time and money, as well as prevent pollution. The expertise
that EPA's regulatory program has developed in the industrial chemistry, chemical engineering,
and chemical risk assessment areas is now used to develop new and innovative approaches to the
next level of environmental protection.

The program employs a combination of collaborative efforts, innovative programs, and technical
assistance  and  education  to support  stakeholder  efforts to  not just minimize  adverse
environmental impacts, but to prevent them.

The program provides grant funds to states and state entities (i.e., colleges  and universities) and
Federally-recognized Tribes and Intertribal Consortia in order to deliver technical assistance to
small  and medium-sized businesses.  The goal of the grant program  is to assist businesses and
industries with identifying improved environmental strategies and solutions  for reducing waste at
the source.  The program demonstrates that source reduction can be a cost-effective way of
meeting or exceeding Federal and state regulatory requirements.

EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan established a number of long-term strategic targets for EPA's
Pollution Prevention Program including the following:
   •   Reducing pollution by 76 billion pounds;
   •   Conserving 360 billion BTUs of energy and 2.7 billion gallons of water; and
   •   Achieving environmentally-related  business  cost  savings of $400 million from  2003
       levels.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The P2 Grant  Program will focus on stronger review of the applicant's ability  to measure the
results of the grants, particularly environmental outcomes.  EPA will expect grant applicants to
demonstrate and document either outcome or output measures.   EPA will give preference to
                                       STAG-56

-------
applicants whose work plans address outcome-based measures derived from the P2 targets in
EPA's  Strategic Plan.  Within the national  grant guidance, EPA will provide ranking criteria
which  will be used to evaluate the applicant's ability to measure expected results.  Primarily,
applicants will be evaluated on their use of the National Pollution Prevention Results System (a
database of  core P2  metrics  being developed  by  EPA  and state  P2  organizations)  or
documentation in their work plan of past experience in measuring outcomes or outputs from
previous grants.  EPA has reinforced the importance of tracking environmental outcomes from
P2 grants in two ways:
   •   The addition of the key P2 environmental outcome targets from EPA's Strategic Plan to
       the reporting measures in the  annual program guidance for EPA's P2 grants managers;
       and,
   •   The revision of the GranTrack database, to add the core P2 metrics  from the National
       Pollution Prevention Results System to  its menu of grant information.

In FY  2007, EPA will use additional  resources to expand these grants to States and Tribes and
will continue to support and expand the  services of a network of regional centers, collectively
called the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx), that provides information and help
to state technical assistance centers.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports Improve Compliance.  Currently, there are no performance
measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$1,014.0)  This increase reflects investment to support expanded grants to States and
       Tribes to provide pollution prevention services to  small businesses  and expansion of
       services provided by the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx), that provides
       information and help to state technical assistance centers.

Statutory Authority:

PPA: TSCA.
                                       STAG-57

-------
                            Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                              Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                       Objective(s): Protect Human Health

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$104,043.6
$104,043.6
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$98,279.0
$98,279.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$99,099.0
$99,099.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$820.0
$820.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Grant program provides  grants to states with
primary enforcement authority (primacy) to implement and enforce National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (NPDWRs).  These grants help to ensure the safety of the Nation's drinking
water resources and thereby protect public health.

NPDWRs set forth monitoring, reporting, compliance tracking, and enforcement elements to
ensure that the Nation's drinking water supplies do not contain substances at levels that may
pose adverse  health effects. These grants are a key implementation tool under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and support the states' role in a Federal/state partnership of providing safe drinking
water supplies to the public. Grant funds are used by states to:

   •   Provide technical assistance to owners and operators of water systems;
   •   Maintain compliance data systems and compile and analyze compliance information;
   •   Respond to violations;
   •   Certify laboratories;
   •   Conduct laboratory analyses;
   •   Conduct sanitary surveys;
   •   Draft new regulations and legislative provisions where necessary; and
   •   Build  state capacity.

Not all states and tribes have primacy. Funds allocated to the State of Wyoming, the District of
Columbia,  and Indian tribes  without primacy are used: to support direct implementation
activities by  EPA; for developmental grants and "Treatment in a  similar manner as a State"
(TAS) grants to Indian tribes to develop the PWSS program on Indian lands with the goal of
Indian Tribal  authorities achieving primacy.  A portion of the funds allocated to  primacy states
that have not yet acquired the necessary statutory/regulatory  authorities to implement new
requirements  may  be  used by EPA to ensure compliance  with  the new requirements in these
states. (See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/pwss.html for more information.)
                                        STAG-58

-------
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will continue to support  state and  Tribal
efforts to meet new and existing drinking water
standards  through  the Public  Water Systems
Supervision  (PWSS)  grant program.   In FY
2007, the Agency will emphasize that states use
their PWSS funds to ensure that:
    1)  Drinking water  systems  of all
       achieve or remain in compliance;
sizes
Performance Assessment: The Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) Grant Program underwent the
PART for the first time in 2004. The purpose of this
program is to implement and enforce National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Through PWSS
grants, states ensure that the systems within their
jurisdiction are in compliance with drinking water
rules. The program submitted one long-term, two
annual, and two efficiency measures.  The program
received an OMB rating  of adequate in 2004.
   2)  Drinking water systems of all sizes are meeting new health-based standards that came into
       effect in FY 2006, e.g. arsenic and uranium; and
   3)  Data quality and other data issues have been addressed and resolved.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent community
water systems in
compliance with
drinking water
standards.
FY 2005
Actual
89.2
FY 2005
Target
93
FY 2006
Target
93.5
FY 2007
Target
94
Units
% Systems
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of States
conducting sanitary
surveys at community
water systems once
every three years.
FY 2005
Actual
94
FY 2005
Target
94
FY 2006
Target
98
FY 2007
Target
98
Units
% of States
The states are the primary implementers of the national drinking water program and ensure that
the systems within their jurisdiction are in compliance with drinking water rules.  Thus, while
there is not a separate measure for the PWSS grant program to the states, it directly contributes to
the measure on the number of community water systems that supply drinking water meeting all
health-based standards.  This program was included in the 2004  PWSS  PART review and
received an overall rating of Adequate.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$820.0) This  increase will support state and Tribal efforts in meeting new and existing
       drinking water  standards such  as implementation  and enforcement of the National
       Primary Drinking Water Regulations and  in ensuring high-quality performance data.

Statutory Authority:

SDWA.
                                        STAG-59

-------
                                                                Categorical Grant: Radon
                                                           Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                 Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                           Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$8,739.4
$8,739.4
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$7,439.0
$7,439.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$8,073.5
$8,073.5
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$634.5
$634.5
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA assists states  and tribes through the State Indoor Radon Grant Program (SIRG), which
provides categorical grants to develop, implement, and enhance programs to assess and mitigate
radon risks.  States and tribes are the primary  implementers of radon testing and mitigation
programs.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
                                                           Performance Assessment: The Indoor
                                                           Air Program, assessed by OMB in 2005
                                                           through the PART process, received a
                                                           rating of "Adequate." The program does
                                                           not issue regulations, so it works toward
                                                           its  goal by  conducting research  and
                                                           promoting  appropriate  risk  reduction
                                                           actions through voluntary education and
                                                           outreach programs.  The Program will be
                                                           focusing   on   making    efficiency
                                                           improvements.
EPA has established four areas of priority to double radon
mitigation  in new construction by 2012.  EPA will: build
new national partnerships and  increase national  outreach;
through state partnerships, EPA will increase the number of
states,  tribes, and localities with active and comprehensive
radon  programs;   continue to work  with  partners  to
accelerate  action in the marketplace to incorporate radon
protection  as a normal  part  of doing  business;  and in
conjunction with its partners, expand scientific knowledge
and technologies to support and drive aggressive  action on
radon.
In FY 2007, states receiving SIRG funds will continue to focus their efforts on priority activities
to achieve risk reduction. These activities include promoting radon testing and mitigation, with
emphasis on testing in conjunction with real estate transactions, promoting radon-resistant new
construction, addressing radon in  schools, setting  results targets, developing  action-oriented
coalitions, and conducting innovative activities to achieve measurable results.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes (new and
FY 2005
Actual
Data
Avail. 06
FY 2005
Target
173,000
FY 2006
Target
180,000
FY 2007
Target
190,000
Units
Homes
                                         STAG-60

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
existing) with radon
reducing features
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target

Units

In FY 2007, EPA expects 190,000 additional  homes to have radon reducing features (90,000
mitigations and  100,000 new homes with radon  resistant new construction), bringing the
cumulative number of U.S. homes with radon reducing features to 2.4 million.  EPA estimates
that this cumulative number  will result in over 700 future premature cancer deaths prevented
(each year these radon reducing features are in place.)

These program goals are a result of the total funding the program area receives through EPM,
S&T, and SIRG funding.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

 •    (+$634.5) This increase will support state and local radon risk reduction activities.

Statutory Authority:

TSCA, Section 6, Titles II, and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2641-2671), and Section 10.
                                       STAG-61

-------
                                                      Categorical Grant: Sector Program
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Compliance
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$2,464.3
$2,464.3
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$2,217.0
$2,217.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
52,227.5
$2,227.5
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$10.5
$10.5
0.0
Program Project Description:

A strong state and Tribal Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program is essential to EPA's
long-term strategic objective: to identify and reduce significant noncompliance in high priority
areas,  while maintaining a  strong  enforcement presence  in all  regulatory program areas.
Effective partnerships between EPA and government co-implementers are crucial for success in
implementing sector approaches.

Sector program grants will be used to build environmental partnerships with states and Tribes to
strengthen  their  ability  to   address  environmental  and  public  health  threats,  including
contaminated drinking water, pesticides in food, hazardous waste, toxic  substances,  and air
pollution. These grants also will support state agencies implementing authorized, delegated, or
approved environmental programs. For more information visit: www.epa.gov/sectors/pubs.html.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:                    	
In FY 2007, EPA will continue  to support state agencies and
Tribes  in  their  efforts  to  build,  implement,  or  improve
compliance  capacity  for authorized,  delegated, or  approved
environmental programs.   The sector  program also  seeks  to
foster innovation.

FY 2007 annual  funding priorities for the multi-media grants
program  include   improving   compliance   data    quality;
modernizing   data   systems;   improving   public  access   to
enforcement  and  compliance data;   improving  outcome   measurement;  providing on-site
compliance assistance  to Tribes.   The grants and/or cooperative agreements are competed for
nationally and each funding priority is targeted towards enhancing state and Tribal capacity and
capability.   Additionally,  funding priority  is targeted  towards addressing needs identified by
states, Tribes or state and Tribal associations.
Performance Assessment:
The    Civil     Enforcement
Program was rated adequate in
the   last   PART   review
completed for the Program in
2004 based on preparation of a
Measures  Improvement  Plan
(MIP)  to better characterize
pollutant   reductions   with
respect to hazard and exposure.
                                        STAG-62

-------
Performance Targets:

This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review in 2004, which received an
overall rating of Adequate based on development of a Measures Implementation Plan.  One of
the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution
as a result of enforcement actions. We are exploring methodologies to extend the measure by: 1)
adding components  that deal  with pollutant  hazard;  and 2) identifying  an indicator of the
population that would have been exposed to the pollutant.  Work under this program supports
Improve Compliance objective, although no performance measures exist for the program project.
Currently, there are no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$10.5) This increase provides  additional resources  for states  and Tribes  to  help
       modernize data systems  and facilitate public  access  enforcement  and compliance
       assurance data.

Statutory Authority:

RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
                                      STAG-63

-------
                              Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management
                                                           Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                  Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                          Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$233,758.6
$233,758.6
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$220,261.0
$220,261.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$185,179.5
$185,179.5
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($35,081.5)
($35,081.5)
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program includes funding support for state  and local  air pollution  control agencies and
regional planning organizations (RPOs).   Section 105 of the Clean Air Act provides EPA with
the authority to award grants  to state and local air pollution control agencies to develop and
implement programs for the prevention and control of air pollution and the implementation of
primary and secondary National Ambient  Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  Section 103 of the
Act provides EPA with the authority to  award grants to  state and local air  pollution control
agencies, and other appropriate public or private agencies, institutions,  and organizations to
conduct and promote certain  types of research,  investigations, experiments, demonstrations,
surveys, studies, and training related to air  pollution.

On November 12, 1999, the Agency issued "Guidance for Funding Air and Radiation Activities
Using the STAG Appropriation," which describes organizations and activities eligible for STAG
funding.  Under the policy, EPA will award STAG funds only to state and local air pollution
control  agencies, regional planning organizations, and multi-state organizations comprised of the
directors of state and local air pollution control agencies.  Under section  106 of the Clean  Air
Act, EPA may fund interstate air pollution transport commissions to develop  or carry out plans
for designated air quality control regions.
FY 2007 Activities and
Performance Plan:

This program funds over 100
state  and local air pollution
control  agencies  and  five
RPOs      to      implement
requirements of the Clean Air
Act.  In FY 2007, EPA will
place particular emphasis on
implementing the  Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) and
developing 8-hour ozone state
Performance Assessment:  In 2003, OMB assessed the Acid Rain program
through the PART process, and gave it a rating of "Moderately Effective."
The program is designed to reduce the harmful effects of acid rain through
reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and employs a
market-based emissions trading system to  minimize costs and maximize
compliance. The Program is working to develop an efficiency measure.

Performance Assessment:  The Air  Quality  Grants  and Permitting
programs, assessed by OMB in the 2005 PART process, received a rating of
"Ineffective."  These programs support the prevention and control of air
pollution at the state and  local  level. Grants are provided  for  program
implementation and research and development. Permits are issued to manage
pollution from new and existing facilities.  The  programs have developed
new performance measures and will be working to developing efficiency
measures to assess program progress.
                                         STAG-64

-------
implementation plans (SIPs), which states must submit to EPA in FY 2007.   States also will
begin work on  fine particle (PM-2.5)  SIPs,  and will incorporate regional  haze reduction
strategies, developed by the RPOs,  into their Regional Haze  SIPs.  States must submit both the
PM and Regional Haze SIPs to EPA in January 2008.  States with areas classified as moderate
and above for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will prepare and submit reasonable further progress
(RFP) and reasonably available control  technology (RACT) SIPs.  In FY 2006,  states will
prepare  revisions to their New Source Review (NSR)  SIPs consistent with the NSR Reform
measures. In response to EPA's final National Core (NCore) ambient monitoring rule, states will
begin implementing phase I of the NCore monitoring network requirements.  The requirements
are part of EPA's integrated monitoring strategy.

The  Office  of  Air and Radiation will enhance  EPA's existing  long-term  environmental
assessment capability.   To improve our  current understanding of ecosystem conditions due to
changes in air  quality requires increasing access to and linkage of long-term ecological datasets
that  spatially  and temporally complement  our  current long-term air  quality and  deposition
monitoring programs.  Ecological assessment approaches will be developed to evaluate existing
goals to improve their efficacy in assessing our environmental programs.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in the
number of days with
Air Quality Index
(AQI) values over 100
since 2003, weighted
by population and AQI
value.
FY 2005
Actual



13



FY 2005
Target



13



FY 2006
Target



17



FY 2007
Target



21



Units



Percentage



•  EPA and the states will continue to focus their resources on the ozone and PM programs.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•  (-$15,581.5) Substantial progress has made  in attaining the NAAQS for lead and carbon
   monoxide (CO). State efforts are now focused on maintaining compliance with the lead and
   CO NAAQS and therefore funding for these  activities reflects this shift.   The federal motor
   vehicle control program and existing state and local programs will maintain carbon monoxide
   at levels meeting NAAQS.  In addition, new national programs, such as CAIR, will reduce
   SO2  and  NOx as  part  of the  program  for  reducing  particulate  emissions and  the
   implementation  of these  programs  will  allow  states  to  leverage  existing  resources  to
   maximize cost-effectiveness of their efforts.

•  (-$2,500.0)  Funding will be reduced for the  Regional Planning Organizations.  The RPOs
   have completed much of the analysis for the regional haze plans and, with the ozone and PM
   SIPs due, the States will incorporate this work into their plans.  EPA will work closely with
   the RPOs to ensure that the most critical work is done  and available for the  States to
   incorporate in their SIPs.
                                       STAG-65

-------
•  (-$17,000.0) In 2007, the Agency will begin using the grant authority in Section 105 of the
   Clean Air Act to fund the particulate matter (PM) monitoring  network.  Since 1999, the
   agency had been issuing the grants under Section 103 of the Act.  Section 105 grants fund
   state or local  air planning agencies to implement and maintain the National Ambient Air
   Quality Standards and require a 40% match from recipients.  The Section 103 authority is
   specifically for research and demonstration efforts  and has no matching requirement.  The
   PM network is beyond the demonstration phase and is now an operational system.  As with
   other NAAQS monitoring efforts, states should bear some of the burden for operation and
   maintenance of the network.

Statutory Authority:

CAA, Sections 103, 105, and 106.
                                       STAG-66

-------
                                                Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                 Objective(s): Ecosystems
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$17,706.0
$17,706.0
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$16,608.0
$16,608.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,930.0
$6,930.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
($9,678.0)
($9,678.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is designed to encourage successful community-based
approaches and management techniques to protect and restore the nation's waters.  This is a
competitive grant program predicated on the following fundamental principles of environmental
improvement:    collaboration, new  technologies,  market  incentives,  and  results-oriented
strategies.  The watershed organizations receiving grants exhibit strong partnerships with a wide
variety of support, creative, socio-economic approaches to water restoration and protection, and
explicit monitoring and environmentally-based performance measures.

The program enhances  community watershed groups' efforts through two different types of
grants. Implementation grants provide monetary assistance directly to watershed organizations
to implement restoration/protection activities within their watershed. Money is used to stabilize
stream banks, demonstrate innovative nutrient management schemes, establish pollutant credits
and trading projects,  and work with local  governments  and private citizens to  promote
sustainable practices  and  strategies.   Grants  range from  $300,000  to  $1,300,000,  with an
additional 25% leveraged from other sources.   Capacity building grants  support established
watershed  service  providers  in  their effort  to  increase  the viability,  sustainability  and
effectiveness of local watershed groups by providing tools, training,  and education.  These grants
range    from    $150,000    to    $700,000.         For    more     information,    visit:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The fundamental premise of the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is that strong partnerships
lead to measurable environmental  results. Hence, the continuing goal of this program is to build
on the success of strong public/private partnerships that have provided a basis for improving the
state of the nation's waterways.   In FY 2007, the program will focus on achieving incremental
yet measurable "on-the-ground" results in a relatively  short time period.  The program will
continue  an emphasis on water quality trading, supporting market-based approaches to meeting
watershed restoration goals.   In addition, the program will increase emphasis on establishing a
nationwide network of training services to provide watershed groups across the country with the
tools and information needed to implement environmental change at a local or regional level.
                                        STAG-67

-------
Performance Targets:

Planning for and tracking environmental results are key components of the Targeted Watershed
Grants program.  Grantees must list the water quality threats and/or impairments that will be
addressed by implementing  the proposed project(s)  and provide a description  of expected
environmental outcomes.  The workplan must contain a method to measure the environmental
improvement that is expected to result from the project(s) and a description of how the project(s)
will  be evaluated.  A monitoring and evaluation  component with identified environmental
indicators must also be included in the workplan.

Work under this program supports EPA's healthy communities and ecosystems.  Currently, there
are no performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$9,678.0) This reduction will allow EPA to fund other higher priority activities.

Statutory Authority:

Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006,
Public Law 109-54.
                                       STAG-68

-------
                                       Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Compliance

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$5,516.4
$5,516.4
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$5,074.0
$5,074.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,098.5
$5,098.5
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$24.5
$24.5
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Toxic  Substances Compliance program builds environmental partnerships with states and
Tribes to strengthen their ability to address environmental and public health threats from toxic
substances such as Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos and lead.  State grants are used to
ensure the proper use,  storage and disposal of PCBs proper handling prevents persistent bio-
accumulative toxic substances from contaminating food and water. The asbestos funds ensure
compliance with standards to prevent exposure to school children, teachers and staff to asbestos
fibers in school buildings. The program also assures that asbestos and lead abatement workers
have received proper training and they are certified to  ensure protection during the abatement
process and minimize the public's exposure to these harmful toxic substances.
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
program will continue to award state and Tribal compliance
monitoring  grants  to  assist in  the   implementation  of
compliance  and  enforcement  provisions  of the  Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). These grants support  state
and Tribal compliance monitoring and enforcement activities
to protect  the public and  the  environment  from  PCBs,
asbestos and lead.
Performance  Assessment:    The
Civil Enforcement  Program  was
rated adequate in the last  PART
review completed for the Program
in 2004 based on preparation of a
Measures Improvement Plan (MIP)
to   better  characterize  pollutant
reductions with  respect to  hazard
and exposure.
Performance Targets:

This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review in 2004, which received an
overall rating of Adequate.  One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at
the overall  reduction  in  pollution as  a  result of enforcement  actions. We  are  exploring
methodologies to extend the measure by: 1) adding components that deal with pollutant hazard;
and 2) identifying an indicator of the population that would have been exposed to the pollutant.
Work under this program  supports the Improve Compliance objective.  Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
                                        STAG-69

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$24.5)  This increase will support asbestos and lead abatement workers training and
       certification to ensure protection during the abatement process and minimize the public's
       exposure to harmful toxic substances.

Statutory Authority:

TSCA.
                                      STAG-70

-------
                                       Categorical Grant:  Tribal Air Quality Management
                                                           Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                 Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                                         Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$12,977.1
$12,977.1
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$10,887.0
$10,887.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,939.5
$10,939.5
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
552.5
$52.5
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program includes funding for tribes and for Tribal air pollution control agencies.  Through
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 105 Grants, tribes may develop and implement programs for the
prevention and control of air pollution or implementation of national  primary and secondary
ambient air standards.  Through CAA Section 103 grants, Tribal air pollution control agencies or
tribes,  colleges, universities, or multi-tribe jurisdictional  air pollution  control agencies and/or
non-profit organizations  may  conduct  and  promote  research,  investigations,  experiments,
demonstrations,  surveys, studies and training related to air pollution.  Allowable activities are
described  in "Guidance  for  Funding   Air  and  Radiation  Activities Using  the  STAG
Appropriation," issued by EPA's Air and Radiation program on November 12, 1999.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:
With EPA  funding,  tribes  will  assess
environmental    and    public    health
conditions on  Tribal lands  and,  where
appropriate,  site monitors.   Tribes will
continue  to  develop  and implement  air
pollution  control  programs.   EPA will
continue  to  fund  organizations  for the
purpose  of providing technical support,
tools and training for  tribes  to build
capacity as appropriate.

Performance Targets:
Performance Assessment:  The Air Quality Grants and
Permitting program, assessed by OMB in the 2005 PART
process, received a rating of "Ineffective." These programs
support the prevention and control of air pollution at the
state  and  local level. Grants are provided for program
implementation and research and development. Permits are
issued to manage pollution from new and existing facilities.
The programs have developed new performance measures
and will be working to developing efficiency measures to
assess program progress.
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in the
number of days with
Air Quality Index
(AQI) values over 100
FY 2005
Actual
13
FY 2005
Target
13
FY 2006
Target
17
FY 2007
Target
21
Units
Percentage
                                         STAG-71

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
since 2003, weighted
by population and AQI
value.
FY 2005
Actual

FY 2005
Target

FY 2006
Target

FY 2007
Target

Units

EPA is planning to develop at least one efficiency measure that adequately reflects program
efficiency.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$52.5)  This  increase will support activities for assessment and mitigation  of air
       pollution problems on or affecting tribal lands.

Statutory Authority:

CAA, Sections 103 and 105.
                                       STAG-72

-------
                                   Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
                                                          Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                           Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                                                         Objective(s): Build Tribal Capacity

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$72,212.5
$72,212.5
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$56,654.0
$56,654.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$56,925.0
$56,925.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$271.0
$271.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

In 1992, Congress established the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) to
provide a mechanism for Federal efforts to assist Tribal governments in assuring environmental
quality on Indian lands. The purpose of the GAP is to support the development of a core Tribal
environmental   protection   program.          For   more   information,   please   visit
http://www.epa.gov/indian/laws3.htm.
                                              Performance  Assessment:    The  Tribal  GAP
                                              program underwent a PART assessment in FY 2003.
                                              In FY 2003, the GAP received an overall rating of
                                              adequate from OMB's PART review.  In FY 2005,
                                              EPA   improved  program   accountability  by
                                              implementing a new database system, the Objective
                                              5.3 Reporting System, to standardize, centralize, and
                                              integrate regional data and assign accountability for
                                              data  quality.   In addition,  EPA developed  and
                                              deployed the  Indian General Assistance Program
                                              (GAP)  Tracking System  that  improved  data
                                              management and permits real-time access to grant
                                              information.
GAP  provides general assistance  grants  to
build  capacity to administer  environmental
regulatory programs that may be delegated by
EPA  in  Indian   country,  and  to  provide
technical  assistance  in the  development  of
multimedia     programs     to     address
environmental issues  on Indian lands.  GAP
grants cover the costs of planning, developing,
and   establishing  environmental   protection
programs  consistent  with  other   applicable
provisions of law providing for enforcement
of such laws by Indian Tribes on Indian lands.
GAP  funds are used to:
    •  Assess the status of a Tribe's environmental condition;
    •  Develop appropriate environmental programs and ordinances;
    •  Conduct public education  and outreach efforts to ensure that Tribal  communities are
       informed and able to participate in environmental decision-making; and
    •  Promote communication and  coordination  between Federal, state, local  and  Tribal
       environmental officials.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007,  GAP grants will  build  Tribal environmental capacity to assess environmental
conditions, utilize available Federal information, and  build an environmental program tailored to
the Tribe's needs.  The grants will also develop environmental education and outreach programs,
                                        STAG-73

-------
develop and implement integrated solid waste management plans, and alert EPA to serious
conditions involving immediate public health and ecological threats.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Number of
environmental
programs implemented
in Indian Country per
million dollars.
FY 2005
Actual
12.3
FY 2005
Target
11.1
FY 2006
Target
12.4
FY 2007
Target
12.5
Units
Programs
Measure
Type

Output

Measure
Percent of Tribes with
delegated and non-
delegated programs
(cumulative).
FY 2005
Actual

47

FY 2005
Target

44

FY 2006
Target

48

FY 2007
Target

49

Units

% Tribes

Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Tribes with
EPA-re viewed
monitoring and
assessment occurring
(cumulative).
FY 2005
Actual
29
FY 2005
Target
25
FY 2006
Target
30
FY 2007
Target
31
Units
% Tribes
Measure
Type

Output

Measure
Percent of Tribes with
EPA-approved
multimedia workplans
(cumulative).
FY 2005
Actual

33

FY 2005
Target

39

FY 2006
Target

39

FY 2007
Target

42

Units

% Tribes

Under the PART review, the  GAP program  developed the  efficiency  measure,  "Number of
environmental programs  implemented in Indian Country per million dollars. "  This measure
reflects environmental program implementation in Indian country in relation  to  the level of
dollars available to Tribes under the EPA program statutorily targeted to this objective.  It is
expressed as a ratio between environmental programs implemented and million dollars of GAP
funding available to Tribes.

   •   In FY 2007, EPA will operate at an  efficiency of approximately  12.5 programs per
       million dollars. This efficiency level is consistent with prior fiscal years.
                                       STAG-74

-------
   •   In FY 2007, 517 federally-recognized Tribes and Intertribal Consortia, or 90 percent of a
       universe of 572 eligible entities, will have access to an environmental presence.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+271.0)  This increase will provide at least two additional Tribes with an environmental
       presence to operate an environmental program.

Statutory Authority:

Indian General Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S.C. ง 4368b (1992).
                                       STAG-75

-------
                                Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC)
                                                          Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                                Goal: Clean and Safe Water
                                                         Objective(s): Protect Human Health

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
577,537.5
$11,537.5
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$10,838.0
$10,838.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,890.0
$10,890.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$52.0
$52.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program is implemented by Federal, state, and local
governments that oversee underground injection activities in order to prevent contamination of
underground sources of drinking water. Underground injection is the technology of disposing of
fluids beneath the  earth's surface in porous rock formations through wells  or other similar
conveyance systems.

When wells are properly sited, constructed, and operated, underground injection is an effective
and environmentally safe method to dispose of fluids.  The Safe Drinking Water Act established
the UIC program to provide safeguards so that injection wells do not endanger current and future
underground sources of drinking  water.  The most accessible underground fresh water is stored
in shallow geological  formations  (i.e.,  shallow aquifers)  and  is  the most  vulnerable to
contamination.
EPA provides financial assistance in the form of grants to states that have primary enforcement
authority  (primacy) to implement and  maintain UIC  programs.  Eligible Indian tribes who
demonstrate intent  to achieve primacy may also receive  a grant for the initial development of
UIC programs and be designated for treatment as a "state"  if their programs are approved.
Where a jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to assume primacy, EPA uses grant funds for direct
implementation of Federal UIC requirements.  (See http ://www. epa. gov/safewater/uic/index.html
for more information.)
FY 2007 Activities and Performance
Plan:

Ensuring  safe  underground  injection  of
fluids,   including  waste-fluids,   is   a
fundamental     component     of     a
comprehensive  source  water  protection
program that, in turn, is a key element in
the  Agency's   multi-barrier  approach.
Management   or    closure    of   the
Performance Assessment:   The Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Grant Program underwent a PART assessment
for the first time in 2004. The purpose of this program is to
assist states with development and implementation of State
UIC programs.  State programs must adequately implement
and enforce regulations designed to protect public health by
preventing   injection   practices   that  might  endanger
underground  sources of drinking water.   The program
submitted two long-term, three annual, and  two efficiency
measures. An annual outcome measure is currently being
developed.  The program received an OMB rating of adequate
in 2004.
                                         STAG-76

-------
approximately 700,000 shallow injection wells (Class V) nationwide remains a top priority for the
Agency's UIC program.

EPA will continue to carry out its regulatory functions for all well types with states and stakeholders.
The Agency will also continue working with states and tribes to: educate and assist underground
injection control well operators of all classes of UIC wells; work with stakeholders  to collect and
evaluate data on high priority endangering Class V wells; and explore best management practices
for protecting ground water resources used for drinking water.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Output



Measure
Percentage of source
water areas (both
surface and ground
water) for community
water systems will
achieve minimized risk
to public health.
FY 2005
Actual



20



FY 2005
Target



20



FY 2006
Target



20



FY 2007
Target



30



Units



% Areas



The PART measures directly related to the UIC program are still under development.

The states are the primary implementers of the national drinking water program and ensure that
the systems within their jurisdiction are in compliance with drinking water rules.

EPA has developed annual measures for the UIC Program that support the long-term targets.
These  measures  are  indicators  of the effectiveness  of the  UIC Program  in  preventing
contamination of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) and protecting public health.
Based  on preliminary data collected for FY 2005, these measures are already  showing public
health protection from EPA's UIC Program.

   •   In FY 2005, EPA and the states determined that 98 percent of Class I, II wells and Class
       III salt solution mining wells maintained mechanical integrity. Mechanical integrity tests
       are conducted by UIC programs to insure that fluids injected through the well go into the
       injection zone and do not leak into the well bore, or outside the well into other formations
       or USDWs.  The program will continue to conduct mechanical integrity tests regularly to
       prevent contamination of drinking water resources.

   •   By  2005, EPA and states will have closed or permitted 70 percent of identified Motor
       Vehicle Waste Disposal (MVWD) wells (Class V).  In a parallel effort, UIC programs are
       actively  identifying previously unidentified Class V wells.  Through this  effort, hundreds
       of MVWD wells have been identified.   EPA and states  will continue to identify and
       close or permit MVWD wells and are on track to meet the 2008 target of 100 percent of
       the MVWD wells closed or permitted.
                                        STAG-77

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):




   •  (+$52.0) This increase will support oversight of underground injection activities.




Statutory Authority:




SDWA.
                                      STAG-78

-------
                                         Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                   Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
                                                              Objective(s): Preserve Land

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$12,073.1
$12,073.1
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,774.0
$11,774.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
537,566.7
$37,566.7
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
525,792.7
$25,792.7
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA provides funding to states, Tribes, and/or Intertribal  Consortia through the Underground
Storage Tanks (UST) categorical grants to encourage owners and operators to properly operate
and maintain their USTs.  In FY 2007, EPA will make grants or cooperative agreements to states
for new activities authorized by the Underground  Storage  Tank Compliance  Act of 2005
(USTCA).  In addition, EPA will use funds for direct implementation of release detection or
release prevention (spill, overfill, and corrosion protection requirements) programs on Tribal
lands when EPA is legally responsible for carrying out the UST program.

EPA recognizes that the size  and diversity of the regulated community puts state authorities in
the best  position to  regulate  USTs  and  to  set  priorities.  For  more  information,  visit
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/overview.htm. Major activities focus on ensuring that owners and
operators routinely and correctly monitor all regulated tanks and piping in accordance with UST
regulations and developing state programs with sufficient authority and enforcement capabilities
to operate in lieu of the Federal program. For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/OUST
/fedlaws /cfr.htm.  This grant funding may be used in Performance Partnership Agreements with
states and Tribes. A state or  Tribe could elect to consolidate this and other categorical media
grants into one or more multimedia or single media grant. The state or Tribe could then target its
most pressing environmental problems and use the performance partnership grant for a number
of activities including pollution control, abatement, and enforcement.

Prior to FY 2007,  EPA provided funding to states under the  authority  of Section 2007(f)(2) of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), and to Federally recognized Tribes, and/or Intertribal
Consortia under Public Law 105-276 through the UST categorical grants for release  detection
and release  prevention activities to encourage  owners and operators to properly operate  and
maintain their underground storage tanks.  In FY 2007, EPA will make grants  or cooperative
agreements  for new activities authorized by the USTCA, which was enacted  as Title XV,
Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that are not otherwise provided for in Section 2007
of the  SWDA.   EPA will not use STAG funds for leaking underground  storage tank cleanup
activities that are authorized by Section 205 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986, even if those activities are also authorized by the USTCA.
                                        STAG-79

-------
FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2007, EPA will continue to assist states and Tribes in implementing the UST program and
will provide assistance to states to help them meet their new responsibilities authorized under the
USTCA (e.g., performing additional  inspections so that tanks are inspected every three years,
developing operator training requirements, prohibiting fuel deliveries at non-compliant  UST
facilities, requiring secondary containment for new and replaced tanks and piping or financial
responsibility  for tank installers and  manufacturers); ensuring owners and operators  routinely
and correctly  monitor all regulated  USTs  and piping in accordance  with regulations;  (see
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/ustsystm/tanko&m.htm).  EPA  has the primary  responsibility for
implementation of the UST Program in Indian Country.  Grants under P.L. 105-276 will continue
to help Tribes develop the capacity to administer UST programs. For example, funding is  used
to support training for Tribal staff,  educate owners and operators in Indian Country about  UST
requirements, and maintain information on USTs located in Indian Country.

Performance  Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of confirmed
UST releases
nationally.
FY 2005
Actual
7,421
FY 2005
Target
<10,000
FY 2006
Target
<10,000
FY 2007
Target
<10,000
Units
UST releases
Measure
Type




Outcome




Measure
Percent increase of
UST facilities that are
in significant
operational compliance
with both release
detection and release
prevention (spill,
overfill, and corrosion
protection
requirements).
FY 2005
Actual




2




FY 2005
Target




+1




FY 2006
Target




+1




FY 2007
Target




+1




Units




percent




In FY 2007, through its compliance activities, the program will strive to maintain the number of
confirmed  releases at UST facilities to 10,000  or fewer.   The  actual number of confirmed
releases in FY 2005 was 7,421.

At the end of FY 2005, EPA exceeded its goal of a one percent increase of UST facilities in
operational compliance with both release detection and release prevention (spill, overfill,  and
corrosion protection) requirements4 by achieving  a  two percent increase (from 64 percent at the
4 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum, FY 2005 Semi-Annual End-of-Year Activity Report, from  Cliff
Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10, dated
December 15, 2005. See http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca 05 34.pdf
                                         STAG-80

-------
end of FY 2004 to 66 percent at the end of FY 2005) of the estimated universe of approximately
246,650 UST facilities.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•   (+$25,792.7)  This  increase in grants  or  cooperative agreements  is for new activities
    authorized by the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005 (USTCA). The funds
    will  provide assistance  to  states to help them meet their new responsibilities under the
    USTCA (e.g., performing additional inspections, developing operator training requirements,
    prohibiting fuel deliveries at non-compliant UST facilities, requiring secondary containment
    for new and replaced tanks and piping or  financial responsibility  for tank installers and
    manufacturers).

Statutory Authority:

States:    Solid  Waste  Disposal  Act (SWDA)  of  1976,  as amended  by  the  Superfund
Reauthorization Amendments  of  1986  (Subtitle  I)  and the  Underground Storage  Tank
Compliance Act of 2005; Section 2007(f); Tribal Grants:  P.L. 105-276.
                                       STAG-81

-------
                                    Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
                                                        Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                               Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                                Objective(s): Ecosystems

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$15,027.2
$15,027.2
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted
$15,765.0
$15,765.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$1,065.0
$1,065.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The  Wetlands Program Development Grants enable  EPA to  provide technical  and financial
support to states, tribes,  and local  governments  to  restore  improve  and protect  wetlands
consistent with the national goal of an overall increase in the Nation's wetlands.  Grants are used
to develop new  or  refine existing  state and  Tribal wetland  protection,  management and
restoration programs  and  to implement  programs  where  environmental results  can  be
demonstrated. Since  the Wetland Program Development Grants  Program started in FY 1990,
grant funds have  been  and are awarded on a competitive basis under the authority of section
104(b)(3)  of the CWA.  Grants support development of state and Tribal wetland programs that
further the goals of the CWA and improve water quality in watersheds throughout the country.
Many states and some  Tribes have developed wetland protection programs  that assist private
landowners, educate  local  governments, and monitor  and  assess  wetland quantity and quality.
(For more information, visit http://vosemite.epa.gov/water/grant.nsf)

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

Achieving the strategic  goal and the Administration's wetlands commitment to increase wetlands
necessitates stronger  state,  Tribal, and local programs to monitor, manage and protect wetlands.
Grant resources in FY 2007 will provide aid to states and tribes  to develop, enhance, implement,
and administer wetland programs, including helping states  and tribes build capacity in the areas
of monitoring,  regulation,  restoration, water quality standards, mitigation compliance and
partnership building.  EPA will  continue  in  FY 2007 with a focus on state/Tribal wetlands
environmental outcomes.  Toward  that end, EPA will  follow through  on the  state/Tribal
Environmental Outcome Wetland Demonstration Pilot, a 3-year pilot designed to demonstrate
effectiveness of using Wetland Program Development  Grants for program implementation. The
pilot is part of EPA's effort to strengthen state/Tribal capacity to protect their wetlands.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Annually, in
FY 2005
Actual
Data lag
FY 2005
Target
No Net
FY 2006
Target
No Net
FY 2007
Target
No Net
Units
Acres
                                       STAG-82

-------
Measure
Type







Measure
partnership with the
Corps of Engineers and
States, achieve no net
loss of wetlands in the
Clean Water Act
Section 404 regulatory
program
FY 2005
Actual







FY 2005
Target
Loss






FY 2006
Target
Loss






FY 2007
Target
Loss






Units







Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Working with partners,
achieve a net increase
of wetlands
FY 2005
Actual
Data lag
FY 2005
Target
100,000
FY 2006
Target
100,000
FY 2007
Target
100,000
Units
Acres/year
   •   New data on the status and trends of the nation's wetlands from the U.S. Fish and
       Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory will be available in the Service's Status
       and Trends report due out in spring 2006. Meanwhile, information describing progress
       toward the broader wetland goals, identified by the President is available. A report titled
       "Preserving  America's Wetlands,  Implementing  the President's  Goal"  (CEQ,  April
       2005)5, indicates that since April 2004, federal agencies and their partners took actions to
       restore, create, protect or improve  832,000 acres of wetlands in the U.S.  This reflects
       total acres  of restoration  improvement and protection efforts and not the actual  net
       change in total national wetlands acres.

   •   Under EPA's 2005 National Water Program Guidance, the Wetlands Program provided
       technical  or financial assistance to 13 additional Tribes,  bringing the total number of
       Tribes that have received  such assistance from EPA to 80.  In addition, the Wetlands
       Program met its commitment of helping 12 states remain on track to report on changes in
       wetlands condition by 2008.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$,1,065.0) This increase will provide technical tools necessary to adequately monitor,
       regulate and restore wetlands and support the Administration's wetlands initiative.

Statutory Authority:

1990 Great Lakes  Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; CWA;
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990; Estuaries and Clean Waters
Act of 2000; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; WRDA;  1909 The Boundary Waters
Treaty; 1978  GLWQA;  1987 GLWQA;  1996 Habitat Agenda;  1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes
Binational Toxics Strategy; and US-Canada Agreements.
 United States. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Conserving America's Wetlands, Implementing the President's Goal.
Washington, B.C., Coastal America, 2005. www.coastalamerica.gov
                                       STAG-83

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency

           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                           State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Air Toxics	1, 2,17,18, 30
Air Toxics and Quality	2,18
Alaska Native Villages	1, 25, 27
Brownfields	1, 3, 6, 7,13,19, 20, 21, 22, 40, 41
Brownfields Projects	1, 3, 7, 20, 41
Categorical Grant
  Beaches Protection	1, 3, 7, 38
  Brownfields	1,4,7,40
  Environmental Information	1, 4, 7, 42
  Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance	1, 4, 7, 44
  Homeland Security	1,4, 7,47
  Lead	1,4,7,49
  Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)	1, 4, 7, 51
  Pesticides Enforcement	2, 4, 7, 54
  Pesticides Program Implementation	2, 4, 7, 56
  Pollution Control (Sec. 106)	2,4,7, 58
  Pollution Prevention	2, 4, 7, 62
  Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)	2,4,7,64
  Radon	2,4,7,67
  Sector Program	2, 5, 7, 69
  State and Local Air Quality Management	2, 5, 7, 71
  Targeted Watersheds	2, 5, 8, 74
  Toxics Substances Compliance	2, 5, 8, 76
  Tribal Air Quality Management	2, 5, 8, 78
  Tribal General Assistance Program	2, 5, 8, 80
  Underground Injection Control (UIC)	2, 5, 8, 83
  Underground Storage Tanks	2, 5, 8, 86
  Wastewater Operator Training	5, 8
  Water Quality Cooperative Agreements	5, 8
  Wetlands Program Development	2, 5, 8, 89
Categorical Grants	1, 3, 5, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 47, 49, 51, 54, 56, 58,
  62, 64, 67, 69, 71, 74, 76, 78, 80, 83, 86, 89
Civil Enforcement	70,76
Clean Air	1,11,18, 29, 67, 71, 73, 78
Clean School Bus Initiative	1, 2, 6, 8, 9,18
Clean Water	1, 6,14,16, 26, 51, 58, 90, 91
Compliance	5,11,12, 42, 54, 55, 62, 63, 69, 70, 76, 77, 80, 86, 88
Congressionally Mandated Projects	3, 8
Corrective Action	45
                                      STAG-84

-------
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program	1, 3, 29
Drinking Water	1, 6,14, 31, 32, 35, 64, 66, 83
Drinking Water SRF	32
Enforcement	11,54,69,76
Environmental Information	2,12, 42
Exchange Network	2,12, 42
Great Lakes	15, 38, 39, 91
Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance	1,13, 44
Homeland Security	1,15
Indoor Air	67
Infrastructure Assistance	1, 3, 8, 9, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35
  Alaska Native Villages	1, 3, 8,24
  Clean Water SRF	1,3,8,26
  Drinking Water SRF	1,3,8,31
  Mexico Border	1, 3, 8, 33
  Puerto Rico	1,3,9,35
Lake Champlain	91
Lead	12,49,50
Mexico Border	1, 6, 33
NAAQS	30,71,72,73
Pesticides Enforcement	11
Pesticides Program Implementation	12
Pollution Prevention	12, 42, 62, 63
Pollution Prevention Program	62
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)	14, 64
Puerto Rico	6, 27, 35, 36
Radon	11,67
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)	13, 44
Sector Program	11
STAG Infrastructure Grants / Congressional Priorities	3
State and Local Air Quality Management	11
Surface Water Protection	61
Targeted Watersheds	74
Toxic Substances
  Lead Risk Reduction Program	50
Tribal Air Quality Management	11
Underground Storage Tanks	13, 86, 88
Waste Management	44
Water Quality	4, 24, 26, 51, 58
Water Quality Monitoring	4
Wetlands	1,14, 89, 90, 91
Wetlands Program Development	14, 89
                                     STAG-85

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Program Performance and Assessment

Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Follow-Up Actions	1
Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Supplemental Information  	21
Annual Performance Goals and Measures	35
      GOAL: Clean Air and Global Climate Change	35
      GOAL: Clean and Safe Water	48
      GOAL: Land Preservation and Restoration	59
      GOAL: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems	69
      GOAL: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship	91
Annual Performance Goals and Measures	101
      NPM: Office of Administration & Resources Management	101
      NPM: Office of Environmental Information	103
      NPM: Office of the Inspector General	107

-------

-------
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
Year
Work
Started
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2005
2005
2005
PART Program Title
Air Quality Grants and Permitting
Air Quality Grants and Permitting
Air Quality Grants and Permitting
Air Quality Grants and Permitting
Alaska Native Village Water
Infrastructure
Alaska Native Village Water
Infrastructure
Brownfields Revitalization
Brownfields Revitalization
Brownfields Revitalization
Follow-Up Action
Develop a measure that assesses the State
permitting programs' quality, efficiency, and
compliance.
Develop at least one efficiency measure that
adequately reflects program efficiency.
Develop policy and criteria for transitioning the
fine paniculate matter (PM2.5) monitoring
program from Clean Air Act Section 103 grant
funding to Clean Air Act Section 105 grant
funding.
Review and update current grant allocation
processes to ensure resources are properly
targeted.
Develop program regulations that improve
oversight and accountability and reduce chances
for waste, fraud, and abuse.
Reduce program funding by $20 million until
there is greater confidence that the funds are
achieving the desired results.
Complete performance measures that are under
development including a new cross-agency
measure that tracks brownfields redevelopment.
Conduct regional program reviews to share and
implement best practices among regional offices
that will improve the program's overall
performance and efficiency.
Improve grantee use of electronic reporting
systems to reduce data lags in performance
information.
Action Taken**
Work will begin in 2006.
Work will begin in 2006.
Work will begin in 2006.
Work will begin in 2006.
No action taken
Not enacted
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
                     Performance-1

-------
                        Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
 Year
 Work
Started
     PART Program Title
           Follow-Up Action
      Action Taken**
    2004
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
EPA will focus on improving the quality and
breadth of CWSRF performance data. In
particular, EPA needs to focus on collecting
data on minor systems, which receive a
significant proportion of CWSRF funding, and
waterborne disease.
Action taken, but not completed
    2006
Drinking Water Research
Develop a performance measure which tracks
the efficiency with which the program delivers
its services to its primary client, the EPA Office
of Water.
No action taken
    2006
Drinking Water Research
Develop baselines and targets for all long term
and annual performance measures.  These will
allow the program to set quantitative goals and
assess progress through time.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2006
Drinking Water Research
Improve oversight of non-grant partners and
require non-grant partners to work towards the
annual and long term goals of the program.
No action taken
    2005
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Develop a new long-term outcome performance
measure to assess the impact of drinking water
compliance improvements on public health.
Action taken, but not completed
    2005
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Implement recommendations from the second
triennial drinking water data quality review
which are designed to improve the overall
quality of the data in EP A's drinking water
compliance reporting system.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2004
Endocrine Disrupters
Articulate clearly R&D priorities to ensure
compelling, merit-based justifications for
funding allocations.	
Completed
                                                   Performance-2

-------
                        Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
 Year
 Work
Started
     PART Program Title
           Follow-Up Action
      Action Taken**
    2005
Endocrine Disrupters
By the end of CY 2006, develop baseline data
for an efficiency measure that compares
dollars/labor hours in validating chemical
assays.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2004
Endocrine Disrupters
Maintain funding at approximately the FY 2005
President's Budget level.	
Completed
    2006
EPA Acid Rain Program
Remove statutory requirements that prevent
program from having more impact including
(but not limited to) barriers that; set maximum
emissions reduction targets, exempt certain
viable facilities from contributing, and limit the
scope of emission reduction credit trading. The
Administration's Clear Skies proposal
adequately addresses these and other statutory
impediments. Program should work as
appropriate to promote the enactment of the
Clear Skies legislation.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2006
EPA Acid Rain Program
Program should develop efficiency measures to
track and improve overall program efficiency.
Measures should consider the full cost of the
program, not just the federal contribution.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2006
EPA Climate Change Programs
EPA will complete an assessment and
comparison of the potential benefits and efforts
of the Clean Automotive Technology program
to other agency's efforts with similar goals by
April 1, 2005.	
Action taken, but not completed
                                                   Performance-3

-------
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
Year
Work
Started
2006
2006
2006
2006
2004
2003
2003
2004
PART Program Title
EPA Climate Change Programs
EPA Ecological Research
EPA Ecological Research
EPA Ecological Research
EPA Enforcement of Environmental
Laws (Civil)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental
Laws (Civil)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental
Laws (Civil)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental
Laws (Civil)
Follow-Up Action
The Clean Automotive Technology program
will work to develop better performance
measures that more clearly link to greenhouse
gas reduction potential in the near term.
Develop a program-specific customer survey to
improve the program's utility to the Agency.
Link budget resources to annual and long-term
performance targets by requesting and reporting
Human Health Research and Ecosystem
Research funding separately.
Refine the questions used in independent
scientific reviews to improve EPA's
understanding of program utility and
performance in relationship to environmental
outcomes.
Calculate and evaluate recidivism rates.
Continue to expand and improve use of
statistically valid non-compliance rates.
Develop meaningful baseline and targets for
outcome oriented performance measures, with
particular emphasis on pounds of pollutants
reduced characterized for risk.
Direct funds toward completion of the Permit
Compliance System (PCS)
Action Taken**
Action taken, but not completed
Work will begin in 2006.
Work will begin in 2006.
Work will begin in 2006.
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
                     Performance-4

-------
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
Year
Work
Started

2005
2004
2004
2004
2004
2006
2003
2005
2003
PART Program Title

EPA Enforcement of Environmental
Laws (Civil)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental
Laws (Civil)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental
Laws (Criminal)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental
Laws (Criminal)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental
Laws (Criminal)
EPA Environmental Education
EPA Existing Chemicals Program
EPA Existing Chemicals Program
EPA Existing Chemicals Program
Follow-Up Action

EPA will consider contracting for an
independent evaluation of the program that can
serve as the basis for further improvements.
Target resources based on workload analysis
and take into account recommendations by the
intra-agency Superfund Review completed in
April 2004.
Created standardized definitions (completed)
and merging data bases from within the agency
to allow easier implementation and evaluation
of measures.
Developing baselines and targets to measure
recidivism.
Developing a baseline and targets for the
outcome measure, pounds of pollutants reduced,
that is characterized as to risk.
The administration is continuing its
recommendation to terminate the program at
EPA and rely on NSF programs to fulfill
scientific education initiatives.
Create outcome measures for AEGLs.
Develop a cost efficiency measure for
management of the Toxic Substances Control
Act 8(e) Hazard Notification process.
Develop a long-term outcome efficiency
measure.
Action Taken**

No action taken
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
                     Performance-5

-------
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
Year
Work
Started
2006
2003
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
PART Program Title
EPA Existing Chemicals Program
EPA Existing Chemicals Program
EPA Human Health Research
EPA Human Health Research
EPA Indoor Air Quality
EPA Indoor Air Quality
EPA Indoor Air Quality
EPA Lead-Based Paint Risk
Reduction Program
Follow-Up Action
Develop an efficiency measure for Acute
Exposure Guidance Levels
Maintain funding at the 2004 President's Budget
level.
Develop ambitious long-term performance
targets that clearly define what outcomes would
represent a successful program.
Improve ability to link budget resources to
annual and long-term performance targets by
requesting and reporting Human Health
research and Ecosystem research funding as
separate program-projects.
Improve transparency by making State radon
grantee performance data available to the public
via a website or other easily accessible means.
Link budget requests more explicitly to
accomplishment of performance goals,
specifically by stipulating how adjustments to
resource levels would impact performance.
Use efficiency measures to demonstrate
improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in
achieving program goals.
Develop and implement a method of measuring
the impacts of the program's outreach and
education efforts.
Action Taken**
Action taken, but not completed
Completed
Action taken, but not completed
No action taken
No action taken
No action taken
No action taken
Work will begin in 2006.
                     Performance-6

-------
                        Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
 Year
 Work
Started
     PART Program Title
           Follow-Up Action
      Action Takens
    2006
EPA Lead-Based Paint Risk
Reduction Program	
Improve the consistency of grantee and regional
office accountability mechanisms and develop a
system that ensures all relevant performance
data from grantees and the Regional offices is
being collected for the purposes of focusing
program actions.	
Work will begin in 2006.
    2006
EPA Lead-Based Paint Risk
Reduction Program	
Improve the linkage between program funding
and the associated contributions towards
progress in achieving program goals, especially
for program grant and contractor funding.	
Work will begin in 2006.
    2005
EPA New Chemicals Program
Develop an efficiency measure to target
improvements in the initial phases of EPA's
management of Pre-Manufacture Notices
(PMNs).	
Action taken, but not completed
    2003
EPA New Chemicals Program
Establish targets and timeframes for its
measures, including efficiency measures.
Action taken, but not completed
    2003
EPA New Chemicals Program
Maintain funding at the 2004 President's Budget
level.
Completed
    2003
EPA New Chemicals Program
Propose appropriations language to change the
Toxic Substances Control Act to lift the cap on
fees that the Agency can collect for new
chemical reviews.
Completed
    2006
EPA Oil Spill Control
Develop a forum for sharing and implementing
best practices among regional offices that will
improve the program's overall performance and
efficiency.	
Action taken, but not completed
                                                   Performance-?

-------
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
Year
Work
Started
2006
2006
2006
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2003
2003
PART Program Title
EPA Oil Spill Control
EPA Oil Spill Control
EPA Oil Spill Control
EPA Pesticide Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA Pesticide Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA Pesticide Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA Support for Cleanup of Federal
Facilities
EPA Support for Cleanup of Federal
Facilities
EPA Tribal General Assistance
Program
EPA Tribal General Assistance
Program
Follow-Up Action
Develop a second long-term outcome measure
and at least one annual outcome measure.
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.
Develop targets and baselines.
Evaluate why cost effectiveness appears
inversely proportional to amount of Federal
funding.
Work to develop appropriate outcome
performance measures.
Conduct one evaluation on an aspect of the
program to identify areas and means for
program improvements.
Work with other Federal agencies to support
attainment of long-term environmental and
human health goals.
EPA will develop ambitious performance
targets for its annual and efficiency measures.
EPA will improve the program's accountability.
Action Taken**
No action taken
No action taken
No action taken
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Completed
Action taken, but not completed
No action taken
Action taken, but not completed
Completed
                     Performance-8

-------
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
Year
Work
Started
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
PART Program Title
EPA Tribal General Assistance
Program
EPA Tribal General Assistance
Program
EPA's Recycling, Waste
Minimization, and Waste
Management Program
EPA's Recycling, Waste
Minimization, and Waste
Management Program
EPA's Recycling, Waste
Minimization, and Waste
Management Program
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Cleanup Program
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Cleanup Program
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Cleanup Program
Follow-Up Action
Improving data quality both in terms of scope
and reliability to assist in setting meaningful
targets for program improvement.
Work to increase the implementation and
delegation of environmental programs on Indian
lands.
Continuously improving the program by
identifying where compliance costs are
excessive and reducing the cost of compliance
where appropriate (i.e. RCRA manifest rule).
Develop an efficiency measure for the waste
minimization component of the RCRA base
program.
Develop a new regulatory definition of solid
waste that satisfies the judicial requirements
while ensuring that costs are not inappropriately
shifted to the Superfund or other corrective
action programs by narrowing the exclusion of
previously regulated substances.
In response to initial findings that the program
needed better long-term outcome goals with
adequate baselines and targets, the program has
been participating in an Office of Pesticide
Programs initiative on performance indicators.
The program has proposed new measures for
this reassessment.
Seek out regular independent evaluations and a
systematic process to review the program's
strategic planning.
Action Taken**
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Completed
Action taken, but not completed
Completed
                     Performance-9

-------
                         Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
 Year
 Work
Started
     PART Program Title
           Follow-Up Action
      Action Taken**
    2005
Mobile Source Air Pollution
Standards and Certification
Begin collecting data to support two new
efficiency measures - one long and one short-
term - to enable the program to  measure further
efficiency improvements.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2005
Mobile Source Air Pollution
Standards and Certification
Request $66 million for EPA's mobile source
programs, $1.5 million more than the 2005
President's Budget request.	
Completed
    2005
Mobile Source Air Pollution
Standards and Certification
Systematically review existing regulations to
maintain consistency and ensure that regulations
maximize net benefits. Conduct thorough ex
ante economic analyses and evaluations of
alternatives in support of regulatory
development.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2006
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Regional Haze
Programs	
Develop at least one efficiency measure that
adequately reflects program efficiency.	
Work will begin in 2006.
    2006
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Regional Haze
Programs	
Implement improvements within current
statutory limitations that address deficiencies in
design and implementation and identify and
evaluate needed improvements that are beyond
current statutory authority.	
Work will begin in 2006.
    2006
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Regional Haze
Programs	
Improve the linkage between program funding
and the associated contributions towards
progress in achieving program goals.	
Work will begin in 2006.
    2006
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards Research
Develop an annual measure that more directly
demonstrates progress on toward the long-term
goal of reducing uncertainty in identified
research areas of high priority.	
Work will begin in 2006.
                                                   Performance-10

-------
                         Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
 Year
 Work
Started
     PART Program Title
           Follow-Up Action
      Action Takens
    2006
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards Research
Develop and implement adequate methods for
determining progress on the program's two new
long-term measures (uncertainty and source-to-
health linkage measures) as well as for the new
annual measure (customer survey measure).
Work will begin in 2006.
    2006
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards Research
Improve multi-year plan (MYP) and financial
data tracking systems and procedures to better
and more transparently integrate grantee and
program performance with financial
information.
Work will begin in 2006.
    2006
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards Research
The program must develop at least one
efficiency measure that adequately reflects the
efficiency of the program.	
Work will begin in 2006.
    2005
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Grants
EPA will consider contracting for an
independent evaluation of the program that can
serve as the basis for further improvements.
No action taken
    2005
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Grants
To continue to improve this program and meet
its long-term goals, EPA will focus on ensuring
its funds are used for the most beneficial
projects.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2006
Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary
Protection
                                              Develop an additional performance measure for
                                              non-estuary program activities.
                                            Work will begin in 2006.
    2006
Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary
Protection
Develop an annual performance measure for the
Ocean Dumping Program.	
Work will begin in 2006.
                                                   Performance-11

-------
                         Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
 Year
 Work
Started
     PART Program Title
           Follow-Up Action
                                                 Action Taken**
    2006
Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary
Protection
                                              Developing more ambitious targets for the
                                              National Estuary Program's annual and long
                                              term measures on habitat acres protected and
                                              restored.
                                            Work will begin in 2006.
    2004
Pesticide Field Programs
Develop and implement a method of compiling
and disseminating Field Programs grantee
performance data in a manner easily accessible
to the public.	
                                            Action taken, but not completed
    2004
Pesticide Field Programs
Develop and implement annual goals and
efficiency measures and continue development
of baselines and targets for long-term outcome
measures for all Field Programs.	
                                            Action taken, but not completed
    2004
Pesticide Field Programs
Make the Field Programs budgeting more
transparent and more clearly link to adequate
and relevant program-specific measures.
                                            Action taken, but not completed
    2003
Pesticide Registration
The Administration recommends maintaining
funding at the 2004 President's Budget level
adjusted for the annual pay increase.	
                                            Completed
    2003
Pesticide Registration
The program will also work on long-term
outcome efficiency measures.
                                            Action taken, but not completed
    2003
Pesticide Registration
The program will develop long-term risk-based
outcome performance measures that will
supplement the existing long-term measures.
                                            Action taken, but not completed
                                                   Performance-12

-------
                         Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
 Year
 Work
Started
     PART Program Title
           Follow-Up Action
      Action Taken**
    2004
Pesticide Reregistration
 Per the Agency targets develop and finalize
appropriate regional performance targets.
Action taken, but not completed
    2005
Pollution Prevention and New
Technologies Research	
Address the issue; priorities among goals and
activities; human and capital resources
anticipated; and intended program outcomes
against which success may later be assessed.
Action taken, but not completed
    2004
Pollution Prevention and New
Technologies Research	
Establish performance measures, including
efficiency measures.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2006
Pollution Prevention and New
Technologies Research	
Institute a plan for regular, external reviews of
the quality of the program's research and
research performers, including a plan to use the
results from these reviews to guide future
program decisions.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2004
Pollution Prevention and New
Technologies Research	
Shift funding from this research program to
another Environmental Protection Agency
pollution prevention program that has shown
results (see New Chemicals PART).	
Completed
    2006
Public Water System Supervision
Grant Program	
Develop a new long-term outcome performance
measure to assess the impact of drinking water
compliance improvements on public health.
Action taken, but not completed
                                                   Performance-13

-------
                         Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
 Year
 Work
Started
     PART Program Title
           Follow-Up Action
      Action Taken**
    2006
Public Water System Supervision
Grant Program	
Implement recommendations from the second
triennial drinking water data quality review
which are designed to improve the overall
quality of the data in EPA's drinking water
compliance reporting system.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2006
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Corrective Action
Program must define a new baseline for
performance measures and establish appropriate
annual targets to make goals more ambitious in
achieving long-term objectives of the program.
Completed
    2006
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Corrective Action
Program should establish appropriate efficiency
measures to adequately track program
efficiency overtime.
Action taken, but not completed
    2005
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Continue to monitor progress to ensure that the
program is on track to meet goals.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2005
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Continue to support the Multilateral Fund for
the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol.
Action taken, but not completed
    2005
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Convert long-term health effects measure into a
rate of skin cancer prevalence so that an actual
baseline can be established once statistics are
available.
Completed
    2006
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Program will develop a long-term performance
measure and set ambitious targets for reduced
incidence of non-melanoma skin cancers.
Action taken, but not completed
                                                   Performance-14

-------
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
Year
Work
Started
2006
2005
2002
2005
2006
2005
PART Program Title
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Superfund Remedial Action
Superfund Remedial Action
Superfund Remedial Action
Superfund Removal
Superfund Removal
Follow-Up Action
Program will develop a performance measure
and targets to track intermediate outcomes by
measuring "thickness" of the ozone layer in the
atmosphere. Many of the program's outcome
performance measures are extremely long-term,
so it is important to establish measurable
performance objectives for the near term.
Implement the recommendations of the
Agency's 120-day study on management of the
Superfund program.
Modernize the program's data repository
(CERCLIS) to ensure accurate and complete
information on program performance and
financial management.
Validate the reporting method for performance
data and develop a new Superfund cleanup
efficiency measure.
Develop a plan for regular, comprehensive and
independent assessments of program
performance.
Investigate the feasibility of outcome oriented
measures that test the linkage between program
activities and impacts on human health and the
environment.
Action Taken**
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
Action taken, but not completed
No action taken
Action taken, but not completed
                    Performance-15

-------
                         Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
 Year
 Work
Started
     PART Program Title
           Follow-Up Action
      Action Taken**
    2002
Superfund Removal
Modernize the program's data repository
(CERCLIS) to ensure accurate and complete
information on program performance and
financial management.	
Action taken, but not completed
                                              Require that 106 State workplans and
                                              performance data are formatted and reported
                                              consistently and directly support specific goals
                                              in EPA's strategic plan.
    2006
Surface Water Protection
                                            Work will begin in 2006.
                                              Working with States and other partners, EPA
                                              will assess 100% of rivers, lakes, and streams in
                                              the lower 48 states using statistically-valid
                                              surveys by 2010.
    2006
Surface Water Protection
                                            Work will begin in 2006.
    2006
Surface Water Protection
                                              Working with States and other partners, EPA
                                              will issue water quality reports based on the
                                              statistically-valid surveys in the lower 48 states
                                              by 2011.
                                            Work will begin in 2006.
    2003
Toxic Air Pollutants - Regulations
and Federal Support	
Establish better performance measures,
including an appropriate efficiency measure.
Action taken, but not completed
    2003
Toxic Air Pollutants - Regulations
and Federal Support	
Focus on maximizing programmatic net benefits
and minimizing the cost per
deleterious health effect avoided.
Action taken, but not completed
    2003
Toxic Air Pollutants - Regulations
and Federal Support	
Increase funding for toxic air pollutant
programs by $7 million in State grants for
monitoring to help fill data gaps.	
Completed
    2006
Toxic Air Pollutants - Regulations
and Federal Support	
Use the newly developed efficiency measure to
demonstrate efficiency improvements.	
No action taken
                                                   Performance-16

-------
                         Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
 Year
 Work
Started
     PART Program Title
           Follow-Up Action
      Action Taken**
    2006
U. S.-Mexico Border Water
Infrastructure
Develop baselines and targets for its long-term
and efficiency measures.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2006
U. S.-Mexico Border Water
Infrastructure
Follow-up on the results of the business process
review to help EPA implement program
changes that could improve effectiveness.	
No action taken
    2006
Underground Injection Control Grant
Program	
Develop an outcome-based annual performance
measure and an efficiency measure, which
demonstrate the protection of source water
quality.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2006
Underground Injection Control Grant
Program	
Implement recommendations from the second
triennial drinking water data quality review
which are designed to improve the overall
quality of the data in EPA's drinking water
compliance reporting system.	
Action taken, but not completed
    2006
Water Pollution Control Grants
                                              Provide incentives for States to implement or
                                              improve their permit fee programs, increasing
                                              the resources available for water quality
                                              programs.
                                            Work will begin in 2006.
                                              Require that State workplans and performance
                                              data are formatted and reported consistently and
                                              directly support specific goals in EPA's strategic
                                              plan.
    2006
Water Pollution Control Grants
                                            Work will begin in 2006.
                                              Target additional program funding to States
                                              implementing probabilistic monitoring activities
                                              in support of the national probabilistic
                                              monitoring survey.
    2006
Water Pollution Control Grants
                                            Work will begin in 2006.
                                                   Performance-17

-------
                              Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - Follow-Up Actions
**Action Taken -
Explanation provided in OMB PARTWeb Update Guidance.  EPA updated this list of actions following OMB guidance in November
2005. EPA has added additional language to indicate follow-up actions that will begin in 2006.

          o  No action taken - The agency/program has not taken steps to implement the follow-up action.

          o  Action taken, but not completed- The agency/program has not taken steps to implement the follow-up action.

          o  Completed- The agency/program has completed the follow-up action.

          o  Not enacted- This category should only be used for actions categorized as budgetary or legislative, such as when the
             President's Budget included a funding proposal that the Congress did not enact or the Administration submitted
             legislation that the Congress did not enact.
                                                    Performance-18

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency

            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                            Supplemental PART Information

This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
Goal 1:

Stratospheric
Ozone Protection
EPA Indoor Air
Quality
EPA Climate
Change Programs
EPA Climate
Change Programs
EPA Climate
Change Programs
Mobile Source Air
Pollution
Standards and
Certification
Mobile Source Air
Pollution
Standards and
Certification
EPA Indoor Air
Quality
NAAQS and
Regional Haze
Programs
NAAQS and
Regional Haze
Programs
EPA Acid Rain
Program
PART Measures
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Long-Term Performance Measure
Elimination of U.S. consumption of Class II Ozone
Depleting substances measured in tons/yr. of Ozone
Depleting Potential (OOP).
Estimated future premature lung cancer deaths prevented
annually through lowered radon exposure.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmcte) of
greenhouse gas in the building sector.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of
greenhouse gas in the industry sector.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of
greenhouse gas reductions in the transportation sector.
Millions of tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) reduced since
2000 from mobile sources.
Millions of tons of volcanic organic compounds (VOCs)
reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
Number of people taking all essential actions to reduce
exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers.
Regional Haze Program Measure: Percent improvement in
visibility on 20% worst days, on average, for all eastern
Class I areas.
Regional Haze Program Measure: Percent improvement in
visibility on 20% worst days, on average, for all western
Class I areas.
Percent of change in number of chronically acidic
waterbodies in acid sensitive regions.
Year Data
Available


FY2010
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2010
FY 2006
FY2018
FY2018
FY 2030
                                     Performance-19

-------
                              Environmental Protection Agency

              FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                              Supplemental PART Information

   This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
   measures) or have targets under development (UD).
 PART Program
                                      PART Measures
                                                            Year Data
                                                            Available
   NAAQS and
  Regional Haze
    Programs
Air Quality Grants
  and Permitting
NAAQS Program Measure:  Percent reduction in
population-weighted ambient concentration of fine
paniculate matter (PM 2.5) in all monitored counties from
2003 baseline.
FY2015
   NAAQS and
  Regional Haze
    Programs
Air Quality Grants
  and Permitting
NAAQS Program Measure:
Percent reduction in population-weighted ambient
concentration of ozone in all monitored counties from 2003
baseline.
FY2015
National Ambient
   Air Quality
    Standards
    Research
Percentage of ORD-developed outputs appearing in the
Office of Air and Radiation National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Staff Paper (SP)
  2010
    Toxic Air
    Pollutants
Percentage reduction in tons toxicity-weighted cancer risk
emissions from 1993 baseline.
                                                                                FY2010
    Toxic Air
    Pollutants
Percentage reduction in tons toxicity-weighted of non-cancer
risk emissions from  1993 baseline.
                                                                                FY2010
National Ambient
   Air Quality
    Standards
    Research
Progress in assessing the linkage between health impacts and
air pollutant sources and reducing the uncertainties that
impede the understanding and usefulness of these linkages.
  UD
National Ambient
   Air Quality
    Standards
    Research
Progress toward reducing uncertainty in the science that
supports standard setting and air quality management
decisions.
  UD
   Stratospheric
 Ozone Protection
Reductions in melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers,
measured by millions of skin cancer cases avoided
(melanoma and nonmelanoma).
                                                                                FY 2050
Mobile Source Air
    Pollution
  Standards and
   Certification
Tons of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) since 2000 from
mobile sources.
FY2010
                                       Performance-20

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency

            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                            Supplemental PART Information

This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
EPA Acid Rain
Program
EPA Indoor Air
Quality

National Ambient
Air Quality
Standards
Research

EPA Indoor Air
Quality
EPA Indoor Air
Quality
Mobile Source Air
Pollution
Standards and
Certification
EPA Climate
Change Programs
EPA Climate
Change Programs
EPA Climate
Change Programs
Mobile Source Air
Pollution
Standards and
Certification
PART Measures
Tons of sulfur dioxide emissions reduced from electric
power generation sources.
Total number of schools implementing an effective indoor
air quality plan.
Annual Performance Measure
Percent improvement in customer satisfaction and product
usefulness survey score.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Annual Cost to EPA per person with asthma taking all
essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor environmental
asthma triggers.
Average cost to EPA per student per year in a school that is
implementing an Indoor Air Quality plan.
Percent reduction in time (days) per certificate approval for
large engines (nonroad ci, Heavy duty gas and diesel
engines)
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (mmtce) prevented per
societal dollar in the building sector.
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (mmtce) prevented per
societal dollar in the industry sector.
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (mmtce) prevented per
societal dollar in the transportation sector.
Tons of pollutants (VOC, NOX, PM, CO) reduced per total
emission reduction dollars spent.
Year Data
Available
FY2010
FY 2006

UD

FY 2006
FY 2006
FY2012
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
UD
                                     Performance-21

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency

            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                            Supplemental PART Information

This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
Toxic Air
Pollutants -
Regulations and
Federal Support
EPA Indoor Air
Quality
Goal 2:

Surface Water
Protection, Water
Pollution Control
Grants
Alaska Native
Village Water
Infrastructure
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Drinking Water
Research
Drinking Water
Research
Ocean, Coastal,
and Estuary
Protection
PART Measures
Tons of toxi city -weighted (for cancer and noncancer risk)
emissions reduced per total cost ($).
Total Cost (public and private) per future premature cancer
death prevented through lowered radon exposure.
Clean and Safe Water
Long-Term Performance Measure
Percentage of waterbody segments identified by States in
2000 as not attaining standards, where water quality
standards are now fully attained.
By 201 1, provide wastewater and drinking water systems to
the remaining Alaska and Native Village population living in
unserved homes (under development).
CWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billions/yr).
DWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billions/yr).
Indep. Exp. Rev. Panel summary score on tool designed to
measure the use of ORD data, tools, and technologies for
key decisions leading to scientifically-sound 6 Year Review
Decisions made by OW.
Indep. Exp. Rev. Panel summary score on tool designed to
measure the use of ORD data, tools, and technologies for
key decisions leading to scientifically-sound CCL decisions
made by the OW
National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall
aquatic ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally (1-5
scale).
Year Data
Available
UD
FY 2006


FY 2006
UD
FY 2006
FY 2005
UD
UD
UD
                                     Performance-22

-------
                              Environmental Protection Agency

              FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                              Supplemental PART Information

  This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
  measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
                                      PART Measures
                                                            Year Data
                                                             Available
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control
     Grants
Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 2000 or
subsequent years) as being primarily NPS-impaired that are
partially or fully restored.
FY 2006
  Tribal General
   Assistance
    Program
Percent decrease in the number of homes in Indian Country
with inadequate wastewater sanitation systems.
  UD
  Tribal General
   Assistance
    Program
Percent decrease in the number of homes on tribal lands
lacking access to safe drinking water.
FY 2007
  Alaska Native
  Village Water
  Infrastructure
Percent of Alaska rural and Native households with drinking
water that meets SDWA requirements.
  UD
Clean Water State
 Revolving Fund
Percentage of water miles/acres identified by States or
Tribes as having fish consumption advisories in 2002 where
increased consumption of safe fish is allowed.  (485,205
river miles; 11,277,276 lake acres)
                                                                                  UD
Clean Water State
 Revolving Fund
                  Percentage of waterbodies previously designated
                  nonattainment, now meeting all water quality standards.
                                                             FY 2006
Clean Water State
 Revolving Fund
Number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to
swimming in, or other recreational contact with, the ocean,
rivers, lakes, or streams, measured as a five year average.
                                                                                FY 2006
  Tribal General
   Assistance
    Program
Show at least a 10% improvement for each of four
parameters - total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved
oxygen, and fecal coliforms - at not fewer than 90
monitoring stations  in Tribal waters.
                                                                                FY 2007
  Underground
Injection Control
Percentage of source water areas (both surface and ground
water) for community water systems will achieve minimized
risk to public health.
                                                                                FY 2005
                                       Performance-23

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency

            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                            Supplemental PART Information

This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
Underground
Injection Control,
Public Water
System
Supervision,
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund

Alaska Native
Village Water
Infrastructure
Underground
Injection Control
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Underground
Injection Control
Underground
Injection Control
Drinking Water
Research
Drinking Water
Research
Drinking Water
Research
PART Measures
Percent population served by community water systems in
compliance with health-based drinking water standards
Annual Performance Measure
Percent of Alaska rural and Native households with drinking
water and wastewater systems (under development).
Percentage of Class I, II, and III wells that maintain
mechanical integrity without a failure that releases
contaminants to underground sources of drinking water
(under development).
Percentage of all major publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) that comply with their permitted wastewater
discharge standards.
Percentage of identified Class V motor vehicle waste
disposal wells closed or permitted.
Percentage of prohibited Class IV and high-priority,
identified, potentially endangering Class V wells closed or
permitted in ground-water based source water areas.
Percentage of research products used by the Office of Water
as the basis of or in support of Contaminant Candidate List
Decisions.
Percentage of research products used by the Office of Water
as the basis of or in support of Six Year Review Decisions.
Use of Drinking Water Research Program's Contaminant
Candidate List research products by the Office of Water and
other key clients.
Year Data
Available
FY 2005

FY 2006
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
                                     Performance-24

-------
                              Environmental Protection Agency

              FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                              Supplemental PART Information

  This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
  measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
                                      PART Measures
                                                            Year Data
                                                             Available
 Drinking Water
    Research
Use of Drinking Water Research Program's Six Year Review
research products by the Office of Water and other key
clients.
                                                                                  UD
                  Efficiency Performance Measure
 Drinking Water
 State Revolving
      Fund
Average funding (millions of dollars) per project initiating
operations.
FY 2006
  Underground
Injection Control
 Grant Program
Dollars per well to move Class V wells back into
compliance.
  UD
  Alaska Native
  Village Water
  Infrastructure
Number of households served with wastewater and drinking
water systems per million dollars (EPA and State)
  UD
Clean Water State
 Revolving Fund
Number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of
CWSRF assistance provided.
  UD
Clean Water State
 Revolving Fund
Number of waterbodies restored or improved per million
dollars of CWSRF assistance provided.
  UD
 Drinking Water
 State Revolving
     Fund,
  Underground
Injection Control,
  Public Water
     System
   Supervision
People receiving drinking water in compliance with health-
based drinking water standards per million dollars (Federal
and State).
FY 2006
  Public Water
     System
   Supervision,
 Drinking Water
 State Revolving
      Fund
Dollars per community water system in compliance with
health-based drinking water standards
FY 2006
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control
     Grants
Section 319 funds ($ million) expended per partially or fully
restored waterbody.
FY 2006
                                       Performance-25

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency

            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                            Supplemental PART Information

This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
Source Water
Protection
Water Pollution
Control Grants
Goal 3:

Superfund
Remedial
EPA's Recycling,
Waste
Minimization, and
Waste
Management
Program
EPA Oil Spill
Control
EPA Oil Spill
Control
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tank
Cleanup Program
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tank
Cleanup Program
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
Corrective Action
PART Measures
Loading (pounds) of pollutants removed per program dollar
expended
Cost per water segment restored.
Land Preservation and Restoration
Long-Term Performance Measure
Acres of land ready for re-use at Superfund sites.
By 2008, update controls for preventing releases at 150
RCRA HWM facilities due for permit renewal.
Compliance rate of all facilities subject to Facility Response
Plan (FRP) regulations.
Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters by facilities subject
to the Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations.
Increase the number of cleanups that meet state risk-based
standards for human exposure and groundwater migration on
Indian County.
Increase the number of cleanups that meet state risk-based
standards for human exposure and groundwater migration.
Percent of RCRA construction completions using 2005
baseline.
Year Data
Available
FY 2006
FY 2006


FY2010
FY 2008
FY 2005
FY 2005
FY 2008
FY 2008
FY 2006
                                     Performance-26

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency

            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                            Supplemental PART Information

This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
Corrective Action
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
Corrective Action
EPA's Recycling,
Waste
Minimization, and
Waste
Management
Program
Superfund
Remedial Action
Superfund
Remedial Action
Superfund
Removal
Superfund
Removal

Leaking
Underground
Storage Tank
Cleanup Program
PART Measures
Percent of final remedies (cleanup targets) selected at RCRA
sites using 2005 baseline.
Percent of site assessments at RCRA facilities using 2005
baseline.
Reduce hazardous waste combustion facility emissions of
dioxins and furan.
Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migration
under control.
Superfund sites with human health protection achieved
(exposure pathways are eliminated or potential exposures are
under health-based levels for current use of land or water
resources).
Total Superfund-lead removal actions completed.
Total voluntary removal actions, overseen by EPA,
completed.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Cleanups complete (3 -year rolling average) per total cleanup
dollars.
Year Data
Available
FY 2006
FY 2006
UD
FY 2005
FY 2005
FY 2005
FY 2005

FY 2008
                                     Performance-27

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency

            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                            Supplemental PART Information

This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
EPA's Recycling,
Waste
Minimization, and
Waste
Management
Program
EPA Oil Spill
Control
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
Corrective Action
Goal 4:

Human Health
Research
Human Health
Research
Brownfields
Revitalization
Brownfields
Revitalization
Endocrine
Disrupters
Human Health
Research
PART Measures
Facilities under control (permitted) per total permitting costs.
Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters per million
program dollar spent annually on prevention and
preparedness at Facility Response Plan (FRP) facilities.
Number of final remedy components constructed at RCRA
corrective action facilities per federal, state, and private
sector dollars.
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Long-Term Performance Measure
Percentage of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which
ORD methods, models or data for assessing risk to
susceptible subpops is cited as supporting a decision to move
away from or apply default risk assessment assumptions
Percentage of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which
ORD's characterization of aggregate/cumulative risk is cited
as supporting a decision to move away from or to apply
default risk assessment assumptions
Acres of brownfields made ready for reuse.
Assessed or cleaned Brownfields properties redeveloped.
Determination of the extent of the impact of endocrine
disrupters on humans, wildlife, and the environment to better
inform the federal and scientific communities.
Percentage of human health program publications rated as
highly cited papers.
Year Data
Available
UD
FY 2005
FY 2007


None
None
UD
UD
UD
None
                                     Performance-28

-------
                             Environmental Protection Agency

             FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                             Supplemental PART Information

  This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
  measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
                                     PART Measures
                                                            Year Data
                                                            Available
 Human Health
   Research
Percentage of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which
ORD's mechanistic information is cited as supporting a
decision to move away from or to apply default risk
assessment assumptions.
                                                                                None
   Endocrine
   Disrupters
Reduction in uncertainty regarding the effects, exposure,
assessment, and management of endocrine disrupters so that
EPA has a sound scientific foundation for environmental
decision-making
                                                                                 UD
 Human Health
   Research
Risk assessors and risk managers use ORD's methods and
models to evaluate the effectiveness of public health
outcomes (as evaluated by external expert review)
                                                                                 UD
 Human Health
   Research
Risk assessors and risk managers use ORD's methods,
models and data to characterize aggregate and cumulative
risk in order to manage risk of humans exposed to multiple
environmental stresors
                                                                                 UD
 Human Health
   Research
Risk assessors and risk managers use ORD's methods,
models and data to characterize and provide adequate
protection of susceptible subpopulations (as evaluated by
external expert review)
                                                                                 UD
 Human Health
   Research
Risk assessors and risk managers use ORD's methods,
models and data to use mechanistic (mode of action)
information to reduce uncertainty in risk assessment (as
evaluated by external expert review)
                                                                                 UD
   Ecological
   Research
States use a common monitoring design and appropriate
indicators to determine the status and trends of ecological
resources and the effectiveness of programs and policies.
                                                                                None
   Ecological
   Research
States, tribes and EPA offices improved their ability to
determine causes of eco degradation through the application
of recently developed (within 5 years) ORD causal
diagnostic tools and methods
                                                                                 UD
   Ecological
   Research
States, tribes and EPA offices improved their ability to
forecast eco impacts of actions through the application of
recently developed (within 5 years) ORD environmental
forecasting tools and methods
                                                                                 UD
                                      Performance-29

-------
                              Environmental Protection Agency

              FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                              Supplemental PART Information

  This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
  measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
                                      PART Measures
                                                            Year Data
                                                             Available
   Ecological
    Research
States, tribes and EPA offices improved their ability to
protect/restore eco condition and services through the
application of recently dev. (within 5 years) ORD environ.
restoration tools and methods
                                                                                  UD
    Existing
   Chemicals
    Program
Percent cumulative reduction of chronic human health risk
from environmental releases of industrial chemicals in
commerce since 2001.
2008
    Existing
   Chemicals
    Program
Percentage of high-priority chemicals for which EPA has
developed short-term exposure limits.
2008
 New Chemicals
    Program
Risks avoided to workers and the general population from
prevention of the entry of new chemicals into commerce
(under development).
                                                                                  UD
    Pesticide
  Registration
Percent reduction in terrestrial and aquatic wildlife mortality
incidents involving pesticides
2008
    Pesticide
  Reregi strati on
Cumulative reduction in the number of systemic poisoning
incidents associated with exposure from organophosphate
pesticides as reported to Poison Control Centers.
                                                                                  2008
    Pesticide
  Reregi strati on
Percent reduction in terrestrial and aquatic wildlife incidents
and mortalities caused by certain high-risk pesticides.
 UD
  U.S.-Mexico
  Border Water
  Infrastructure
Percentage of water quality standards met in shared and
transboundary surface waters.
2012
 Pesticide Field
    Programs
Cumulative reduction in the number of occupational
poisoning incidents associated with exposure from
pesticides.
                                                                                  UD
Lead-Based Paint
 Risk Reduction
    Program
Number of cases of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated
blood lead levels (>10ug/dl)
2010
Lead-Based Paint
 Risk Reduction
    Program
Percent difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-
income children 1-5 years old as compared to the geometric
mean for non-low income children 1-5 years old.
2008
                                       Performance-30

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency

            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                            Supplemental PART Information

This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
Ocean, Coastal,
and Estuary
Protection

Existing
Chemicals
Program
New Chemicals
Program
Human Health
Research
U.S. -Mexico
Border Water
Infrastructure
Pesticide Field
Programs

New Chemicals
Program
Pesticide
Registration
Pesticide
Reregi strati on
Endocrine
Disrupters
Goal 5:

PART Measures
Acres protected or restored in NEP study areas
Annual Performance Measure
Reduction in the current year production-adjusted hazard-
based score of releases and transfers of toxic chemicals.
Number of TSCA 8(e) notices received for PMN-reviewed
chemicals.
Average score of customer satisfaction survey for use of
Human Health Program methods, models and data.
Increase in the number of homes connected to potable water
supply and wastewater collection and treatment systems
(under development)
Reduction in number of occupational poisoning incidents
associated with pesticide exposure (cum)
Efficiency Performance Measure
Review costs per chemical (for EPA and indusry) (under
development).
Percent reduction in review time for registration of
conventional pesticides.
Reduction in cost per Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision.
Cost per labor hour of contracted validation studies.
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Long-Term Performance Measure
Year Data
Available
2008

UD
UD
UD
FY 2006
UD

UD
UD
2008
UD


                                     Performance-31

-------
                             Environmental Protection Agency

              FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                             Supplemental PART Information

   This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
   measures) or have targets under development (UD).
 PART Program
                                     PART Measures
                                                           Year Data
                                                           Available
EPA's Recycling,
     Waste
Minimization, and
     Waste
  Management
    Program
By 2008, reduce priority list chemicals in hazardous waste
streams reported by businesses to the Toxic Release
Inventory by 10% (8.4 million tons) from a 2001 baseline.
FY 2008
EPA Enforcement
of Environmental
 Laws (Criminal)
Change in behavior to use Improved management practices.
(criminal enf)
FY 2007
      EPA
  Environmental
    Education
Number of states adopting or aligning Guidelines for
Learning curricula and standards to state academic standards
or number of states developing new env edu standards based
on Guidelines for Learning.
                                                                              FY 2008
      EPA
  Environmental
    Education
Percent of all students and teachers targeted demonstrate
increased environmental knowledge, as measured by
Guidelines for Learning K-12, developed by North
American Assoc for Environmental Education.
                                                                              FY 2008
EPA Enforcement
of Environmental
  Laws (Civil)
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, (civil
enf) characterized as to risk
FY 2007
EPA Enforcement
of Environmental
 Laws (Criminal)
Pounds   of  pollution  reduced,  treated,  or  eliminated.
(criminal enf) characterized as to risk
FY 2007
EPA Enforcement
of Environmental
 Laws (Criminal)
Reduction in recidivism, (criminal enf)
FY 2007
   EPA Tribal
     General
   Assistance
    Program
Percent decrease in the number of homes in Indian Country
with inadequate wastewater sanitation systems
FY 2007
   EPA Tribal
     General
   Assistance
    Program
Percent decrease in the number of homes on tribal lands
lacking access to safe drinking water.
FY 2007
                                      Performance-32

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency

            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                            Supplemental PART Information

This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
measures) or have targets under development (UD).
PART Program
EPA Tribal
General
Assistance
Program

EPA
Environmental
Education
EPA Enforcement
of Environmental
Laws (Criminal)
EPA Pesticide
Enforcement
Grant Program
EPA Pesticide
Enforcement
Grant Program
EPA Enforcement
of Environmental
Laws (Criminal)
EPA Enforcement
of Environmental
Laws (Criminal)
EPA Enforcement
of Environmental
Laws (Criminal)

EPA Pesticide
Enforcement
Grant Program
PART Measures
Show at least a 10 percent improvement for each of four
parameters — total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved
oxygen, and fecal coliforms - at not fewer than 90
monitoring stations in tribal waters for which baseline data
are available.
Annual Performance Measure
Number of NNEMS fellows who pursue environmental
careers.
Change in behavior to use Improved Management practices.
(criminal enf)
Percent of compliance actions taken as a result of
inspection/enforcement, (pest, enf)
Percent of violators committing subsequent violations, (pest.
enf)
Pollutant impact.
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated or eliminated, (criminal
enf) characterized as to risk
Reduction in recidivism (criminal enf).
Efficiency Performance Measure
Number of enforcement actions taken (Federal + State) per
million dollars of cost (Federal + State), (pest enf)
Year Data
Available
FY 2007

FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY2008
FY 2007
FY 2007

FY 2007
                                     Performance-33

-------
                             Environmental Protection Agency

              FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                             Supplemental PART Information

   This table includes program performance measures that do not report results annually (long-term performance
   measures) or have targets under development (UD).
 PART Program
                                     PART Measures
                                                           Year Data
                                                           Available
EPA Enforcement
of Environmental
 Laws (Criminal)
Pounds  of pollutant  reduction per  FTE.  (criminal  enf)
Pollution characterized as to risk
FY 2007
EPA Enforcement
of Environmental
  Laws (Civil)
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated per FTE.
(civil enf) Pollution characterized as to risk
FY 2007
EPA's Recycling,
     Waste
 Minimization, &
     Waste
  Management
    Program
Pounds of priority  chemicals reduced in waste streams per
federal and private sector costs.
FY 2007
      EPA
 Environmental
    Education
Ratio of number of students/teachers  that have improved
environmental knowledge per total dollars expended.
FY 2008
                                      Performance-34

-------
                                                         Environmental Protection Agency

                                       FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                             6-Year Performance Data
                                                    Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                        (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

                                           GOAL: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity
by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.



        OBJECTIVE: HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR

        Through 2010,  working with partners, protect  human  health and the environment by attaining and  maintaining health-based air-quality
        standards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.

        Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM-101

        In 2007        The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM-10 standard.2

        In 2006        The number of people  living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM-10 standard will increase by 4%
                      (relative to 2005) for a cumulative total of 11% (relative to 1992).

        In 2005        Most of the data will be available in 2006.

        In 2004        Maintained healthy air quality for 120 million people who lived in areas designated in attainment of the clean air standards for PM-10.

        In 2003        Maintained healthy air quality for 6.1 million people living in monitored areas attaining the PM standards; increased by 228 thousand the number of
                      people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.

        In 2002        Maintained healthy air quality for 3.4 million people living in monitored areas  attaining the PM standards; and increased by 2.7 million the number of
                      people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.
 Measures developed for the 2005 NAAQS Grants and Permitting PART Assessment that support this APG are included under "Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels - 8 Hour." EPA will
reevaluate presentation of these measures in future budget documents. EPA will reevaluate presentation of
these measures in future planning and budget documents
2 This metric is no longer used and will be revised for the FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report and the FY 2008 planning and budget documents.


                                                                   Performance-35

-------
                                                         Environmental Protection Agency

                                       FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                              6-Year Performance Data
                                                     Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                         (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
                      Performance Measures

        Tons ofPM-10 Reduced since 2000 from Mobile Sources

        Tons ofPM-2.5 Reduced since 2000 from Mobile Sources
 FY 2002
 Actuals
23,000

17,250
 FY 2003
 Actuals
37,297
 FY 2004
 Actuals
49,729
 FY 2005
 Actuals
62,161
 FY 2006
 Enacted
74,594
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud
87,026      Tons

            Tons
       Baseline:        The 1992 baseline for population is the population in areas not classified or designated as attainment for the clean air national ambient air quality
                       standards.  The 1992 baseline for areas is those areas that are designated as non-attainment of the NAAQs but not meeting the standard (50 areas)..
                       Through FY 2003, 120,279,036 are living in areas designated to attainment; 5 areas are designated to attainment for this/these pollutants.  The 1995
                       baseline for PM-10 reduced from mobile  sources is 880,000 tons.   Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 MOBILE6 inventory is used as the baseline for
                       mobile source emissions.  The 2000 baseline for PM-10 from mobile source is 613,000 tons.

       Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels - 8 Hour

       In 2007         The number of people living in  areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone standard.3

       In 2006         The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone standard will increase by
                       1% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to 2001).

       In 2005         Data will be available in 2006.

       In 2004         EPA designated the  attainment status for  all areas in April 2004.  Based upon these  designations, 126 areas of the United States encompassing 159.3
                       million people were determined to be nonattainment.

                      Performance Measures

       Cumulative percent reduction  in population-weighted
       ambient concentration of ozone in  monitored  counties
       from 2003 baseline.

       Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with
       Air Quality Index (AQI)  values over 100 since 2003,
FY 2002
Actuals


FY 2003 FY 2004
Actuals Actuals
o
3
15.5
FY 2005
Actuals
o
3
13
FY 2006
Enacted
5
17
FY 2007
Pres Bud
6
21


Percentage
Percentage
3 This metric is no longer used and will be revised for the FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report and the FY 2008 budget.

                                                                   Performance-36

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
              Performance Measures

weighted by population and AQI value. 15.5

Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of
receiving a complete permit application.

Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions
issued within  18  months of receiving a complete permit
application.

Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18
months of receiving a complete permit application.
Limit the increase of CO emissions (in tons) from mobile
sources compared to a 2000 baseline.

Millions of Tons of Volcanic Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Reduced since 2000 from Mobile Sources

Millions of Tons of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Reduced since
2000 Reduced from Mobile Sources
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
           0.51M
           0.51M
           1.02M
 FY 2004
 Actuals

61


85
                       75
           0.67M
           0.68M
           1.35M
 FY 2005
 Actuals

65
            79

            Data Avail.
            06

            Data Avail.
            06

            Data Avail.
            06
 FY 2006
 Enacted

70


91
                                   83
            1.01M
            1.03M
            2.03M
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud

75


94
                        87
            1.18M
            1.20M
            2.37M
Percentage


Percentage



Percentage

Tons


Tons


Tons
Baseline:       The ozone concentration measure reflects improvements (reductions) in ambient ozone concentrations across all monitored counties, weighted by the
               populations in those areas. To calculate this weighting, pollutant concentrations in monitored counties  are multiplied by the associated  county
               populations. The units for this measure are therefore "million people-parts per billion" (million people-ppb). The 2003 baseline is 15,972 million people-
               ppb. AQI data is gathered from monitors using EPA-approved federal reference and/or equivalent methods.  EPA assumes the collecting agency has
               properly maintained each monitor and that the data sent to EPA have passed at least an automated QA/QC check.   The monitoring networks that
               provide the data have been doing so for decades. The baseline for the AQI was targeted at 8 percent but 15.5 percent was achieved. The 1995 baseline
               was 8.1M tons for mobile source VOC emissions, and 12.0M tons for mobile source NOx emissions. Beginning in FY 2005, the MOBILE6 inventory is
               used as the baseline year for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline was 7.7M tons for mobile source VOC emissions, and 11.8M tons for mobile
               source  NOx emissions.
                                                            Performance-37

-------
                                                          Environmental Protection Agency

                                        FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                              6-Year Performance Data
                                                      Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                         (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

        Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM- 2.54

        In 2007         The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM-2.5 standard.5

        In 2006         The number of people living  in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM-2.5 standard will increase by 1%
                       (relative to 2005) for a cumulative total of less than 1% (relative to 2001).

        In 2005         Data will available in 2006.

        In 2004         Areas were designated for PM 2.5 and 20% increase in the number of people who live areas with ambient PM2.5 concentrations below the level of the
                       NAAQS.

                      Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004    FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                             Actuals     Actuals     Actuals      Actuals      Enacted    Pres Bud
        Cumulative  percent reduction in  population-weighted                                                  9           11          Percentage
        ambient concentration of fine p articulate matter (PM 2.5)
        in all monitored counties.

        Tons of"PM-2.5 Reduced since 2000 from Mobile Sources               36,370      48,974       61,217      73,460       85,704       Tons



        Baseline:        The PM2.5 concentration reduction annual measure reflects improvements (reductions) in the ambient concentration of fine paniculate matter (PM2.5)
                       pollution across  all monitored counties, weighted by the populations in those areas. To calculate this weighting, pollutant concentrations in monitored
                       counties are multiplied by the associated county populations. Therefore the units for this measure  are "million people-micrograms per meter cubed"
                       (million people-ug/m3). The 2003 baseline is 2,581 million people-ug/m3.  Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 MOBILE6 inventory is used as the baseline
                       for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM 2.5 from mobile sources is 510,000 tons.
4 Measures developed for the 2005 NAAQS Grants and Permitting PART Assessment that support this APG are included under "Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels - 8 Hour." EPA will
reevaluate presentation of these measures in future budget documents.
5 This metric is no longer used and will be revised for the FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report and the FY 2008 budget.

                                                                    Performance-38

-------
Acid Rain

In 2007


In 2007

In 2006


In 2006


In 2005

In 2005

In 2004

In 2004
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and total ambient nitrate concentrations 10% from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through
2010 is 1990 monitored levels.

Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate concentrations 29% from baseline.

Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and total ambient nitrate concentrations 5% from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through 2010
is 1990 monitored levels.

Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate concentrations 27% from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through 2010 is
1990 monitored levels.

Data will be available in late 2006

Data will be available in late 2006.

Reduced total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient nitrate concentrations by 7% from baseline.

Reduced total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate concentrations by 31% from baseline.
              Performance Measures
Percent change in average nitrogen deposition and mean
total ambient nitrate concentrations reduced.

Percent change in average sulfur deposition and mean
ambient sulfate concentrations reduced.

Tons of sulfur  dioxide emissions from  electric power  7 million
generation sources
                                                                          FY 2005     FY 2006     FY 2007
                                                                           Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
                                                                         No Targets  No Targets   10          Percentage
                                                                         Established  Established

                                                                         No Targets  No Targets   29          Percentage
                                                                         Established  Established

                                                 6,800,000    7,100,000   Data Lag   7,000,000    7,500,000    Tons Reduced
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
7
31
Baseline:       The base of comparison for assessing progress on the annual performance goal is the 1980 emissions baseline. The 1980 SO2 emissions inventory totals
               17.4 million tons for electric utility sources.  This inventory was developed by National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) and used as
                                                             Performance-39

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                        6-Year Performance Data
                                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

                the basis for reductions in Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments.  This data is also contained in EPA's National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends
                Report. Statutory SO2 emissions cap for year 2010 and later is at 8.95 million tons which is approximately 8.5 million tons below 1980 emissions level.
                "Allowable  SO2 emission level" consists of allowance allocations granted to sources each year under  several provisions of the  Act and additional
                allowances carried over, or banked, from previous years.

                Sulfur and nitrogen deposition contribute to acidification of lakes and streams, making them unable to support fish and other aquatic life.  Reductions in
                both total sulfur and nitrogen deposition is critical to reducing the number of chronically acidic water bodies.   Ambient sulfate and ambient nitrate
                ("acid rain" paniculate") contributes to unhealthy air and respiratory problems in humans, especially children and other sensitive populations.  The
                baseline is established from monitored site levels based on consolidated map of 1989-1991 showing a three year of deposition levels produced from the
                CASTNET sites (http://www.epa.gov/castnet/sites.html).

                The base of comparison for assessing progress on the annual performance goal is the 1980 emissions baseline. The 1980 SO2  emissions inventory totals
                17.4 million tons for electric utility sources.  This inventory was developed by National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) and used as
                the basis for reductions in Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments.  This data is also contained in EPA's National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends
                Report. Statutory SO2 emissions cap for year 2010 and later is at 8.95 million tons which is approximately 8.5 million tons below 1980 emissions level.
                "Allowable  SO2 emission level" consists of allowance allocations granted to sources each year under  several provisions of the  Act and additional
                allowances carried over, or banked, from previous years.

Air Toxicity-Weighted

In 2007         Reduction in tons of to xicity-weighted for cancer and non-cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.

In 2006         Reduction in tons of to xicity-weighted for cancer and non-cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.

               Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004    FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                      Actuals     Actuals      Actuals     Actuals     Enacted     Pres Bud
Cumulative percentage  reduction in tons of toxicity-                                                     22          22           Percentage
weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from
1993 baseline.

Cumulative percentage  reduction in tons of toxicity-                                                     55          56           Percentage
weighted (for noncancer risk) emissions of air toxics from
1993 baseline.

Baseline:        The baseline begins in 1993.  Air Toxics emissions data  are revised every three years to generate inventories for the  National Emissions Inventory
                (NEI), which replaced the National Toxics  Inventory (NTI).  In intervening  years between updates of the NEI, the  model EMS-HAP (Emissions


                                                              Performance-40

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

               Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to estimate and project annual emissions of air toxics.  As new inventories are completed and
               improved inventory data is added, the baseline (or total tons of air toxics) is adjusted. The toxicity -weighted emission inventory will also utilize the NEI
               for air toxics along with the Agency's compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated and tracked
               on an annual basis. The baseline is based on emission inventory data from 1990-1993.

OBJECTIVE: HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR

By 2008, 22.6 million more Americans than in 1994 will be experiencing healthier indoor air in homes, schools, and office buildings.

Healthier Residential Indoor Air
In 2007

In 2006

In 2005

In 2004
In 2003

In 2002
               Additional people will be living in homes with radon reducing features.

               Additional people will be living in homes with healthier indoor air.

               Data will be available in late 2006.

               For FY 2004, EPA estimates that it met its goal of approximately 834,400 additional people living in healthier residential indoor environments.  This
               result is based upon information gathered from the Indoor Environment Partner Network which includes traditional partners and grantees, as well as
               analysis of various results data efforts including public service announcements and outreach, as well as information from the National Association of
               Home Builders and radon mitigation fan sales.  This is a compound measure which includes results from the secondhand smoke, Asthma, and Radon
               Programs.

               EPA estimates that it met its goal of approximately 834,400 additional people living in healthier residential indoor environments.

               An additional 834,400 are living in healthier residential indoor environments.
Performance Measures
                                                    FY2002
                                                    Actuals
Number of additional  homes (new and existing) with
radon reducing features

Percent of public that is aware of the  asthma program's
media campaign.
 FY2003
 Actuals
149,000


27
                                                                            FY2004     FY2005     FY2006
                                                                            Actuals     Actuals     Enacted
                                                                           Data Avail.   Data Avail.   180,000
                                                                           06          06
                                                             27
                                                                                       31
                                                                                                    20
FY 2007
Pres Bud
190,000
>20
Homes
Percentage
                                                           Performance-41

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

               Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003    FY2004     FY2005     FY2006    FY2007
                                                      Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
Additional health care professionals trained annually by               2,360        3,080        3,380        2000        2000        Number
EPA and its partner on the environmental management of
asthma triggers.


Baseline:       The baseline for the performance measure was 1996  (107,000 homes). Annual Surveys are conducted by our partners to gather information such as
               types of houses built, lot sizes, foundation designs, types of lumber used, types of doors and windows used, etc. Also, the surveys gather information on
               the use of radon-resistant design features in new houses.  Each year, the  survey of building practices is typically mailed out to home builders.  The
               survey responses are analyzed, with respect to State market areas and Census Divisions in the United States, to assess the percentage and number of
               homes built each year that incorporate radon-reducing features. The data are also used to assess the percentage and number of homes built with radon-
               reducing features in high radon potential areas in the  United States (high risk areas). Other analyses include radon-reducing features as a function of
               housing type, foundation type, and different techniques for radon-resistant new home construction.

Healthier Indoor Air in Schools

In 2007        Students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.

In 2006        Students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.

In 2005        Data will be available in late 2006.

In 2004        For FY 2004, EPA estimates that it met its goal of approximately 1.63M students, faculty, and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their
               schools.

In 2003        Based on EPA reviews and analyses of partner/grantees' reports and consulting  with partners of EPA's indoor environment network, EPA is confident
               that more than 1 million students and staff are experiencing improved IAQ in schools. In particular, EPA has seen an increase in IAQ planning progress
               and/or IAQ TfS implementation in 12 of the  15 largest US school district representing more than 4700 schools. This includes the school districts of Los
               Angles, Miami, and Dallas.

In 2002        EPA is confident that 1.2 million students, faculty and staff experienced improve indoor air quality in their schools.
                                                             Performance-42

-------
                                                Environmental Protection Agency

                               FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                    6-Year Performance Data
                                            Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)


              Performance Measures                FY2002     FY2003    FY2004     FY2005    FY2006    FY2007
                                                  Actuals     Actuals    Actuals     Actuals    Enacted    Pres Bud
Estimated annual number of schools establishing indoor              3200       3100        3000       7200        7700       Number
air quality programs based on EPA's Tools for Schools
guidance.


Baseline:      The nation has approximately 118,000 (updated to include new construction)* schools. Each school has an average of 525 students, faculty, and staff for
              a total estimated population of 62,000,000. The IAQ "Tools for Schools" Guidance implementation began in 1997. Results from a 2002 IAQ practices
              in schools survey suggest that approximately 20-22% of U.S. schools report an adequate effective IAQ management plan that is in accordance with EPA
              guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: PROTECT THE  OZONE LAYER

By 2010, through worldwide action,  ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will  have stopped declining and slowly  begun the process of
recovery, and the risk to human health from overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, particularly among susceptible subpopulations, such
as children, will be reduced.

Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs

In 2007        Remaining US consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,900 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP MTs) and restrict domestic  exempted production and
              import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 10,000 ODP MTs.

In 2006        Restrict domestic annual consumption of class  II HCFCs below 9,900 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP MTs) and restrict domestic exempted
              production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 10,000 ODP MTs.

In 2005        Data for this annual performance goal are reported at the end of the calender year.  Then, EPA conducts reviews and quality control checks before final
              numbers are reported. We expect data will be available in late 2006.

In 2004        EPA met its FY 2004 goal, verifying that domestic consumption of Class II HCFCs was 5,500 metric tons and newly produced domestic exempted
              production and import of class I CFCs and halons was 1,225 metric tons.
                                                         Performance-43

-------
                                              Environmental Protection Agency

                              FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                  6-Year Performance Data
                                          Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                               (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

In 2003        EPA met its FY 2003 goal, verifying that domestic consumption of Class II HCFCs was 7,110 metric tons and newly produced domestic exempted
              production and import of class I CFCs and halons was 2,049 metric tons in compliance with EPA's phaseout regulations.

In 2002        EPA met its FY 2002 goal, verifying that domestic consumption of Class II HCFCs was 13,950 metric tons and newly produced domestic exempted
              production and import of class I CFCs and halons were 2,347 metric tons in compliance with EPA's phaseout regulations.

             Performance Measures                FY2002    FY2003     FY2004     FY2005    FY2006    FY2007
                                                 Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
Remaining US Consumption of HCFCs in tons of Ozone  13,950      7,110       5,500       Data lag     <9,900     <9,900     ODP MTs
Depleting Potential (ODP).

Cumulative federal dollars spent per school joining the                                               560        525        Dollars
Sun Wise program.


Baseline:        The base of comparison for assessing progress on the 2005 annual performance goal is the domestic consumption cap of class II HCFCs as set by the
              Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) is weighted based on the damage it does to the stratospheric ozone - this is its
              ozone-depletion potential (ODP). Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the domestic OOP-weighted consumption
              of CFCs in 1989 plus the ODP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989. Consumption equals production plus import minus export.

 OBJECTIVE: RADIATION

Through 2008, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts to human health  and
the environment should unwanted releases occur.

EPA is developing new outcome-oriented performance measures for this program in preparation for a 2006 PART assessment. The program
will have new performance information to report in FY 2008. EPA will  continue to track progress on  routine program  indicators  such as
preparedness and response capability for radiological incidents.
                                                        Performance-44

-------
                                                Environmental Protection Agency

                               FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                    6-Year Performance Data
                                            Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

OBJECTIVE: REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY

Through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 45 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the
President's 18 percent greenhouse gas intensity improvement goal by 2012.  (An additional 75 MMTCE to result from the sustained growth in
the climate programs are reflected in the Administration's business-as-usual projection for greenhouse gas intensity improvement. )

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In 2007        Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 98.0 MMTCE per year through EPA partnerships with businesses,
               schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.

In 2006        Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 89.3 MMTCE per year through EPA partnerships with businesses,
               schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.

In 2005        Data for this measure will be available in October 2006.

In 2004        Greenhouse gas emissions were reduced from projected levels by approximately 87.9 MMCTE per year through EPA partnerships with businesses,
               schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.

In 2003        EPA's Climate Protection Programs reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 82.4 million metric tons of carbon equivalent in 2003.

In 2002        EPA's Climate Protection Programs reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 71 million metric tons of carbon equivalent in 2002

              Performance Measures                FY2002    FY2003     FY2004    FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                   Actuals    Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
Million metric  tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce)  of  19.6        23          26.2        Data Avail.   26.5        29.4        MMTCE
greenhouse gas reductions in the  buildings sector.                                            06

Million metric  tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce)  of  2.1         2.3          2.6         Data Avail.   3.3          4.2         MMTCE
greenhouse gas reductions in the  transportation sector.                                         06

Million metric  tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce)  of                         53.2        Data       59.5        64.5        MMCTE
greenhouse gas reductions in the  industry sector.                                             Avail. 06



                                                          Performance-45

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

Baseline:       The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S. climate change programs.
               The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in 2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts
               developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and
               from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide
               and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report
               2002 (www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html), which provides a discussion of differences in assumptions between the 1997 baseline
               and the 2002 update, including which portion of energy efficiency programs are included in the estimates. EPA develops  the non-CO2 emissions
               baselines  and  projections using information from partners  and  other sources.   EPA  continues to develop annual inventories as  well as update
               methodologies as new information becomes available.


OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

Through 2010, provide and apply  sound  science to  support EPA's goal of clean air by conducting leading-edge research and  developing  a
better understanding and  characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 1.

Research

PM Effects Research

In 2007         Increased use of paniculate matter research program products

In 2006         BY 2006, develop and report on new data on the effects of different PM sizes or components to improve understanding of the health risks associated
               with short-term exposure to PM in healthy and select susceptible populations so that, by 2010, OAR has improved assessments of health risks to develop
               PM standards that maximize protection of human health, as determined by independent expert review.

Performance Measures                                FY2002    FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                   Actuals      Actuals      Actuals      Actuals      Enacted     Pres Bud
Integrated report on the health effects of different particle                                                  1                       Report
sizes  or particle  components  in  healthy and select
susceptible subgroups.
                                                           Performance-46

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
Percentage of NAAQS program publications rated as
highly cited papers

Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air
pollutant sources based on the risk they pose to human
health.

Percent planned actions accomplished toward the long-
term goal of reducing uncertainty in the science  that
support standard setting  and air  quality management
decisions.
35.7


30



100
Percent


Percent



Percent
Baseline:       To assess progress towards its goal of increased use of paniculate matter research program products, ORD is measuring the percentage of program
               publications rated as highly cited papers, the percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant sources based on the risk they pose to
               human health, and the percent of planned actions ORD has accomplished toward reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard setting and
               air quality management decisions.

               In 2003, ORD obtained baseline data for the  percentage  of program publications rated as highly cited papers, finding that 29.4% of papers fit this
               criteria. In 2004, 27.6% of program publications were rated as highly cited papers.

               In 2005, ORD obtained baseline data for the progress toward completion of a hierarchy of pollutant sources. The hierarchy was 5% complete. ORD is
               targeting to have  10% of the hierarchy completed by 2006, and 30% by 2007.

               ORD has collected baseline data on the percent of planned actions accomplished toward reducing uncertainty in the  science  that supports standard
               setting and air quality management decisions, with 71% in 2003, 84% in 2004, and 94% in 2005 of the actions planned met each year.
                                                            Performance-47

-------
                                                       Environmental Protection Agency

                                      FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                            6-Year Performance Data
                                                   Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                       (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

                                                     GOAL: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER

Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and
recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.

       OBJECTIVE: PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH

       Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and
       in recreational waters.

       Safe Drinking Water

       In 2007         93% of the population served by community water systems in Indian country will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking
                      water standards.

       In 2007         94% of the population will be served by community water systems in compliance with health-based drinking water standards.

       In 2006         90% of the population served by community water systems in Indian country will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking
                      water standards.

       In 2006         93% of the population will be served by community water systems in compliance with health-based drinking water standards.

       In 2005         86.3% of the population served by community water systems in Indian country received drinking water that met all applicable health-based drinking
                      water standards.

       In 2005         88.5% of the population was served by community water systems in compliance with health-based drinking water standards.

       Performance Measures                               FY2002    FY2003     FY2004     FY2005    FY2006    FY2007
                                                         Actuals     Actuals      Actuals      Actuals     Enacted     Pres Bud
       Percent of the  population served by community water                                     86.3        90          93          % Population
       systems in Indian country that receive drinking water that
       meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards


                                                                 Performance-48

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
Performance Measures
Percent population served by community water systems in
compliance with health based drinking water standards.

Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF

Number of additional projects initiating operations

Percent  of  states  conducting  sanitary  surveys   at
community water systems once every three years

Percent community water systems  in  compliance with
drinking water standards.
FY 2002
Actuals



FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
Actuals Actuals Actuals
88.5
84.4
439
94
FY 2006
Enacted
93
83.3
425
98
FY 2007
Pres Bud
94
84
433
98
% population
%Rate
Projects
% States
            89.1
                                                                                                    93.5
                                                                                                                94
                                    % Systems
Baseline:       In 1998, 85% of the population that was served by community water systems and 96% of the population served by non-community, non-transient
               drinking water systems received drinking water for which no violations of Federally enforceable health standards had occurred during the year.  Year-
               to-year performance is expected to change as new standards take effect. Covered standards include: Stage 1 disinfection by-products/interim enhanced
               surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic.

Drinking Water Small Systems

In 2007         Reduce the number of households on Tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water.

In 2006         Reduce the number of households on Tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water.
Performance Measures

Number of household on Tribal lands lacking access to
safe drinking water.
                                                   FY 2002
                                                   Actuals
                                                               FY 2003
                                                               Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
35,400
FY 2006
Enacted
30,800
FY 2007
Pres Bud
30,500
                                                                                                                            Households
Baseline:        2003 Baseline: In 2003, Indian Health Service indicates that 39,000 homes lack access to safe drinking water (12% of tribal homes nationwide).

River/Lake Assessments for Fish Consumption
                                                            Performance-49

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

In 2007         91% of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states are approved or conditionally approved for use.

In 2007         At least 2% of the water miles/acres identified by states or tribes as having a fish consumption advisory in 2002 will have improved water and sediment
                quality so that increased consumption offish and shellfish is allowed.

In 2006         91% of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states are approved or conditionally approved for use.

In 2006         At least 1% of the water miles/acres identified by states or tribes as having a fish consumption advisory in 2002 will have improved water and sediment
                quality so that increased consumption offish and shellfish is allowed.

In 2005         1% of the water miles/acres identified by states or tribes as having a fish consumption advisory in 2002 did not have improved water and sediment
                quality so that increased consumption offish and shellfish is allowed.

In 2005         EPA and states are working to approve or conditional approve for use 80% of shellfish growing acres monitored by states.

In 2004         24% of the nation's river miles and 35% of nation's lake acres have been assessed to determine if they contain fish and shellfish that should not be eaten
                or should be eaten in only limited quantities.

In 2003         15% of the nation's river miles and 33% of nation's lake acres have been assessed to determine if they contain fish and shellfish that should not be eaten
                or should be eaten in only limited quantities.

In 2002         14% of the nation's river miles and 28% of nation's lake acres have been assessed to determine if they contain fish and shellfish that should not be eaten
                or should be eaten in only limited quantities.
              Performance Measures

Percent of water miles/acres, identified by states or tribes
as having fish consumption advisories in 2002, where
increased consumption offish is allowed.

Percent of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states
that are approved or conditionally approved for use

Lake acres assessed for the need for fish advisories and   28
compilation  of  state-issued  fish consumption advisory
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
 FY 2005
 Actuals
0.00
                                    Data
                                    unavail
FY 2006
Enacted
                                                 1
                                    91
FY 2007
Pres Bud
                                    91
           33.00
           35%
                        % Miles/Acres



                        % Areas


                        % Lake acres
                                                             Performance-50

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

              Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted     Pres Bud
methodologies, (cumulative)

River miles assessed for the need for fish consumption  14%       15.00        24%                                            % River miles
advisories & compilation of state-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies,  (cumulative)


Baseline:       In 2002, fish consumption advisories were 13.4 million (32.9%) lake acres and 544,000 (15.3%) river miles. In 1995, 77% of assessed estuary square
               miles met the designated use for shell fish consumption.

Increase Information on Beaches

In 2007         Coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach safety programs will be open and safe for swimming in over 95% of the days of the beach
               season.

In 2007         Restore water quality to allow swimming in not less than 4% of the stream miles and lake acres identified by states in 2000  as having water quality
               unsafe for swimming.

In 2006         Coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach safety programs will be open and safe for swimming in over 94% of the days of the beach
               season.

In 2006         Restore water quality to allow swimming in not less than 3% of the stream miles and lake acres identified by states in 2000  as having water quality
               unsafe for swimming.

In 2005         Coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach safety programs were open and safe for swimming in 96% of the days of the beach season.

In 2005         EPA is working to restore water quality to allow swimming in not less than 2% of the stream miles and lake acres identified by  states in 2000 as having
               water quality unsafe for swimming.

In 2004         Reduced exposure to contaminated recreation waters by providing monitoring and closure data on 1,857 beaches to the public and decision-makers.

In 2003         Reduced  exposure to contaminated recreation waters by providing monitoring and closure data on 2,823 beaches to the public and decision-makers..
                                                            Performance-51

-------
In 2002
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

               Reduced exposure to contaminated recreation waters by providing monitoring and closure data on 2,445 beaches to the public and decision-makers.

              Performance Measures
FY 2002
Actuals
:,445
FY 2003
Actuals
2,823
FY 2004
Actuals
1,857.00
FY 2005
Actuals
96%
Available
2006
FY 2006
Enacted
94
3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
95
4
Days/Season
% Miles/Acres
Beaches
Days  (of beach season)  that coastal and Great Lakes
beaches monitored by  State beach safety programs are
open and safe for swimming.

Restore water quality to allow swimming in stream miles
and lake acres identified by states

Beaches for which monitoring  and  closure  data  is  2,445
available       to        the        public        at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/. (cumulative)


Baseline:       By the end of FY 1999, 33  states had responded to EPA's first annual survey on state and local beach monitoring and closure practices and EPA made
               available to the public via the internet. An average of 9 recreational contact waterborne disease outbreaks reported per year by the Centers for Disease
               Control for the years  1994-1998, based on data housed in EPA/ORD internal database.  In 2002, monitored beaches were opened 94% of the days
               during the beach season.

Source Water Protection

In 2007        30% of source water areas for community water systems will achieve minimized risk to public health.

In 2006        20% of source water areas for community water systems will achieve minimized risk to public health.

In 2005        Data available in 2006.
              Performance Measures

Percentage of source  water areas  (both surface  and
ground water) for community water systems will achieve
minimized risk to public health.
                                                    FY2002    FY2003    FY2004    FY2005    FY2006
                                                    Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted
                                                                                       Available    20
                                                                                       2006
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud
30          % Areas
                                                            Performance-52

-------
Baseline:
                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                       6-Year Performance Data
                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

EPA defines "achieve minimized risk" as substantial implementation of source water protection actions, as determined by a State's source water
protection strategy. Approximately 268 million people were estimated to be served by Community Water Systems (CWSs) in 2002. This equates to 5%
of source water areas for community systems achieving minimized risk in 2002.
OBJECTIVE: PROTECT WATER QUALITY

Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.

Watershed Protection

In 2007        Water quality standards are fully attained in over 25% of miles/acres of waters by 2012,  with an interim milestone of restoring 8.0% of these waters -
               identified in 2000 as not attaining standards - by 2005.

In 2006        Water quality standards are fully attained in over 25% of miles/acres of waters by 2012,  with an interim milestone of restoring 5% of these waters -
               identified in 2000 as not attaining standards - by 2005.

In 2005        Of the 21,632 water bodies in the U.S. identified by states in 2000 as impaired (i.e., not attaining state water quality standards), 8 percent were restored
               in FY 2005.
              Performance Measures

Annual percentage of waterbody segments identified by
States in 2000 as not attaining  standards, where water
quality standards are now fully attained (cumulative).

Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF

Additional pounds (in millions) of reduction to total
phosphorus loadings
                                     FY 2002
                                     Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
 FY 2005
 Actuals
8.00
FY 2006
Enacted
                                                                                    5
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud
9.0
                                                                                                93.4%

                                                                                                4.5
                                                           % Miles/Acres



                                                           Rate

                                                           Ibs in millions
Additional pounds  (in millions)  of reduction to total
nitrogen loadings

Additional pounds of reduction to total sediment loadings
                                                                                                            Ibs in millions
                                                                                                700,000      Ibs
                                                           Performance-53

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
              Performance Measures

Number of TMDL's that are established by States and
approved by EPA on schedule consistent with national
policy (cumulative)
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
FY 2006
Enacted
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud
21,329      TMDLs
Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits that are
scheduled to be reissued.

Cost per water segment restored.

Percentage of majors  in  Significant  Noncompliance
(SNC) at any time during the fiscal year

% of S/Terr/authorized Tribes that, within the preceding
3-yr period,  submitted  new or  rvsd  WQ criteria
acceptable to  EPA that reflect new science  info from
EPA/or sources not considered in prev std

Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality
standards from States, and Territories that are approved
by EPA

Loading (pounds) of pollutants removed per  program
dollar expended

Number of TMDL's required that are established or
approved by EPA on a schedule consistent with national
policy (cummulative)

Percentage of waters accessed using statistically valid
surveys
                                                           95
                                                           % permits
                                                           1,058.8      water segment
                                                           22.5
                                                           67
                                                           85
                                                           54
                                                           % majors
                                                           % S/T/Terr
                                                           % submissions
                                                           285.34       Ibs


                                                           24,967       TMDLs
                                                           % waters
Baseline:       As of 2002 states report 453 watersheds had met the criteria that greater than 80% of assessed waters met all water quality standards. For a watershed to
               be counted toward this goal, at least 25% of the segments in the watershed must be assessed within the past 4 years consistent with assessment
                                                           Performance-54

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                        6-Year Performance Data
                                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

                guidelines developed pursuant to section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.  In 2002, 0% of the 255,408 miles/and 6,803,419 acres of waters identified on
                1998/2000 lists of impaired waters developed by States and approved by EPA under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

Dredged Material/Ocean Disposal

In 2007         Scores for overall aquatic system  health  of coastal waters nationally,  and in each coastal region, is improved on the (good/fair/poor)  scale of the
                National Coastal Condition Report by at least 0.1 point

In 2006         Scores for overall aquatic system  health  of coastal waters nationally,  and in each coastal region, is improved on the (good/fair/poor)  scale of the
                National Coastal Condition Report by at least 0.1 point

In 2005         Maintain water clarity and dissolved oxygen in coastal waters at the national levels reported in the 2002 National Coastal Condition Report.

               Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                       Actuals      Actuals     Actuals     Actuals      Enacted    Pres Bud
National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR)  score for                                        2.7          2.7         2.8          Scale score
overall  aquatic  ecosystem  health of coastal  waters
nationally (1-5 scale).


Baseline:        National rating of "fair/poor" or 2.4 where the rating is based on a 5-point system where 1 is poor and 5 is good and is expressed as an aerially weighted
                mean of regional scores using the 2002 National Coastal Condition Report indicators  [i.e., water clarity, dissolved oxygen, coastal wetlands loss,
                eutrophic conditions, sediment contamination, benthic health, and fish tissue contamination].  The 2002 National Coastal Condition Report indicated 4.3
                for water clarity and 4.5 for dissolved oxygen, 1.4 for coastal wetlands loss; 1.3 for contamination of sediments in coastal waters; 1.4 for benthic quality;
                & 1.7 for eutrophic condition.

State/Tribal Water Quality Standards

In 2007         In coordination with other federal partners reduce, by 23%, households on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation.

In 2006         In coordination with other federal partners reduce, by 17%, households on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation.

In 2005         In coordination with other federal partners households on tribal lands lacking access to basic  sanitation was reduced by 34 percent.

               Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006     FY2007


                                                             Performance-55

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

                                                     Actuals      Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
Number of households on tribal lands lacking access to                                       34%         17           23           % Households
basic sanitation.


Baseline:       The performance measure of state submissions (above) thus represents a "rolling annual total" of updated standards acted upon by EPA, and so are
               neither cumulative nor strictly incremental. EPA must review and approve or disapprove state revisions to water quality standards within 60-90 days
               after receiving the state's package.  In 2002, there will be four key parameters available at  900 sampling stations in Indian country. In 2002,  Indian
               Health Service indicated that 71,000 households on Tribal lands lack access to basic sanitation.

OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE  SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

Provide and apply a sound scientific foundation to EPA's goal of clean and safe water by conducting leading-edge research and developing a
better understanding and characterization of the environmental outcomes under Goal 2.

Research

Scientific Rationale for Surface Water Criteria

In 2007         Provide the scientific foundation and information for the development of a water quality model of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone

In 2006         By 2006, provide demonstrations of bioassessment methods for Mid-Western U.S. rivers, so that, by 2010, the Office of Water, states, and tribes have
               approaches and methods to develop and apply criteria for habitat alteration, nutrients, suspended and bedded sediments, pathogens, and toxic chemicals
               that will support designated uses for aquatic ecosystems, as determined by independent expert review.

In 2005         By 2005, provided methods for developing water quality criteria  so that, by 2008, approaches and methods will be available to States and Tribes for
               their use in developing and applying criteria for habitat alteration, nutrients, suspended and bedded sediments, pathogens, and toxic chemicals that will
               support designated uses for aquatic ecosystems and increase the scientific basis for listing and delisting impaired water bodies under Section 303 (d) of
               the Clean Water Act.
                                                            Performance-56

-------
                                                          Environmental Protection Agency

                                        FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                              6-Year Performance Data
                                                     Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                         (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
                      Performance Measures

        Methods for developing water quality criteria based on
        population-level risks of multiple stressors to aquatic life
        and aquatic-dependent wildlife.

        Report  on  bioassessment  methods  for  a  range  of
        designated uses  in  freshwater systems  within  Mid-
        Western U.S. rivers

        Report  on the  conditions and seasonal trends  of water
        quality in the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone
 FY 2002
 Actuals
 FY 2003
 Actuals
 FY 2004
 Actuals
 FY 2005
 Actuals
methods
 FY 2006
 Enacted
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud
                                                                         methods
                                                                         Report
                                                                         report
        Baseline:        This research supports the Hypoxia Action Plan's goal of reducing nutrient loading from the Mississippi River Basin and ultimately reducing the size of
                       the Hypoxic Zone in the Gulf of Mexico to less than 5,000 square kilometers by the year 2015 and EPA's Strategic Plan Goal 4 (Healthy Communities
                       and Ecosystems), Objective  3  (Ecosystems), Subobjective 5 (Improve the  Health of the Gulf of Mexico). Moreover,  the activity  supports the
                       recommendations of the White  House Council onn Environmental Quality  and the Ocean Commission Report, which urged an integrated ecosystem
                       approach to improve Gulf water quality and reduce nutrient loading and which led to the formation of the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, led by the governors
                       of the five Gulf states.

        Drinking Water Research

        In 2007         Increased use of drinking water research products

        In 2006         By 2006, provide results of full-scale treatment demonstration projects and evaluations of other approaches for managing arsenic in drinking water, so
                       that by 2010, the Office of Water, states, local authorities and utilities have scientifically sound data and approaches to manage risks to human health
                       posed by exposure to arsenic, as determined by independent expert review.6
        Performance Measures
        Final reports  of full-scale demonstrations  of arsenic
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
FY 2006
Enacted
3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
                                                                         Reports
6 This metric is no longer used and will be revised for the FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report and the FY 2008 planning and budget documents.

                                                                    Performance-57

-------
                                                Environmental Protection Agency

                               FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                     6-Year Performance Data
                                            Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

Performance Measures                              FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005    FY2006     FY2007
                                                  Actuals     Actuals     Actuals      Actuals     Enacted     Pres Bud
treatment technologies

Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Six              100         69          90         100         100         Percent
Year Review decisions.

Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of              73          78          60         100         100         Percent
Contaminate Candidate List Decisions.


Baseline:       To assess progress toward its goal of increased used of drinking water research products, ORD is tracking the percentage of planned outputs delivered in
               support of Six Year Review decisions and the percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Contaminant Candidate List decisions.  The
               Drinking Water Research Program Multi-Year Plan, developed by ORD, Office of Water, and other key clients, identifies the critical outputs and their
               due dates. This plan is used as the baseline to track the percent of planned outputs delivered each year in support of these decisions.
                                                          Performance-58

-------
                                                       Environmental Protection Agency

                                      FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                           6-Year Performance Data
                                                   Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                       (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

                                           GOAL: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by
releases of harmful substances.

        OBJECTIVE: PRESERVE LAND

        By 2008, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation,  increasing  recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and
        petroleum products at facilities in ways that prevent releases.

        Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction

        In 2007         Divert 34.2% (85.2 million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA municipal
                      solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day.

        In 2006         Divert 33.2% (83.1 million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA municipal
                      solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day.

        In 2005         End of year data for 2005 will be available in  2009 to verify diversion of 35% (80 million tons) of municipal solid waste from landfilling and
                      combustion, and to determine whether the national average MSW generation rate is maintained at no more than 4.5 pounds per person per day.

        In2004         End of year 2004 data will be available in 2006  to verify diversion of 33.4% (80  million tons) of municipal  solid waste from land filling and
                      combustion, and maintain the national average municipal solid waste generation rate at no more than 4.5 pounds per person per day.

        In 2003         The per capita waste generation rate was maintained at less than 4.5  Ibs but 30.6% of MSW was diverted from land filling and combustion (which does
                      not meet the target of 32%).

        In 2002         The per capita waste generation rate was maintained at less than 4.5 Ibs and 29.6% of MSW was diverted from land filling and combustion.

                     Performance Measures                FY2002    FY2003     FY2004    FY2005     FY2006    FY2007
                                                          Actuals    Actuals     Actuals      Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
       Millions of tons of municipal solid waste diverted.          70.50        72.30        data lag     data lag     83.1        85.2        million tons


                                                                 Performance-59

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

              Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004    FY2005    FY2006     FY2007
                                                     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals      Actuals    Enacted    Pres Bud
Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste.       4.50         4.40        data lag     data lag     4.5         4.5          Ibs. MSW


Baseline:       An analysis conducted in FY 2001 shows approximately 68 million tons (29.2%) of municipal solid waste diverted and 4.4 Ibs of MSW per person daily
               generation.  While data indicates that the growth in recycling rates has slowed, EPA has maintained the goal of a 35% recycling rate as part of the FY
               2003-2008 Strategic Plan.

Waste and Petroleum Management Controls

In 2007         Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.

In 2006         Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.

In 2005         In FY 2005, 66% of UST facilities achieved operational compliance with both release detection and release prevention requirements. Confirmed UST
               releases were less than  10,000  (or exactly  7,421). The RCRA program established permits  or approved controls at 84 additional hazardous  waste
               management facilities (or 3.1% of 2,751 regulated facilities).

In 2004         In FY 2004, 72% of UST facilities  were in significant operational compliance with release detection requirements (a decrease of -4% from the target of
               76%) and 77% of UST facilities were in significant operational compliance with release prevention requirements (a decrease of -6% from the target of
               83%).  Confirmed UST releases  in FY2004 were less than 10,000 (or exactly 7,848).  The RCRA program established permits or approved controls at
               103 additional hazardous waste management facilities (or 3.7% of 2,752 regulated facilities).

In 2003         For UST facilities, 72% are in operational compliance with leak detection (a decrease of -8% from the target of 80%), and 79% are in operational
               compliance with spill prevention requirements (a decrease of -6% from the target of 85%). An additional 4.1% of the RCRA facilities have permits or
               approved controls, and 600 oil facilities are in compliance with spill requirements.

In 2002         1.8% of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities received permits or other approved controls, and 580 oil facilities were in compliance with spill
               prevention, control and countermeasure provisions of the oil pollution regulations.

              Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004    FY2005    FY2006     FY2007
                                                     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals      Actuals    Enacted    Pres Bud
Annual increase in the percentage of RCRA hazardous   1.8%        4.1%        3.7%       3.1%       2.5%       2.4%        percentage pts.
waste management facilities  with permits  or other


                                                            Performance-60

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                               FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                     6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
              Performance Measures

approved controls.

Number of confirmed UST releases nationally.

Percent increase of UST facilities that are in significant
operational compliance with both release detection and
release prevention (spill, overfill, and corrosion protection
requirements).
FY 2002
Actuals


FY 2003
Actuals


FY 2004
Actuals
7,848.00

FY 2005
Actuals
7,421.00
2.00
FY 2006
Enacted
<10,000
+1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
<10,000
+1

UST releases
percent
Baseline:        For 2005, 64% of the estimated universe of 246,650 facilities were in significant operational compliance with both release detection and release
               prevention (spill, overfill, and corrosion protection) requirements.


OBJECTIVE: RESTORE LAND

By 2008, control the risks to human health and the environment by mitigating the impact of accidental or intentional releases and by cleaning
up and restoring contaminated sites or properties to appropriate levels.

Superfund Cost Recovery

In 2007         Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from PP^Ps when EPA expends trust fund monies.  Address
               cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.

In 2006         Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PP^Ps to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from PP^Ps when EPA expends trust fund monies.  Address
               cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.

In 2005         The goal was not met. Cost recovery was addressed at 195 NPL sites, of which 94 of the 95 cost recovery cases had outstanding unaddressed past costs
               greater than $200,000 and pending SOL concerns.

In 2004         EPA achieved its goal of addressing through enforcement, settlement or compromise/write-off all of the pending cost recovery cases with outstanding
               unaddressed past costs greater than $200,000 and pending SOL concerns.
                                                           Performance-61

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

In 2003         Ensured trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from PRPs when EPA expends trust fund monies.
               Addressed cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.

In 2002         The goal was met. Cost recovery was addressed at 204 NPL and non-NPL sites of which 101 had total past costs greater than or equal to $200,000 and
               potential statute of limitations (SOL) concerns. EPA secured cleanup and cost recovery commitments from private parties in excess of $645 million.

              Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006    FY2007
                                                     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
Refer to DOJ, settle, or write  off 100%  of Statute  of  100          100         100%       99%        100         100         Percent
Limitations  (SOLs)  cases  for  SF  sites  with  total
unaddressed past costs equal to or greater than $200,000
and report value of costs recovered.



Baseline:       In FY 98 the Agency will have addressed 100% of Cost Recovery at all NPL & non-NPL sites with total past costs equal or greater than $200,000.

Superfund Potentially Responsible Party Participat

In 2007         Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the time of the Remedial Action start at 95 percent of non-Federal Superfund sites that have viable,
               liable parties.

In 2006         Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the time of the Remedial Action start at 95 percent of non-Federal Superfund sites that have viable,
               liable parties.

In 2005         EPA reached a settlement or took an enforcement action by the start of remedial action at more  than 90% of those Superfund sites having known non-
               Federal, viable, liable parties.

In 2004         EPA reached a settlement or took an enforcement action by the start of remedial action at more  than 98% of those Superfund sites having known non-
               Federal, viable, liable parties.

In 2003         Maximized all aspects  of PRP participation which included maintaining PRP work at 87% of the new remedial construction starts  at non-Federal
               Facility Superfund, and emphasized fairness in the settlement process.

In 2002         In FY 2002 the percentage of remedial construction starts initiated by responsible parties exceeded the target by one percent.


                                                            Performance-62

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)


              Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted     Pres Bud
PRPs conduct 70% of the work at new construction starts   71          87                                                          Percent

Percentage  of  Superfund  sites at which  settlement or                           98%         100%       95          95          Percent
enforcement action taken before the start of RA.


Baseline:       In FY 98 approximately 70% of new remedial work at NPL sites (excluding Federal facilities) was initiated by private parties. In FY2003, a settlement
               was reached or an enforcement action was taken with non-Federal PRPs before the start of the remedial action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund
               sites.

Assess and  Cleanup  Contaminated Land

In 2007         Control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other action, and make land
               available for reuse.

In 2006         Control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other action, and make land
               available for reuse.

In 2005         Superfund made 551 final assessment decisions,  completed remedy construction at 40 sites,  and selected final remedies at 39 sites. The RCRA CA
               program controlled human exposure to  toxins at 209 sites and toxic releases to ground water at 142 sites.  State LUST programs  completed 14,583
               cleanups that exceeded state standards.

In 2004         Superfund made 548 final assessment  decisions, completed remedy  construction at 40 sites, and selected final remedies at 30 sites.  The RCRA
               corrective action program controlled human exposures and groundwater migration at 195 and 150 high priority RCRA facilities, respectively, which
               reflects strong EPA/state partnership. State LUST programs completed 14,285 cleanups.

In 2003         917 final Superfund site assessment decisions were made.

In 2003         Superfund completed final site assessment decisions at 917 sites, completed remedy construction at 40 sites, and initiated 380 removal actions.  The
               RCRA program controlled human exposures at 230 sites and groundwater migration at 175 sites. There were 18,518 LUST cleanups.
                                                            Performance-63

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

In 2002        Human exposures to toxins were controlled at 205 RCRA facilities and toxic releases to groundwater were controlled at 171 RCRA facilities.  15.769
               leaking underground storage tank cleanups were completed, and 42 Superfund construction completions were achieved.

In 2002        Superfund completed final site assessment decisions at 587 sites and completed remedy construction at 42 sites. The LUST program completed 15, 769
               cleanups and the RCRA program controlled human exposures to toxins at 205  sites and toxic releases to ground water at 171 sites.
              Performance Measures                  FY 2002
                                                     Actuals
Number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards   15,769.00
for human exposure and groundwater migration (tracked
as the number L LIST cleanups completed).

Number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for
human exposure  and groundwater migration on  Indian
Country.
                                                                FY 2003
                                                                 Actuals
                                                               18,518.00
Superfund final site assessment decisions completed.
                                                   587
Annual  number  of  Superfund  sites  with  remedy  42
construction completed.

Number of final remedies (cleanup targets)  selected at
Superfund sites.

Percentage of Superfund spending that is obligated to
individual sites each year.

Federal Facility Superfund sites with human exposures
under control (exposure pathways  are  eliminated or
potential exposures  are under health-based levels for
current use of land or water resources).

Federal Facility  Superfund  sites with contaminated
groundwater   under  control   (exposure   pathways
eliminated or potential exposures under health-based
levels for current use of land/water resources.

Number of Federal  Facility Superfund sites where all
917

40.00
             FY 2004
             Actuals
            14,285.00
548.00

40.00


30.00
             FY 2005
             Actuals
            14,583.00
53.00



551.00

40.00


39.00


54.30


131.00




84.00




47.00
             FY 2006
             Enacted
            18,300
30



419

40


20


54.8


129




81




51
             FY 2007
             Pres Bud
            13,000
30



350

40


20


Dis-
continued

132
                                                                                                                82
                                                                                                                56
cleanups



cleanups



assessments

completions


remedies


percent


sites




sites




sites
                                                            Performance-64

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
               Performance Measures

remedies have completed construction.

Number  of Federal Facility Superfund sites where  the
final remedial decision for contaminants at the site has
been determined.

Program dollars expended  annually per operable unit
completing cleanup activities.

Percentage of RCRA CA  facilities with current human
exposures under control (using 2005 baseline).

Percentage of RCRA CA facilities  with  migration  of
contaminated groundwater  under control (using  2005
baseline).
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
 FY 2005
 Actuals

61.00
                                    $647
 FY 2006
 Enacted


61
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud


67
                                    $1,000      $960
                                                82
                                                68
                                                75
                                                                        remedies
                                                thousand
                                                            percent
                                                percent
Baseline:        In FY 2005, Superfund controlled groundwater migration at 69% (898 of 1,306) of eligible NPL sites, completed construction at 62% (926 of 1,498) of
                the eligible NPL sites, and selected final remedies at 67% (1,003 of 1,498) of the eligible NPL sites. Included in these cumulative figures are Federal
                Facility NPL sites: groundwater migration controlled at 83 sites, construction completion at 47 sites and final remedy selection at 61 sites.
                In FY 2005, the Superfund program adjusted its baseline for Final Assessment Decisions to 38,603 by taking out sites where only removal work is done
                to focus efforts on those sites where long-term remedial work may be needed. Formal data extraction methods for the Superfund efficiency measure
                were developed and the  baseline for the measure is 54.3 percent.  The average  amount of program dollars spent for each operable unit completing
                remedial activity at Federal Facilities was $647,000.   Of the 1,714 RCRA Corrective  Action highest priority facilities, 96% (1,649) have human
                exposures controlled and 78% (1,341) have groundwater migration controlled, reflecting the strong EPA/state partnership in this program.  Beginning
                in FY 2006, the performance measures for the RCRA program will be based on an updated number of facilities (1,968) established in October 2004.
                Through the end of FY 2005, EPA completed 332,799 leaking underground storage tank cleanups.

Prepare/Respond to Accidental/Intentional Release

In 2007         Reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances by improving our Nation's capability to prepare for and
                respond more effectively to these emergencies.

In 2006         Reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances by improving our Nation's capability to prepare for and
                respond more effectively to these emergencies.
                                                             Performance-65

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
In 2005
In 2004
   172  Superfund-lead removal actions and 137 voluntary removal actions, overseen by EPA,  were  completed.  EPA was involved in 260 oil spill
   responses during FY 2005. The compliance rates of inspected facilities subject to SPCC and FRP regulations were 100 and 77 percent, respectively.

   385 removal actions were initiated in FY2004 for a total of over 8,280 actions initiated since 1980. The core emergency response readiness deficit was
   reduced by 56%.  EPA was involved in 308 oil spill responses during FY2004.  The Agency typically responds to or monitors 300 oil spill cleanups
   every year.
Percentage
improvement.
 Performance Measures

of   emergency    response
readiness
Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually.

Voluntary removal actions, overseen by EPA, completed.

Superfund-lead removal actions  completed annually per
million dollars.

Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA.

Number of inspections  and  exercises conducted at oil
storage  facilities that  are   required  to  have  Facility
Response Plans.
Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject  to Spill
Prevention,  Control  and   Countermeasures   (SPCC)
regulations.

Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to  Facility
Response Plan (FRP) regulations.
FY 2002     FY 2003     FY 2004
Actuals     Actuals     Actuals
                       56%
                                                               308.00
                                                                                        FY 2005
                                                                                         Actuals
                                                                           100.00
                                                                           77.00
 FY 2006
 Enacted
10%
                                              772.00      195

                                              137.00      110

                                              1.54        0.91


                                              260.00      300

                                              335.00      100
                                                          700
                                                          700
FY 2007
Pres Bud
10%
195
115
0.92
300
200
percent
removals
removals
removals
spills
inspections/
                                                           700
                                                           700
                                                                                                               exercises
                        percent
                        percent
Baseline:       Based on data assessment methods with EPA regional offices, the number of facilities subject to FRP regulations has been determined to be 5,000 rather
               than 6,000.
                                                            Performance-66

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                               FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                     6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

Through 2008, provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge research and developing a better
understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 3.


Research

Scientifically Defensible Decisions for Site Cleanup

In 2007         Deliver 100 percent of planned outputs in support of Superfund/Oil/LUST projects.

In 2006         Document the performance, including  cost  savings, of innovative characterization and remediation options,  so that newer approaches with cost or
               performance advantages are applied for Superfund and other cleanup projects.

In 2005         Completed at least 4 SITE demonstrations, with emphasis on NAPLs and sediments, in order to, by 2010, develop or evaluate 40 scientific tools,
               technologies, methods, and models,  and provide technical support that enables practitioners to 1) characterize the nature and extent of multimedia
               contamination; 2) assess, predict and communicate risks to human health and the environment; 3) employ improved remediation options; and 4) respond
               to oil spills effectively.

In 2004         Provided  risk  assessors and managers with site-specific data sets  on three applications  detailing the  performance of conventional remedies for
               contaminated sediments to help determine the most effective techniques for remediating  contaminated sites and protecting human health and the
               environment.

In 2003         Delivered state-of-the-science report and methods to EPA and other stakeholders for risk management of fuel oxygenates; organic and inorganic
               contamination of sediments, ground water and/or soils; and oil spills to ensure cost-effective and technically sound site clean-up.

In 2002         EPA provided evaluation information on six innovative  approaches that reduce human health and ecosystem exposure from dense non-aqueous phase
               liquids (DNAPLs) and methyl tertiary butyl-ether (MTBE)  in soils and groundwater, and from oil and persistent organics in aquatic systems.

              Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004    FY2005    FY2006    FY2007
                                                    Actuals      Actuals     Actuals     Actuals    Enacted    Pres Bud
Draft of FY05 Annual SITE Report to Congress                                                           1                       Report


                                                           Performance-67

-------
                                             Environmental Protection Agency

                             FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                  6-Year Performance Data
                                          Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                               (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

             Performance Measures                FY2002    FY2003    FY2004    FY2005    FY2006    FY2007
                                                Actuals    Actuals    Actuals    Actuals    Enacted    Pres Bud
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of                                                          100        Percent
Superfund/Oil/LUST projects.


Baseline:       The percentage delivered will be determined by dividing the number of planned outputs (as shown in the Multi-Year Plan for OSWER and tracked in
              ORD's internal tracking system) by the actual number of outputs delivered on time.
                                                       Performance-68

-------
                                                       Environmental Protection Agency

                                      FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                            6-Year Performance Data
                                                   Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                        (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

                                          GOAL: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.

       OBJECTIVE: CHEMICAL, ORGANISM, AND PESTICIDE RISKS

       Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered biological organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.

       Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides

       In 2007        Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) meet new health standards and are environmentally safe.

       In 2007        Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of reduced-risk pesticides.

       In 2006        Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) meet new health standards and are environmentally safe.

       In 2006        Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of reduced-risk pesticides.

       In 2005        Ensured new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) meet new health standards and are environmentally safe.

       In 2005        Percentage of acre treatments that use applications of reduced-risk pesticides.

       In 2004        Decreased adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1995 levels.

       In 2003        Adverse risk from agricultural pesticides was decreased to ensure that new pesticides entering the market are safe for humans and the environment.

       In 2002        In FY 2002, EPA continued to register pest control products, including "safer" pesticides,  thus ensuring that growers have an adequate number of pest
                      control options available to them.

                     Performance Measures                  FY2002    FY2003     FY2004    FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                           Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
       Register safer chemicals and biopesticides               107.00       124         143.00       135.00      143         157         Regist. (Cum)



                                                                  Performance-69

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                        6-Year Performance Data
                                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
               Performance Measures

New Chemicals (Active Ingredients)

New Uses
Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced-  7.5%
risk pesticides.

Maintain timeliness of S18 decisions

Percent reduction  in review time for registration  of
conventional pesticides.

Reduce  registration  decision  times for  reduced risk
chemicals
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
Actuals
60
2329
7.5%


Actuals
72
425
8%


Actuals
79.00
3,142.00
13%


Actuals
82.00
3,306.00
13%
42.00
(7%)
Enacted
94
3879
9%
45
10%
Pres Bud
100
3900
10.0%
45
5.4%
Regist. (Cum)
Actions (Cum)
Acre-
Treatments
Days
Reduction
                                    47%
                                                 2.4%
                                                Reduction
Baseline:        The year FQPA was enacted (1996) was the initial year for counting registration of reduced risk pesticides, new chemicals, and new uses. Progress is
                measured (from zero) cumulatively since 1996.  The baseline for acres-treated with reduced-risk pesticides is  3.6% (30,332,499 acres) of a total
                843,063,644 all pesticide acre-treatments in 1998. Annual total acre-treatments, reported by USDA's National Agricultural Statistical Survey, serve as
                the basis for computing the percentage of acre-treatments using reduced risk pesticides. Acre-treatments count the  total number of pesticide treatments
                each acre receives each year. Conventional chemicals FY 2002 baseline for reducing time is 44 months; reduced risk pesticides FY 2002 baseline for
                reducing time is 32.5 months. The S18 2005 baseline is 45 days.

Reassess Pesticide Tolerances

In 2007         Ensure that through ongoing data reviews, pesticide active ingredients, and products that contain them are reviewed to assure adequate protection for
                human health and the environment, taking into consideration exposure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of the Native Americans

In 2006         Ensure that through ongoing data reviews, pesticide active ingredients, and products that contain them are reviewed to assure adequate protection for
                human health and the environment, taking into consideration exposure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of the Native Americans

In 2005         Ensured that through ongoing data reviews, pesticide active ingredients, and products that contain them are reviewed to assure adequate protection for
                human health and the environment, taking into consideration exposure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of the Native Americans.

In 2004         Despite having not met its targets in previous years, the Agency is committed to meeting its 2008 deadline.
                                                              Performance-70

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
In 2003
Assured that pesticides active ingredients registered prior to 1984 and the products that contain them were reviewed to assure adequate protection for
human health & the environment. Also  considered the unique exposure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of Native Americans in regulatory
decisions.
In 2002        Reregistration efforts delayed to focus on reviewing and testing pesticides against anthrax

              Performance Measures

Tolerance Reassessments

Cumulative percent of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions  72.7%
Completed.

Product Reregistration

Kids Top 20 Tolerance Reassessements

Number of inert ingredients tolerances reassessed

Reduction in  time  required to  issue  Reregistration
Eligibility Decisions.


Baseline:       The baseline value for tolerance reassessments is the 9,721 tolerances that must be reassessed by 2006 using FQPA health and safety standards. The
               baseline for REDS is the 612 REDs that must be completed by 2008.  The baseline for inerts tolerances is 870 that must be reassessed by 2006. The
               baseline for the top 20 foods eaten by children is 893 tolerances that must be reassessed by 2006. Reregistration decision time baseline 38-40 months.

Through 2005, the Agency completed reassessing 80 percent of 9,721 tolerances, 82 percent of 612 REDs.

Testing of Chemicals in Commerce for Endocrine Disrupters

In 2007        Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program will continue its progress toward completing the validation of endocrine test methods.

In 2006        Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program will continue its progress toward completing the validation of endocrine test methods.
FY 2002
Actuals
66.90

72.7%

314.00
65.60



FY 2003
Actuals
68

75%

306
65.6



FY 2004
Actuals
73%

77.6%

127.00
68.9%

28.00

FY 2005
Actuals
7,816
(80.4%)
82.3%
(504)
377.00
74.4%
(664)
168.00
3.5%
FY 2006
Enacted
100%

92.7%

400
100%

100
10%
FY 2007
Pres Bud


588
(96%)
320


100
12%


Tolerances(Cu
m)
Decisions
(Cum)
Actions
Tolerances(Cu
m)
tolerances
Reduction
                                                            Performance-71

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                        6-Year Performance Data
                                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

In 2005         Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program will continue its progress toward completing the validation of endocrine test methods.

In 2004         EPA did not meet its goal for standardization and validation of screening assays as described in FY 2004 and will begin tracking a more meaningful set
                of measures in FY 2006.

               Performance Measures

Detailed Review Papers Completed.

Prevalidation Studies Completed.

Validation Studies Completed.

Peer Reviews.

Cumulative number of screening assays that have  been
validated.


Baseline:        The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) requires EPA to use validated assays to screen chemicals for their potential to affect the endocrine
                system. The development and validation of assays is currently the principal effort in implementing the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP).
                The validation process consists of several discrete steps: Detailed Review Paper is the first stage of the overall validation process. It is a review of the
                scientific literature relevant to an assay and discusses  the scientific principles on which the assay  is based, reviews candidate protocols  and makes
                recommendations as to which  is most suitable as a starting point for assay refinement and validation. Prevalidation consists of studies to optimize and
                standardize the protocol and verify the ability of the protocol to accurately measure the endpoints of concern. Validation determines the transferability
                of the  protocol to other laboratories and determines inter-laboratory variability. Peer review is the review by an independent group of experts of the
                scientific work establishing the validity of the protocol.

Reduce Wildlife Incidents and Mortalities

In 2007         Reduce from  1995 levels the number of incidents involving mortalities to nontargeted terrestrial and aquatic wildlife caused by pesticides

In 2006         Reduce from  1995 levels the number of incidents involving mortalities to nontargeted terrestrial and aquatic wildlife caused by pesticides

In 2005         Reduced from 1995 levels the number of incidents involving mortalities to nontargeted terrestrial and aquatic wildlife caused by pesticides.
FY 2002
Actuals



FY2003 FY2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Actuals Enacted
18
58
80
10
11
FY 2007
Pres Bud
18
60
102
14
14
Papers
Pre-val
Studies
Valid. Studies
Peer Reviews
Assays
                                                              Performance-72

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
In 2004
The amount of data for wildlife incidents and mortalities was insufficient for analysis.
              Performance Measures
                                     FY 2002
                                     Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
Percent reduction  in  terrestrial  and aquatic  wildlife
mortality incidents involving pesticides
 FY 2005
 Actuals
Data lag
 FY 2006
 Enacted
14%
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud
20%
                                                                                                            % reduction
Baseline:       80 bird incidents involving 1150 estimated bird casualties and 65 fish incidents involving 632,000 estimated fish casualties were reported in 1995.

Exposure to Industrial / Commercial Chemicals

In 2007        Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial/commercial chemicals.

In 2006        Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial/commercial chemicals.

In 2005        Reduced exposure to and health effects from priority industrial / commercial chemicals.

In 2004        2930 participants joined hospitals for a healthy environment reducing mercury use and generation in hospital waste.

              Performance Measures

Safe Disposed of Transformers.

Safe Disposed of Capacitors .

Annual percentage of lead-based paint certification and
refund applications that require less than 40 days of EPA
effort to process.

Percent difference in the geometric mean blood level  in
low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the
geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5 years
old.

Number  of  cases of children  (aged  1-5  years) with                          Data lag     Data lag
FY 2002
Actuals



FY 2003 FY 2004
Actuals Actuals
7,015.00
1,457.00


FY 2005
Actuals
0.00
0.00
69%

FY 2006
Enacted
5,000
9,000
71%
29%
FY 2007
Pres Bud
0
0
72%
29%
Transformers
Capacitors
%
Certif/Refund
Percent
                                                                                    216,000
                                               199,000
                                               children
                                                            Performance-73

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

              Performance Measures                  FY2002    FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted     Pres Bud
elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl).



Baseline:        1999/2000 baseline released in January 2003: Approximately 400,000 cases of childhood lead poisoning cases according to NHANES data. In 2004 a
                larger data set will be included as we will be expanding to include more EPA Regional efforts that will include all federally administered and State
                administered programs. Introduced the "number of children aged 1-5 years" measure in FY2004. Since the baseline is 1999/2000 data we are unable to
                project targets for 2004  and 2005 due to the data-lag. The FY2003 data for a new baseline may not be available until 2005. The baseline for PCB
                transformers is estimated at 2.2 million units  and for capacitors is estimated at 1.85 million units as of 1988 as noted in the 1989 PCB Notification and
                Manifesting Rule. From 1991-2001 there was a declining trend in PCB disposal due to failing equipment and environmental liability: the total number
                of PCB large capacitors safely disposed of 436,485 and the total number of PCB transformers safely disposed of 172,672 as of 2002. Baseline  for
                Percent difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for non-low income
                children 1-5 years old is  1991-1994 at 37%.

Risks from Industrial / Commercial Chemicals

In 2007          Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial chemicals.

In 2006          Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial chemicals.

In 2005          Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial chemicals.

In 2004          98 High Production Volume chemicals with complete Screening Information Data Sets (SIDS) were submitted to the OECD SIDS Initial Assessment
                Meeting.

In 2004          EPA reviewed all 1,377  Pre-manufacturing Notices  reviewed during FY 2004, ensuring that those new chemicals marketed were safe for humans and
                the environment.

In 2003          Of the approximately 1,633 applications for new chemicals and microorganisms submitted by industry ensured those marketed are safe for humans and
                the environment.  Increased proportion of commercial chemicals that have undergone PMN  review to signify they are properly managed and may be
                potential green alternatives to existing chemicals.
                                                            Performance-74

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2002
                                       6-Year Performance Data
                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

EPA reviewed all 1,943 Pre-manufacturing Notices received during FY 2002. At the end of 2002, 21.5 percent of all chemicals in commerce had been
assessed for risks. A large fraction of these chemicals also may be "green" alternatives to existing chemicals in commerce.
              Performance Measures

Reduction  in  the  current year  production-adjusted
hazard-based score of releases and transfers of toxic
chemicals.

Cumulative number of chemicals with proposed, interim,
and/or final values for Acute Exposure  Guideline Levels
(AEGL).

Number  of chemicals or  organisms  introduced  into
commerce  that pose  unreasonable risks  to workers,
consumers, or the environment.

Percentage  of HPV  chemicals  identified as priority
concerns through assessment of  Screening Information
Data  Sets  (SIDS)  and  other information  with  risks
eliminated or effectively managed.

Cumulative number of chemicals for which VCCEP data
needs documents are issued by EPA  in  response to
Industry sponsored Tier 1 risk assessments.

Total EPA cost per chemical for which proposed AEGL
value sets are developed.

Annual number of pre-screened new chemical alternatives
generated through  industry's participation during the
earliest stages of research and development.
                                     FY 2002
                                     Actuals
                                    78
 FY 2003     FY 2004     FY 2005
 Actuals     Actuals     Actuals
            Data lag     Data lag
                         FY 2006     FY 2007
                         Enacted     Pres Bud
101
133
165
145
                                                                                    100%
163
                                                100%
                                                $34,160
                                                fr)Q/\
                                                (2/0)

                                                40
Index
Reduction


Total
Chemicals


Chemicals
                                                %   of  HPV
                                                Chemicals
                                                                                                            Cumulative
                                                                                                            Chemicals.
                                                                                                            Cost  (%  cost
                                                                                                            savings)
                                                                                                            Notices
Baseline:       The baseline for TSCA PMNs in FY2004 is zero. (EPA receives about 1,700 PMNs per year for chemicals about to enter commerce. From 1979-2002,
               EPA reviewed about 40,000 PMNs. Of the 78,000 chemicals potentially in commerce, 16,618 have gone through the risk-screening process of Notice of
               Commencement). The baseline for HPV measure is zero chemicals in 1998. The baseline for relative risk index for chronic human health associated
                                                           Performance-75

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                               FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                     6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

               with environmental releases of industrial chemicals in commerce the 2001 Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model index. The baseline for the
               AEGL program is derived from the sum of AEGL values (10 minute, 1 hour, 4 hour and 24 hour exposure periods) and the numbers of chemicals
               addressed.  Performance data are provided as percentages because the number of chemical on the highest priority list is subject to change in response to
               stakeholder needs.  In FY  2005, there are 236 highest priority chemicals.  These chemicals were identified by the AEGL FACA committee: 99
               chemicals are on List 1 that was generated at the program's inception in 1996 and 137 chemicals are on List 2 that was generated in 2001. The total EPA
               cost per chemical for which proposed AEGL value sets were developed  in 2006 was $34,857.  Measurement Development Plans exist for HPV,
               VCCEP, and New Chemicals.

Chemical Facility Risk Reduction

In 2007         Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility risk reduction  efforts and building community
               infrastructures.

In 2006         Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility risk reduction  efforts and building community
               infrastructures.

In 2005         EPA audited 885 risk management plans.

In 2004         EPA audited 730 risk management plans.

In 2003         EPA audited 300 risk management plans.

In 2002         Data not available.

              Performance Measures                 FY2002     FY2003    FY2004     FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                    Actuals      Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted     Pres Bud
Number of risk management plan audits completed.       Not         300         730.00      885.00      400         400         audits
                                                  Available

Baseline:        Baseline: Nearly 3,100 risk management plan audits were completed between FY 2000 and FY 2005.
                                                           Performance-76

-------
                                                Environmental Protection Agency

                               FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                     6-Year Performance Data
                                            Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

OBJECTIVE: COMMUNITIES

Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.

World Trade Organization - Regulatory System

In 2006         Assist key trade partner countries in assessing environmental effects of trade liberalization

In 2005         APG is on track.
Performance Measures

Number of environmental  reviews initiated by FTAA
countries  following the  enactment of the  2002 Trade
Promotion Act (TPA). (incremental)
Latin   American  countries  initiating  environmental
assessments of trade liberalization
FY 2002     FY 2003
Actuals      Actuals
FY2004     FY2005    FY 2006    FY 2007
Actuals      Actuals     Enacted     Pres Bud
            0.00        3
                                                                      countries
                                                                      countries
Baseline:        As of the end of FY 2003, two environmental reviews (Chile and Singapore) have been initiated since the enactment of the 2002 Trade Promotion Act.

Revitalize Properties

In 2007         Assess, clean up and promote the reuse of Brownfields properties, and leverage jobs and cleanup/redevelopment funding.

In 2006         Assess, clean up and promote the reuse of Brownfields properties, and leverage jobs and cleanup/redevelopment funding.

In 2005         Data will be available in 2006.

In 2004         2250 jobs were generated from Brownfields activities

In 2003         $ 1.49B in cleanup and redevelopment funds were leveraged through Brownfields revitalization efforts.
                                                          Performance-77

-------
In 2003

In 2002
In 2002
                                   Environmental Protection Agency
                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                                       6-Year Performance Data
                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                   (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
 By the end of FY 2003, the Brownfields program leveraged 5,023 jobs, achieving a 62% placement rate for Brownfields Job Training Program
 participants, and leveraged of $1.49 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
 $0.7 billion of cleanup and redevelopment was leveraged.
 2,091 jobs were generated from Brownfields activities.
Performance Measures
Brownfield properties assessed.
Properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed.
Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds   0.70
leveraged at Brownfields sites.
FY 2002
Actuals
3,807.00

2091

0.70
FY 2003
Actuals
1,052.00

5,023.00
62%
O.PO
FY 2004
Actuals
1,076.00
17.00
2,250.00
61%
0.70
FY 2005
Actuals
Data lag
Data lag
Data lag
Data lag
FY 2006
Enacted
1,000
60
5,000
65%
0.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
1,000
60
5,000
65%
0.9
assessments
properties
jobs
trainees placed
funds
Baseline:       By the end of FY 2004, the Brownfields program assessed 6,993 properties, leveraged 31,397 jobs, achieved a 61% placement rate for Brownfields job
               training program participants, and leveraged $7. IB in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
OBJECTIVE: ECOSYSTEMS

Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
Protecting and Enhancing Estuaries
In 2007         Working with NEP partners, protect or restore an additional 25,000 acres of habitat within the  study areas for the 28 estuaries that are part of the
               National Estuary Program (NEP).
In 2006         Working with NEP partners, protect or restore an additional 25,000 acres of habitat within the  study areas for the 28 estuaries that are part of the
               National Estuary Program (NEP).
                                                           Performance-78

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
In 2005        Working with NEP partners, EPA protected or restored an additional 25,000 acres of habitat within the study areas for the 28 estuaries that are part of
               the National Estuary Program (NEP).

In 2004        Restored and protected 107,000 acres of estuary habitat through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs).

In 2003        Restored and protected 118,171 acres of estuary habitat through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs).

In 2002        Restored and protected over 137,000  acres of estuary habitat through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
               (CCMPs).
              Performance Measures                  FY 2002
                                                     Actuals
Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide as part   137,710
of the National Estuary Program, (incremental)
Program dollars per acre of habitat protected or restored

Acres  protected  or  restored  in NEP  study  areas.
(incremental)
 FY2003     FY2004     FY 2005     FY 2006
 Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted
118,171      107,000.00   25,000.00    25,000
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud
25,000


505

75,000
Acres

Dollars

Acres
Baseline:       As of January 2000, there were over 600,000 acres of habitat preserved, restored, and/or created.

Gulf of Mexico

In 2007        Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2006        Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2005        Assisted the Gulf States to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone to 12,700 square kilometers.

In 2004        Assisted the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration actions in 71.2 impaired coastal river and estuary segments.

In 2003        Assisted the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration actions in 95 impaired coastal river and estuary segments.
                                                            Performance-79

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
In 2002         Assisted the Gulf States in implementing restoration actions by supporting the identification of place-based projects in 137 State priority coastal river
               and estuary segments.
Performance Measures                                FY 2002
                                                    Actuals
Impaired  Gulf coastal  river  and  estuary  segments  137
implementing watershed restoration actions (incremental).

Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so
that overall aquatic system health of coastal waters of the
Gulf of Mexico is improved
Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi
River Basin to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the
Gulf of Mexico, as  measured  by  the five year running
average
FY 2003
Actuals
95
FY 2004
Actuals
71.20
FY 2005
Actuals
Data lag
                         12,700.00
FY 2006
Enacted
                         Data lag     2.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
                                     2.4
                         14,128
                         14,128
                         Segments


                         5-point
                         National
                         Coastal
                         Condition
                         Index (1=
                         poor; 5=good)
                         sqkm
Baseline:       There are 95 coastal watersheds at the 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) scale on the Gulf coast.  The Gulf of Mexico Program has identified 12
               priority coastal areas for assistance.  These 12 areas include 30 of the 95 coastal watersheds.  Within the 30 priority watersheds, the Gulf States have
               identified 354 segments that are impaired and not meeting full designated uses under the States' water quality standards.  71 or 20% is the target
               proposed to reinforce Gulf State efforts to implement 5-year basin rotation schedules. The target of 71 is divided by 5 to achieve the goal for assistance
               provided in at least 14 impaired segments each year for the next 5 years.  The  1996-2000 running average size = 14,128 km2.  In 2002, the Gulf of
               Mexico rating of fair/poor was 1.9 where the rating is based on a 5-point system in which 1 is poor and 5  is good and is expressed  as an aerially
               weighted mean of regional scores using the National Coastal Condition Report indicators.

Great Lakes Implementation Actions

In 2007         Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.

In 2006         Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.
                                                             Performance-80

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

In 2005         Reduced by 5% average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples.

In 2004         The reduction  in the phosphorus concentration in Lake Erie was not met; the  problem continues to be studied in conjunction with the Canadian
               government.

In 2003         Phosphorus concentrations were exceeded.

In 2002         By removing or containing contaminated sediments,  100,000-200,000 pounds of persistent toxics which could adversely affect human health will no
               longer be biologically available through the food chain.  This contributes to decreasing fish contaminants and advances the goal of removing fish
               advisories

              Performance Measures

Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic  systems  so
that  overall  ecosystem health  of  the Great  Lakes  is
improved (cumulative)


Cubic yards  (in  millions)  of  contaminated  sediment
remediated in the Great Lakes, (cumulative from 1997)

Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term) in the Lake  Mixed
Erie Central Basin.
Average concentrations of PCBs in whole  lake trout and  Declining
walleye samples will decline.
Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the air in the  declining
Great Lakes basin will decline

Restore and delist Areas  of Concern (AOCs) within the
Great Lakes basin
FY 2002 FY 2003
Actuals Actuals







/fixed 18.40
)eclining Data lag

eclining Data lag


FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals Enacted
2 1.9 points




3.7 M
cubic yds
21.2ug/l 1 lug/1
10% 5% 5%

8.4% 5% 7%

0 3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
21




4.5 M


5%

7%

4


40 point Great
Lakes
Ecosystem
Scale (l=poor;
40=excellent)
Cubic yards/M

ug/1
Annual
Decrease
Annual
Decrease
AOC
Baseline:       In 2003, Great Lakes rating of 20 on a 40 point scale where the rating uses select Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators based on a 1 to 5
               rating system for each indicator, where 1 is poor and 5 is good. The trend (starting with 1972 data) for toxics in Great Lakes top predator fish is
               expected to be less than 2 parts per million (the FDA action level) but far above the Great Lakes Initiative target or levels at which fish advisories can
                                                            Performance-81

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

               be removed. The trend (starting with 1992 data) for PCB concentrations in the air is expected to range from 50 to 250 picograms per cubic meter. In
               2002, no Areas of Concern had been delisted. The 2.1 million yards of remediated sediments are the cumulative number of yards from 1997 to 2001.

Wetland and River Corridor Projects

In 2007         Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands.

In 2006         Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands.

In 2005         EPA is working with partners to achieve an increase of wetlands with additional focus on biological and functional measures.  Annually, in partnership
               with the Corps of Engineers and states, EPA is working to achieve no net loss of wetlands in the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program.

Performance Measures                                FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006    FY2007
                                                   Actuals      Actuals      Actuals      Actuals     Enacted     Pres Bud
Working with partners, achieve a net increase of wetlands                                       Data lag      100,000     100,000     Acres/year

Annually, in partnership with the Corps of Engineers and                                       Data lag     No Net      No Net      Acres
States, achieve no net loss of wetlands in the Clean Water                                                   Loss        Loss
Act Section 404 regulatory program


Baseline:       Annual net loss of an estimated 58,500 acres. In partnership with the Corps of Engineers, a baseline and initial reporting will begin in FY 2004 on net
               loss of wetlands in the CWA Section 404 regulatory programs.

Chesapeake Bay Habitat

In 2007         Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is improved enough so that there are
               100,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation,  (cumulative)

In 2007         Reduce nitrogen loads by 80 million pounds per year; phosphorus loads by 9.0 million pounds per year, and sediment loads by  1.16 million tons per
               year from entering the Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels.

In 2006         Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is improved enough so that there are
               90,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation, (cumulative)
                                                            Performance-82

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

In 2006         Reduce nitrogen loads by 74 million pounds per year; phosphorus loads by 8.7 million pounds per year, and sediment loads by 1.06 million tons per
               year from entering the Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels.

In 2005         Prevented water pollution and protected aquatic systems  so that overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay was improved enough so that there
               was 89,659 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation, (cumulative)

In 2005         EPA reduced nitrogen loads by 67 million pounds per year; phosphorus loads by 8.4 million pounds per year, and sediment loads by 0.92 million tons
               per year from entering the Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels.

In 2004         Due to record wet weather in 2003, massive amounts of nutrients and sediments were washed into the Chesapeake Bay, which resulted in a 30% decline
               in submerged aquatic vegetation in a single year.

In 2003         Improved habitat in the Chesapeake Bay.

In 2002         Meeting the annual performance goal to improve habitat in the Bay requires adherence to commitments made by the Chesapeake 2000 agreement
               partners and monumental  effort/resources from all levels  of government (local, state,  and a range of Federal agencies) and  from private
               organizations/citizens.

Performance Measures                                FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                   Actuals      Actuals      Actuals      Actuals      Enacted     Pres Bud
Reduction,  from  1985  levels,  of nitrogen (M/lbs),                                       67/8.4/0.92   74/8.7/1.06  80/9.0/1.16   Lbs/Lbs/Tons
phosphorus (M/lbs), and sediment loads  (tons) entering
Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative)

Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in  85,252       89,659       64,709.00    89,659      90,000      100,000     Acres
the Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative)


Baseline:       In 1984, there were 37,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay.  In 2002, baseline for nitrogen loads was 51 million pounds
               per year; phosphorus loads was 8.0 million pounds per year; and sediment loads was 0.8 million tons per year.
                                                            Performance-83

-------
                                                Environmental Protection Agency

                               FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                    6-Year Performance Data
                                            Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of people, communities,
and ecosystems by conducting leading-edge research and developing  a better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes
under Goal 4.

Research

Research on Commercial Chemicals and Microorganism

In 2007         Reduction of uncertainty in characterizing the impacts of biotechnology (genetically modified crops) on ecosystems.

Performance Measures                               FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006    FY2007
                                                 Actuals      Actuals      Actuals      Actuals      Enacted     Pres Bud
Improved risk assessment tools and characterization of                                                           6           reports
ecological risks of genetically modified crops.



Baseline:        EPA has developed performance indicators that monitor research activities and outputs.  The targets referenced for biotechnology research include
               products that  contribute to reducing scientific uncertainty  such as reports on  the development of tools and their applications in assessments to
               characterize the impacts of genetically modified crops on ecosystems.

Global Change Research - Human Health and Ecosyste

In 2007         A preliminary evaluation of the direct effects of climate change on regional air quality for input to the Climate Change Science Program's Synthesis and
               Assessment Products.

Performance Measures                               FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006    FY2007
                                                 Actuals      Actuals      Actuals      Actuals      Enacted     Pres Bud
Conduct numerical air quality simulations using as input                                                           1           evaluation
regional  climate modeling,  emissions  modeling, and
driver scenarios.


                                                         Performance-84

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

Baseline:        This goal represents an important new contribution because it focuses on the effects of climate change on air quality, rather than the effects of air quality
               on climate change. This represents a unique contribution by EPA, as a member agency in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). This work
               is important due to  its potentially significant implications for the ability of states and cities to meet EPA's air quality standards. Also, the results of this
               work are supporting the production of CCSP Synthesis & Assessment (S&A) Reports, due to be  completed in December 2007. For this reason,
               communication and dissemination of the  results of this work will be closely coordinated with the CCSP.  This  effort responds to President Bush's
               direction that climate change research activities be accelerated to provide the best possible scientific information to support public  discussion and
               decision making on climate-related issues.

Estuarine Ecosystem Conditions

In 2007        30 states having estuarine resources use  a common monitoring design and  appropriate indicators to determine  the status and trends of ecological
               resources and the effectiveness of programs and policies.

              Performance Measures                   FY2002     FY2003    FY2004     FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                      Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
Number of states using a common monitoring design and                                                                30          States
appropriate  indicators to  determine the status and trends
of ecological resources and the effectiveness of national
programs and policies.


Baseline:        ORD has developed a standard protocol for monitoring the ecological condition of estuaries; including, probabilistic sampling designs, response designs
               for indicators, laboratory analyses, statistical analyses and reporting formats. By 2007, ORD is targeting that 30 states having estuarine resources used a
               common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to determine the status  and trends of ecological resources and the effectiveness of programs and
               policies. In 2005, 22 states used a common monitoring design.

Human Health Risk Assessment Research

In 2007        Complete  16 human health assessments of high priority chemicals for interagency or external peer review so that EPA program offices and regions,
               states and local risk assessors have state-of-the-science health hazard assessment information on priority substances

In 2007        Complete the Air Quality  Criteria Document (AQCD) for Lead in support of the EPA/OAQPS review and promulgation of the National Ambient Air
               Quality Standard (NAAQS).
                                                             Performance-85

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

In 2006        By 2006, deliver at least 20 dose-response assessments, provisional values, or pathogen risk assessments so that by 2010, at least 100 assessments have
               been made available through the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database and other communications to EPA program offices, regions, states
               and Tribes providing the necessary information to predict risk and make risk management decisions that protect public health.

              Performance Measures                 FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005    FY2006     FY2007
                                                      Actuals     Actuals     Actuals      Actuals    Enacted    Pres Bud
Completed   dose-response   assessments,   provisional                                                   20                       Assessments
values, or pathogen risk assessments

Complete 16 human health assessments of high priority                                                                16          assessments
chemicals  for interagency or  external  peer  review,
including acrylonitrile,  methanol,  methylene, chloride,
trichloroethylene, and dioxin.

Final AQCD for Lead which serves as  the basis for the                                                                1            AQCD
EPA/OAQPS  staff paper for the National  Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS)


Baseline:       The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is an electronic data base used in risk assessments, decision-making, and regulatory activities.  EPA
               produces many of its major health assessments under the auspices of IRIS, the primary EPA database containing the Agency's scientific positions on
               human health effects that might result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. Through the IRIS Program, ORD administers an
               Agency-wide process of chemical nomination, assessment, consensus building, and peer review through which assessments on IRIS are produced and
               updated. The schedule of IRIS products for FYs 2006 and 2007 represent the highest program priorities.

               National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) are required by the Clean Air Act to protect against health and welfare (environmental) effects of
               ambient concentrations of widespread major air pollutants (paniculate matter, ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and lead). The
               NAAQS and its scientific bases  ("criteria") must periodically be reviewed and revised as appropriate. The last Lead NAAQS review was 1990. Criteria
               for review of the Lead NAAQS are developed in the Lead Air Quality Criteria Document (AQCD) which covers chemical and physical properties,
               sources and emissions, environmental concentrations, human exposure, toxicology, epidemiology, and environmental effects.The Lead AQCD will be
               used by the Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards to develop a Staff Paper risk assessment.

Research on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals

In 2007        By 2007,  develop improved protocols for screening and testing for the Agency's Endocrine Disrupters Screening Program and reduce scientific
               uncertainty on effects, exposure, and risk management issues


                                                             Performance-86

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                        6-Year Performance Data
                                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
In 2006         By 2006, develop and transfer standardized protocols for screening chemicals for their potential effects on the endocrine system, so that EPA's Office of
                Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances has the necessary protocols to validate for use in the Agency's Endocrine Disrupters Screening Program,
                mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act, as determined by independent expert review.
               Performance Measures

Report on a protocol to screen environmental chemicals
for their ability to interact with the male hormone receptor

Improved protocols for screening and testing

Effects and exposure milestones met

Assessment milestones met

Risk management milestones met
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
FY 2006
Enacted
                                                1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
                                                             6

                                                             4

                                                             0

                                                             3
                                                             Report


                                                             Reports

                                                             Reports

                                                             Reports

                                                             Reports
Baseline:        The Endocrine Disrupters program provides EPA with the scientific information necessary for the Agency to reduce or prevent potential unreasonable
                risks to human health and wildlife from exposures to chemicals that adversely affect the  endocrine system, called endocrine  disrupting chemicals
                (EDCs).   In 1998, the Endocrine Disrupters Screening and Testing Advisory Committee, a FACA convened by EPA to provide  advice on the
                development and implementation of a screening program, identified a few assays to use as starting points. However, as they affirmed, no assays were
                considered to be "validated" at the time. EPA's endocrine disrupter research program refined these assays and developed new ones when the starting
                point assays were found to be unreliable or inadequate. Between FY 2000 and FY 2006, EPA will have completed 22 milestones associated with this
                APG, including reducing scientific uncertainty regarding the mechanisms by which chemicals interfere with the endocrine system, developing reports
                on a variety of screening  assays in  different animal species (e.g., fish, frogs, rats), and transferring protocols that  have been standardized in our
                laboratories and accompanying background documentation to OPPTS.  OPPTS will have the protocols validated by an external peer review panel and
                will implement a screening program using them.  The data that will be developed from the application of the validated protocols will enable the Agency
                to conduct risk assessments from which decisions can be made that will reduce or prevent unreasonable risks to humans and wildlife from exposure to
                endocrine disrupters.

                Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs' relevance, quality, and
                successful performance to date, and will determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research.
                                                             Performance-87

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
Homeland Security Research

In 2007
In 2006
Enhance public health and safety and mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical, biological, or radiological materials
into the environment.

Provide methods, guidance documents, technologies and tools to first responders and decision-makers to enhance safety and to mitigate adverse effects
of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical or biological materials into the environment.
              Performance Measures

Comprehensive guidance document for building owners
and managers on restoration  of buildings after terrorist
contamination with biological or chemical hazards

Guidance document for emergency and remedial response
personnel and water utility operators for the restoration of
water systems after terrorist contamination with biological
or chemical hazards

Comprehensive   guidance   package  including   data,
methodologies, and other risk assessment tools that will
assist emergency responders in establishing remediation
goals at incident sites

Provide guidance  documents  to  support efficient and
effective   outdoor  clean-ups  and   safe  disposal  of
decontamination wastes.

Develop  emergency/laboratory  capacity documents  to
improve the standardization of methods and/or safety of
personnel involved with the collection of environmental
samples during a significant event.

Test and evaluate homeland security-related technologies,
producing technology evaluation reports.
                                      FY 2002
                                      Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
FY 2006
Enacted
                                                                                      1
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud
            Guidance



            Guidance




            Guidance




3           products


3           protocols
                                                                                                  13
                                                            reports
                                                            Performance-88

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
              Performance Measures

Provide products to enhance security of water  systems
through early detection and prepare for a terrorist attack
on  water  system  for  treatment of the  water  and
decontamination of the infrastructure.

Evaluate relevant health and risk-related data to support
risk assessors in the rapid assessment of risk.
 FY 2002
 Actuals
 FY 2003
 Actuals
 FY 2004
 Actuals
 FY 2005
 Actuals
 FY 2006
 Enacted
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud
                                                              40
                                                                          reports
                                                              advisory levels
Baseline:       The goal of the National Homeland Security Research Center is to provide appropriate and effective threat and consequence assessment guidance and
               technologies to help decision-makers prepare for and respond to attacks involving chemical, biological and radiological contaminants. This goal
               encompasses improving ways to detect and contain contaminants, and providing improved methods to decontaminate buildings, water infrastructure
               systems and outdoor environments.  The Center is also committed to  providing emergency response support, expanded laboratory capacity and
               capabilities, and evaluations of homeland security-related technologies. The Center was created in recognition of terrorists threats to the United States
               and its citizens and the need to improve the nation's domestic preparedness and response to intentional attacks.

Computational Toxicology

In 2007        Initiation of a research program (ToxCast) to categorize the potential hazard of chemicals using modern tools of computational toxicology.
Performance Measures

Identification  and evaluation of in silico  and molecular
indicators that can be used to validate the predictiveness
of high through put tools for categorizing potential for
toxicity
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
FY 2006
Enacted
FY 2007
Pres Bud
1
                                                                          method
Baseline:       Despite pressing needs of a number of EPA Program Offices, there is no scientifically acceptable method for efficiently and effectively prioritizing
               broad lists of chemicals (e.g., endocrine disrupting chemicals, high production volume chemicals) for lexicological testing. This research program will
               create the foundation for such a method.
                                                             Performance-89

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
Human Health Research
In 2007
Increased use of human health research products
Performance Measures

Percentage of planned outputs delivered in  support of
public health outcomes long-term goal.

Percentage of planned outputs delivered in  support of
mechanistic data long-term goal.

Percentage of planned outputs delivered in  support of
aggregate and cumulative risk long-term goal.

Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the
susceptible subpopulations long-term goal.

Average  time  (in  days)  to  process research  grant
proposals from RFA closure to submittal to EPA's GAD,
while maintaining a credible  and efficient competitive
merit review system
                                    FY 2002
                                    Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
FY 2006
Enacted
FY 2007
Pres Bud
100         Percent
                                                                                               100


                                                                                               100


                                                                                               100


                                                                                               292
                                                           Percent


                                                           Percent


                                                           Percent


                                                           Average Days
Baseline:       To assess progress toward the goal of increased use of human health research products, ORD will measure the percentage of planned outputs delivered
               on time for each long-term goal. As an efficiency measure, the program will also track the average time to process research grants proposals.
                                                           Performance-90

-------
                                                     Environmental Protection Agency

                                     FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                         6-Year Performance Data
                                                 Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                      (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

                                   GOAL: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

Improve environmental performance through compliance with environmental requirements, preventing pollution, and promoting environmental
stewardship.  Protect human health and the environment by encouraging innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the
public that promote environmental stewardship.

       OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE

       By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through  compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and
       enforcement by achieving a 5 percent increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5 percent increase in
       the number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices.

       Non-Compliance Reduction

       In 2007        Through monitoring and enforcement  actions, EPA will increase complying actions, pollutant reduction or treatment, and improve environmental
                     management practices.

       In 2006        Through monitoring and enforcement  actions, EPA will increase complying actions, pollutant reduction or treatment, and improve environmental
                     management practices.

       In 2005        Through monitoring and enforcement actions, EPA increased  complying actions, pollutant reduction or treatment, and  improved environmental
                     management practices (EMP), reducing 1.1 billion pounds of pollutants inFY 2005.

       In 2004        Enforcement actions taken in 2004 required defendants to reduce, treat, or eliminate 1 billion pounds of illegal emissions and discharges, and establish
                     improved EMPs that will help detect and prevent potential future non-compliance; the 21,000 inspections, 425 criminal investigations, and 455 civil
                     investigations conducted maintain an effective deterrent to violations of federal environmental laws.

       In 2003        EPA directed enforcement actions to maximize compliance and address environmental and human health problems.

       In 2002        Based upon one measure, this APG was not met.
                                                              Performance-91

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
              Performance Measures                  FY 2002
                                                      Actuals
Millions of pounds of pollutants required to be reduced  261
through enforcement actions settled this fiscal year, (core
optional)

Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or
eliminated as a result of concluded enforcement actions.
(civil enf)

Percentage of concluded  enforcement cases (including
SEPs)  requiring  that pollution  be reduced, treated, or
eliminated.

Percentage of concluded enforcement cases  including
SEPs    requiring    implementation    of   improved
environmental management practices.

Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions
as  a   result  of on-site  compliance  inspections  and
evaluations.

Dollars invested in improved environmental performance
or improved environmental management practices as a
result of concluded enforcement actions  (i.e., injunctive
relief and SEPs)
FY 2003
Actuals
600

FY 2004
Actuals
1,000

FY 2005
Actuals


FY 2006
Enacted


FY 2007
Pres Bud




Million
pounds
                                     1,100
                                     28.8
                                     72.5
                                     19
                                     450
                                     30
                                     65
                                     25
                                     $10 Billion   $4.1
                                                 Billion
                                     500
                                     30
                                     70
                                     30
                                                 $4.2
                                                 Billion
Percent of concluded enforcement actions that require an
action  that  results  in environmental  benefits  and/or
changes in facility management or information practices.
77
63
83
Million pounds



Percentage



Percentage



Percentage



Dollars




Percent
Baseline:       The FY2005 baseline for the number of facilities taking complying actions to address deficiencies identified during on-site compliance inspections and
               evaluations is 947 facilities that took complying actions.  The 2008 strategic target is a 5% increase in complying actions taken during inspections
               compared to the FY2005 baseline of 947 facilities. The FY2005 baseline for the percent of enforcement actions requiring that pollutants be reduced,
               treated, or eliminated is 28.8%. The strategic target is a 5% increase in the percent of enforcement actions requiring that pollutants be reduced, treated,
                                                             Performance-92

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                        6-Year Performance Data
                                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

                or eliminated by FY 2008 based on the FY2005 baseline.  The FY2005 baseline for the percent of enforcement actions requiring improvement of EMPs
                is 72.5%.  The FY2005 baseline for the increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated is 620 million pounds.  The baseline for the
                number of regulated entities making improvements in EMPs is 5,220 regulated entities.   The strategic target is a 5% increase in the percent of
                enforcement actions requiring improvement in environmental management practices by FY2008.

Compliance Incentives

In 2007         Identify and correct noncompliance and reduce environmental risks through an increase in the percent of facilities that use EPA incentive policies to
                conduct environmental audits or other actions that reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution or improve environmental management practices.

In 2006         Through serf-disclosure policies, EPA will increase the percentage of audits or other actions reducing pollutants or improving BMP.

In 2005         Through self-disclosure  policies,  EPA increased the  percentage of audits or other actions reducing  1.9 million pounds of pollutants & improved
                environmental management practices.

In 2004         In FY2004, over 900 facilities voluntarily self-disclosed  and  corrected violations for reduced or eliminated penalties. The incentives  programs have
                helped return  thousands of facilities  to  compliance, furthering environmental  stewardship through  the provision of  information,  incentives and
                innovation approaches to reduce or eliminate pollution.

In 2003         Increased opportunities through new targeted sector initiatives for industries to voluntarily self-disclose and correct violations on a corporate-wide basis.

In 2002         The number of facilities that participated in voluntary serf-audit programs, disclosed and corrected violations greatly exceeded the target.

               Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005      FY2006     FY2007
                                                      Actuals      Actuals      Actuals     Actuals      Enacted    Pres Bud
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated, as a                                       1.9 million    0.4 million   0.4 million   Pounds
result of audit agreements.

Facilities  voluntarily self-disclose and correct violations  1,467        848          969                                               Facilities
with reduced or no penalty as a result of EPA self-
disclosure policies.
                                                             Performance-93

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

Baseline:       The FY2005 baseline for the number of facilities that use EPA incentive policies to conduct environmental audits or other actions that reduce, treat, or
               eliminate pollution or improve EMPs is 1,095  regulated entities. The strategic target by FY2008 is a 5% increase in the percent of facilities that use
               EPA incentive policies to conduct environmental audits or other actions that reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution or improve environmental management
               practices. The baseline for the pounds of pollutants reduced, treated or eliminated as a result of audits or other actions and for the dollars invested in
               improved environmental performance or improved EMPs will be developed in FY2006.

Regulated Communities

In 2007        Prevent noncompliance or reduce environmental risks through EPA compliance assistance by achieving: an increase in the percent of regulated entities
               that improve their understanding of  environmental requirements; an increase  in  the number of regulated entities that improve environmental
               management practices; and an increase in the percentage of regulated entities that reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution.

In 2006        Through compliance assistance, EPA will increase the understanding of regulated entities, improve Environmental Management Practices, and reduce
               pollutants.

In 2005        Through compliance assistance, EPA increased the understanding of regulated entities,  improved Environmental Management Practices, and reduced
               pollutants. Seventy-eight percent of the Compliance Assistance Centers' survey respondents  from the regulated community improved environmental
               management practices as a result of information provided by the Centers.

In 2004        In FY 2004, EPA provided compliance assistance to 731,000 entities. Providing compliance assistance to businesses, local governments, and federal
               facilities, improved understanding of regulations, promoted best management practices and reduced pollution while saving regulated entities money.

In 2003        Increased the regulated community's compliance with environmental requirements through their expanded use of compliance assistance.  The Agency
               continued to support small business compliance assistance centers and developed compliance assistance tools such as sector notebooks and compliance
               guides.

              Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006      FY2007
                                                      Actuals     Actuals     Actuals      Actuals     Enacted     Pres Bud
Percentage   of  regulated  entities  receiving  direct                                       72           50          50           Percentage
compliance assistance from  EPA  reporting  that they
improved BMP as a result of EPA assistance.

Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct assistance                                        13           15          15           Percentage
from  EPA  reporting  that  they  reduced, treated,  or



                                                             Performance-94

-------
                                               Environmental Protection Agency

                              FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                    6-Year Performance Data
                                           Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

             Performance Measures                 FY2002     FY2003    FY2004    FY2005    FY2006     FY2007
                                                  Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA assistance.


Baseline:       The FY 2005 baseline for the percent of regulated entities that improve their understanding of environmental requirements is 80%. The strategic target
              is a 5% increase in the number of regulated entities that increase their understanding of environmental requirements by FY2008. The FY2005 baseline
              for the percent increase in the number of regulated  entities that improve environmental management practices is 1,602 entities. The strategic target for
              increasing environmental management practices through compliance assistance is a 5% increase (1,682 regulated entities) by FY 2008. The FY2005
              baseline for the percent of regulated entities that reduce,  treat, or eliminate pollution as a result of EPA compliance assistance is 10%. The strategic
              target for increasing the percentage of compliance assistance recipients that reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution is 5% by FY2008.


OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH POLLUTION PREVENTION AND INNOVATION

By 2008, improve environmental protection and enhance natural resource conservation on the part of government, business, and the public
through the adoption of pollution prevention  and sustainable practices that include the  design of products and manufacturing processes that
generate less pollution, the reduction of regulatory barriers, and the adoption of results-based, innovative, and multimedia approaches.

Reducing PBTs in Hazardous Waste Streams

In 2007        Reduce pollution in business operations.

In 2006        Reduce pollution in business operations.

             Performance Measures                 FY2002     FY2003    FY2004    FY2005    FY2006     FY2007
                                                  Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
Number of pounds reduced (in millions) in generation of                                                1.2 million  0.6 million   Pounds
priority list chemicals from 2001 baseline of 84 million
pounds.
                                                         Performance-95

-------
Baseline:
                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                        6-Year Performance Data
                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                   (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

In FY 2001, the baseline of priority chemicals in waste streams was initially established at 88 million pounds; however, the baseline changes from year
to year as industrial  facilities correct past reporting errors. This necessitates adjustments to annual targets. The FY 2008 goal is a reduction of 8.4
million pounds (10%). This is a two-year lag reporting actual reductions.
Innovation Activities

In 2007         Performance Track facilities collectively will meet 4 of the 6 annual performance improvement targets for 3.7 billion gallons of water use, 16.3 million
               MMBTUs of energy use, 1,050 tons materials use, 460,000 tons of non-hazardous solid waste, 66,000 tons of air releases, and 12,400 tons of discharges
               to water.

In 2006         Performance Track members collectively will meet targets for annual performance improvement targets for water use, energy use, materials use, non-
               hazardous solid waste, air releases, and discharges to water.

In 2005         In FY 2005, Performance Track members collectively reduced water use by 528 million gallons, increased energy  use by 22 million MMBTUs,
               increased solid waste by 22,000 tons, reduced air releases by 7,700 tons, reduced water discharges by 7,700 tons, and increased materials use by
               125,000 tons.

              Performance Measures

Specific annual reductions  in six media/resource areas:
water use, energy use, solid waste,  air releases, water
discharges, & materials use.

Reduce  3.7  billion gallons  of  water use; 16.3  million
MMBTUs of energy  use; 1,050 tons of materials use;
460,000 tons of solid waste; 66,000 tons of air releases; &
12,400 tons of water discharges.

Reduce  3.5  billion gallons  of  water use; 15.5  million
MMBTUs of energy  use; 1,000 tons of materials use;
440,000 tons of solid waste; 66,000 tons of air releases; &
12,400 tons of water discharges.
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
1
FY 2006
Enacted
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Media
Reductions
                                                                                                               Media
                                                                                                               Reductions
                                                                                                               Media
                                                                                                               Reductions
                                                             Performance-96

-------
Baseline:
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                       6-Year Performance Data
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                  (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

               Annual performance goals are based on the collective normalized (production adjusted) improvements achieved by Performance Track members in FY
               2004 in 6 media areas.  The FY 2004 improvements, normalized to FY 2003  economic  activity levels were a reduction of 3,387,333,545 gallons of
               water use; a reduction of 14,809,395 MMBTUs of energy use; an increase of 1,752 tons of materials use; a reduction of 418,421 tons of non-hazardous
               solid waste; a reduction of 63,123 tons of air releases and a reduction of 12,109 tons of water discharges.

Reduction of Industrial /Commercial Chemicals

In 2007         Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and municipal solid wastes.

In 2006         Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and improve environmental stewardship practices.

In 2005         FY 2005 data will be available in FY 2007.

In 2004         FY 2004 data will be available in FY 2006 to verify whether the quantity of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) pollutants released, disposed of, treated or
               combusted for energy recovery in 2004, (normalized for changes in industrial production) was reduced by 200 million pounds, or 2%, from 2002.

In 2003         The quantity of TRI pollutants  released,  disposed of, treated or combusted for energy  recovery in 2003 decreased by 622  million pounds of TRI
               pollutants.

In 2002         The quantity of TRI pollutants released, disposed of, treated or combusted for energy recovery in 2002, (normalized for changes in industrial
               production) increased by 366 million pounds of TRI pollutants, or 2%, from 2002.

              Performance Measures

Reduction of TRI non-recycled waste (normalized)

Quantity  of  hazardous  chemicals/solvents   eliminated
through the Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program

Percent reduction in both Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
chemical  releases to the environment from the business
sector per unit of production ("Clean Index")

Percent reduction in TRI chemicals in production-related
wastes generated by  the business  sector per unit  of
FY 2002
Actuals
366 M Lbs




FY 2003
Actuals
622 M




FY 2004
Actuals
Data Avail.
FY 2006
460


FY 2005
Actuals



Data Avail.
FY 2007
FY 2006
Enacted



28%

FY 2007
Pres Bud



28%



Pounds

Pounds
Releases
(Cum)
                                                                                        Data Avail.   14%         14.5%       Waste (Cum)
                                                                                         FY 2007
                                                            Performance-97

-------
                                                Environmental Protection Agency

                               FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                    6-Year Performance Data
                                            Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
              Performance Measures

production ("Green Index").

Reduction in overall pounds of pollution.

Millions of dollars saved through reductions in pollution.

Annual cumulative quantity of water conserved.


Billions of BTUs of energy conserved.

Annual cumulative quantity of water conserved.

Cumulative  conservation of millions of BTUs of energy
and gallons of water.

Cumulative reduction of hazardous chemical releases to
the environment and hazardous chemicals in industrial
waste, in millions of pounds.
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
FY 2006
Enacted
                                  Data Avail.  42 Billion
                                   FY 2006
                                  Data Avail.  $170
                                   FY 2006   Million
                                  Data Avail.  1.5 Billion
                                   FY 2006

                                  Data Avail.  175 Billion
                                   FY 2006
                                             Data Avail.
                                              FY 2007
                                             Data Avail.
                                              FY 2007
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud


40.8
Billion
$175
Million
1.6 Billion
                                             176 Billion

                                             600
                                             Million
                                             25/600


                                             820
                                             Million
                                             Pounds (Cum)

                                             Dollars (Cum)

                                             Gallons


                                             BTUs (Cum)

                                             Gallons

                                             BTUs/Gallons
                                             (in millions)

                                             Pounds
Baseline:        The baseline for TRI non-recycled wastes is 622M pounds based on 2003 TRI data reported in FY2005.  The 2003 baseline for cumulative reduction of
               industrial hazardous chemical releases to the environment and hazardous chemicals in industrial wastes is 326 million pounds.  The FY 2005 baseline
               for conservation of BTUs is 15 billion BTUs.  The FY 2002 baseline for gallons of water is 330 million gallons. The 2005 baseline for money saved is
               $2.9 million. The 2003 baseline for the Clean Index is 8.1% of releases and the FY 2003 baseline for the Green Index is 7.5% of waste.

OBJECTIVE: BUILD TRIBAL CAPACITY

Through  2008, assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing  the condition of their environment, help in building  their capacity to
implement environmental programs where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and implement programs in Indian country
where needed to address environmental issues.
                                                         Performance-98

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      6-Year Performance Data
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)

Build Tribal Capacity

In 2007        Assist federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment, help in building their capacity to implement environmental programs
               where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and implement programs in Indian country where needed to address environmental issues.

In 2006        Assist federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment, help in building their capacity to implement environmental programs
               where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and implement programs in Indian country where needed to address environmental issues.

In 2005        EPA assisted Federally recognized tribes with assessing the  condition of their environment, helped build their capacity to implement environmental
               programs where  needed  to  improve  tribal health  and  environments,  and implemented programs in Indian  Country where  needed  to  address
               environmental issues.

In 2004        86% of Tribes have an environmental presence (e.g. one or more persons to assist in building Tribal capacity to develop and implement environmental
               programs).

In 2003        In 2003, AIEO evaluated non-Federal sources of environmental data pertaining to conditions in Indian Country to enrich the Tribal Baseline Assessment
               Project.

In 2002        A cumulative total of 331 environmental assessments have been completed.
              Performance Measures

Percent  of Tribes  with  EPA-approved  multimedia
workplans (cumulative).

Percent of Tribes  with  delegated  and non-delegated
programs (cumulative).

Percent of Tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and
assessment occurring (cumulative).

Number  of environmental programs  implemented in
Indian Country per million dollars.
FY 2002     FY 2003     FY 2004
Actuals     Actuals     Actuals
                       26


                       28


                       44
 FY 2005
 Actuals
33


47


29


12.3
 FY 2006     FY 2007
 Enacted     Pres Bud
39          42          % Tribes
48
30
                                               12.4
49
31
            12.5
% Tribes
% Tribes
            Programs
                                                            Performance-99

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                               FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                     6-Year Performance Data
                                            Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                                 (Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)


Baseline:        There are 572 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP program funding. The FY 2005 baseline for the percent of tribes with EPA-approved multimedia
               workplans is 33% of tribes. The FY 2005 baseline for the percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs is 47% of tribes. The FY 2005
               baseline for the percent of tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and assessment occurring is 29% of tribes.  The FY 2005 baseline for the number of
               environmental programs implemented in Indian Country per million dollars is 12.3 programs.

OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

Through  2008, strengthen the scientific  evidence and research supporting  environmental policies and decisions on compliance,  pollution
prevention, and environmental stewardship.

Research

Pollution Prevention Tools and Methodologies

In 2007         Ten percent increase in Pollution Prevention/Sustainability program publications rated as highly cited papers


              Performance Measures                 FY2002    FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006    FY2007
                                                    Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
Percentage of Pollution Prevention/Sustainability program                                                             44.2        %
publications rated as highly cited papers  (top 1%) in
researchjournals.



Baseline:        Bibliometric analysis will be used to assess the impact of peer-reviewed publications. Recent results from a bibliometric analysis completed for the
               P2/Sustainability  research program will be used as the baseline for assessing impact in the scientific community.  In 2005, 34.2% of P2 papers qualified
               as highly cited. The P2/Sustainability research program proposes to quantify citation rate increases for the program's top publications.
                                                          Performance-100

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                               FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                    Enabling/Support Programs
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures

                          NPM: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Energy Consumption Reduction

In 2007         As required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPA will achieve a 4% reduction in energy consumption from the Agency's 2003 baseline.

In 2006         As required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPA will achieve a 2% reduction in energy consumption from the Agency's 2003 baseline.

              Performance Measures

Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption.
FY 2002
Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
FY 2006
Enacted
 FY 2007
 Pres Bud
4           Percent
Baseline:        For the Agency's 29 reporting facilities, the 2003 energy consumption of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot is 341,123 BTUs per square
               foot.

Human Capital

In 2007         EPA  will develop workforce planning strategies that link current and future Human Capital needs to mission accomplishments which will result in
               significant reductions in skill gaps for Mission Critical Occupations.  In addition, EPA's recruitment strategy will focus on hiring needs that will
               encourage the use of hiring flexibilities, build on centralized and local recruitment approaches, and focus on attracting applicants who are talented,
               diverse, and committed to EPA's mission.
              Performance Measures

Percent  to  which competency/skill  gaps  are  reduced
(beginner   to   intermediate)   in   Mission   Critical
Occupations.

Percent  to  which competency/skill  gaps  are  reduced
(intermediate to expert) in Mission Critical Occupations.

Number  of  new   hires  recruited  through  EPA's
Environmental  Intern  Program  in  Mission  Critical
Occupations.
FY2002     FY2003     FY2004     FY2005     FY2006    FY2007
Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
                                                          25          Percent
                                                           15
                                                           100
                                                          Percent
                                                          Percent
                                                          Performance-101

-------
                                              Environmental Protection Agency

                             FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                Enabling/Support Programs
                                          Annual Performance Goals and Measures

             Performance Measures                FY2002    FY2003    FY2004    FY2005    FY2006     FY2007
                                                Actuals    Actuals    Actuals     Actuals    Enacted    Pres Bud
Average  time  to  hire non-SES positions  from  date                                                          45          Days
vacancy closes to  date offer is extended, expressed in
working days.

For SES positions, the average time from date vacancy                                                          90          Days
closes to date offer is extended, expressed in working
days.


Baseline:       Baseline will be established by FY 2007.
                                                      Performance-102

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                    Enabling/Support Programs
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures

                                    NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Information Exchange Network

In 2007         Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-making through the Central Data Exchange
               (CDX).

In 2006         Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-making through the Central Data Exchange
               (CDX).

In 2005         Progress in developing the Central Exchange Network continues.

In 2004         Significant progress has been made in developing the Exchange Network over the past three years.  The numbers of Exchange Network nodes and data
               flows have increased making it possible to exchange and integrate large volumes of environmental data to enhance environmental decision-making. A
               key component to the Network is EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) and its ability to facilitate data exchange and information sharing. As a result,
               EPA has experienced a tremendous growth in users of CDX and the Network.

In 2003         Continued to improve data access to ensure that decision makers have  access to the environmental data that EPA collects and manages to make sound
               environmental decisions while minimizing the reporting burden on data providers.

In 2002         The Central Data Exchange (CDX), a key component of the environmental information exchange network, became fully operational and 45 states are
               using it to send data to EPA; thereby improving data consistency with participating states.
              Performance Measures                 FY 2002
                                                    Actuals
States using the Central Data Exchange (CDX) to send  45
data to EPA.

Number of major EPA environmental systems that use the
CDX  electronic  requirements  enabling  faster receipt,
processing, and quality checking of data.

States will be able to exchange data with CDX through
state  nodes in  real  time, using new web-based data
standards that allow for automated data-quality checking.

Number of users from  states, tribes, laboratories, and
 FY 2003
 Actuals
49
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
                        22
                        40
                        45,000
FY 2006
Enacted
                       29
                       50
                       47,000
FY 2007
Pres Bud
                       36
                       55000
                       States


                       Systems



                       States



                       Users
                                                           Performance-103

-------
                                                 Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                    Enabling/Support Programs
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
              Performance Measures

others that  choose  CDX to report environmental data
electronically to EPA.
Percent of customer help desk calls resolved in a timely
manner.

In preparation for increasing the exchange of information
through CDX, implement four data standards in 13 major
systems and develop four additional standards in 2003.

Number of private sector and local government entities,
such as  water  authorities,  will use CDX to  exchange
environmental data with EPA.

CDX offers online data exchange for all major national
systems by the end of FY 2004.

Number of states using CDX as the means by which they
routinely exchange environmental data with two or more
EPA media programs or Regions.
                                                    FY 2002
                                                    Actuals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Actuals
FY 2005
Actuals
                                                                                       96
FY 2006
Enacted
                                   96
FY 2007
Pres Bud
                                   96
                                                                           7,050



                                                                              13


                                                                              49
                                   Percent


                                   Data Standards



                                   Entities



                                   Systems


                                   States
Baseline:       The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001, the baseline is 70 data flows.  The baseline of users for the scheduled deployment of data flows
               is approximately 75,000 users.

Data Quality

In 2007         EPA will improve the quality and scope of information available to the public for environmental decision-making.

In 2006         EPA will improve the quality and scope of information available to the public for environmental decision-making.

               EPA continues to improve the quality and scope of information available to the public for environmental decision-making.
In 2005

In 2004
               In FY 2004, EPA developed a management report on options for enhancing access to the next Report on the Environment by making it easily available
               electronically.
                                                           Performance-104

-------
In 2003
In 2002
                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                 FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                      Enabling/Support Programs
                               Annual Performance Goals and Measures

The public had access to a wide range of Federal, state, and local information about local environmental conditions and features in an area of their
choice.

100% of the publicly available facility data from EPA's national systems accessible on the EPA Website is part of the Integrated Error Correction
Process; thereby reducing data error.
              Performance Measures
                                      FY2002     FY2003     FY 2004    FY 2005     FY 2006     FY 2007
                                      Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted     Pres Bud
Publicly  available  facility data from EPA's  national  100
systems, accessible  on the EPA Website, will be part of
the Integrated Error  Correction Process.
                                                                                                              Percent
Responders to the  baseline questionnaire  on customer                                       63
satisfaction  on  the  EPA  Website  report  overall
satisfaction with their visit to EPA.GOV.

Window-to-My Environment is  nationally deployed and              Nationally
provides citizens  across the country with Federal, state,
and local environmental information specific to an area of
their choice.

Establish the baseline for the suite of indicators that are                           1
used by EPA's programs and partners  in the Agency's
strategic planning and performance measurement process.


Baseline:       An effort to develop a State of the Environment report based on environmental indicators was initiated in FY 2002.

Information Security

In 2007         OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.

In 2006         OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.

In 2005         EPA continues to make progress in improving its information security program.
                                                                                                              Percent
                                                                                                              Deployed
                                                                                                              Report
                                                            Performance-105

-------
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                     Enabling/Support Programs
                                             Annual Performance Goals and Measures
In 2004         EPA has made significant progress over the last 4 years in improving its information security program. For example, EPA succeeded for a second year
               in achieving 100% intrusion detection, and the Agency's compliance with OMB's security program criteria increased from 75% in FY 2003 to 91% in
               FY 2004.

In 2003         OMB reported that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.

In 2002         Completed risk assessments on the Agency's critical infrastructure systems (12), critical financial systems (13), and mission critical environmental
               systems (5).
              Performance Measures                 FY 2002
                                                     Actuals
Critical infrastructure systems  risk assessment findings   12
will be formally documented and transmitted to systems
owners and  managers in a  formal  Risk Assessment
document.
                                                 FY 2003
                                                  Actuals
 FY 2004
 Actuals
 FY 2005
 Actuals
 FY 2006     FY 2007
 Enacted     Pres Bud
Critical financial systems risk assessment findings will be
formally documented and transmitted to systems owners
and managers in a formal Risk Assessment document.
                                    13
Mission critical environmental systems  risk assessment  5
findings will be formally documented and transmitted to
systems  owners  and   managers  in  a  formal  Risk
Assessment document.

Percent of Federal Information Security Management Act
reportable systems that are certified and accredited.

Percent of intrusion detection monitoring  sensors installed
and operational.
                                                75
                                                75
91
100
94
100
100
                                                                                                             Systems
                                                Systems
                                                                                                             Systems
Percent
                                    Percent
Baseline:
In FY 2002, the Agency started planning an effort to expand and strengthen its information security infrastructure.
                                                           Performance-106

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      Enabling/Support Programs
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures

                                         NPM: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fraud Detection and Deterrence

In 2007          In 2007, the OIG will improve Agency business and program operations by identifying 840 recommendations, potential savings and recoveries equal to
                150 percent of the annual investment in the OIG, 230 actions for better business operations, and 80 criminal, civil, or administrative actions reducing
                risk or loss of integrity.

In 2006          In 2006, the OIG will improve Agency business and program operations by identifying 820 recommendations, potential savings and recoveries equal to
                150 percent of the annual investment in the OIG, 225 actions for better business operations, and 80 criminal, civil, or administrative actions reducing
                risk or loss of integrity.

In 2005          The OIG has begun including the non-monetary results of "Single Audits" and audits performed for OIG in its targets and results.  Therefore, OIG
                adjusted its original targets submitted to OMB to account for the large  increase in the expected and actual number of improved business practices and
                systems and the number of business recommendations, risks, and best practices identified. The number of criminal, civil and administrative actions has
                increased, reflecting a greater number of debarments and suspensions of contractors, and the number of cases involving laboratories, which are time-lag
                results of prior years' performance. The 285 percent return on the dollar investment in OIG represent $143.8 million in questioned costs, recommended
                efficiencies and fines, recoveries, and penalties.

In 2004          The OIG exceeded its annual targets except it only achieved a 48% potential dollar return on its budget.

In 2003          The OIG exceeded the targets for this goal by including measures of results in promoting economy and efficiency  and preventing and detecting fraud,
                waste, and abuse in EPA programs and operations in addition to measures of environmental recommendations and improvement.

              Performance Measures                  FY2002     FY2003     FY2004    FY2005    FY2006     FY2007
                                                      Actuals      Actuals     Actuals     Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
Number of improved business practices and systems.                                133           724       225         230         Improvements

Number of criminal, civil, and administrative actions.                               108           125       80           80          Actions

Number of business recommendations,  risks, and best               312         390         1,119       820         840         Recommenda-
practices identified.                                                                                                             tions

Return on the annual dollar investment in the OIG.                      856          48           285       150         150         Percent


Baseline:        In FY 2002, the OIG established a baseline of 150 business recommendations, 70 improved business practices, and 50 criminal, civil, and administrative
                actions for improving Agency management; and a 100% potential dollar return on the investment in the OIG from savings and recoveries.



                                                            Performance-107

-------
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency

                                FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                                      Enabling/Support Programs
                                              Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Audit and Advisory Services
In 2007        In 2007, the OIG will  contribute to improved environmental quality and human health by identifying  115  environmental recommendations, best
               practices, risks, or opportunities for improvement; contributing to the reduction or elimination of 33 environmental or infrastructure security risks; and
               55 actions influencing environmental improvements or program changes.

In 2006        In 2006, the OIG will  contribute to improved environmental quality and human health by identifying  105  environmental recommendations, best
               practices, risks, or opportunities for improvement; contributing to the reduction or elimination of 28 environmental or infrastructure security risks; and
               50 actions influencing environmental improvements or program changes.

In 2005        These performance results generally represent complex environmental actions to be taken subsequently to OIG recommendations, risks, and best
               practices identified.  While the results for Environmental Actions and Improvements indicate the measure was not met, the system used to track this
               information currently does not capture actions taken by EPA program managers prior to the issuance of the Inspector General's final report, which
               means the number of actions taken (35) is probably artificially low from errors of omission.  Further, there are a considerable number of primary and
               secondary actions and improvements that are time lagged, occurring beyond the immediate scope of recognition as reportable results because  of their
               complexity and expanded residual effect, thereby making them difficult to track.  Therefore, the reported results for this measure are conservative and
               do not fully reflect the scope or number of actions taken and improvements made.

In 2004        Exceeded its targets by  identifying 116 environmental recommendations, risks, and best practices; contributing to the  reduction of 45 environmental
               risks; and 49 actions influencing positive environmental or health impacts.

In 2003        Improved environmental quality and human health by identifying 312 environmental recommendations, risks,  and best practices; contributing to the
               reduction of 92 environmental risks, and 185 actions influencing positive environmental or health impacts.

              Performance Measures                   FY2002     FY2003     FY2004    FY2005     FY2006     FY2007
                                                      Actuals      Actuals      Actuals      Actuals     Enacted    Pres Bud
Number of environmental risks reduced.                                92           45          35          28          33          Risks

Number of environmental actions.                                    185           49          35          50          55          Improvements

Number of environmental  recommendations, risks, and               485          116         112          105          115          Recommenda-
best practices identified.                                                                                                          tions


Baseline:       In FY 2002, the OIG established a baseline of: 75 recommendations, best practices and risks identified contributing to improved Agency environmental
               goals; 15 environmental actions; and the reduction of 15 environmental risks.
                                                            Performance-108

-------
              Environmental Protection Agency

FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                 Enabling/Support Programs
           Annual Performance Goals and Measures
                      Performance-109

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency

           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                        Program Performance and Assessment

Air Toxics	44,130,131,134,140
Alaska Native Villages	212
Brownfields	2, 30, 81, 82, 263, 264
Chesapeake Bay	87, 88, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290
Civil Enforcement	301
Clean Air	2, 20, 43, 44, 91,118,119,120,122,139,152,153, 301
Clean Water.. 3, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 59, 61, 86,184,185,187,189,190,191,193,194,196,199,
  204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 269, 270, 298, 300, 301
Climate Protection Program	49
Compliance6, 28, 34, 70, 96, 98, 99,194,195, 203, 204, 207, 208, 223, 289, 298, 299, 300, 301,
  302, 303
Compliance Incentives	98
Computational Toxicology	94
Corrective Action	15, 28, 29, 30, 69, 233
Criminal Enforcement	298,300
Drinking Water.. 1, 3, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 52, 53, 61, 62,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,173,
  174,175,176, 218, 253, 273
Endocrine Disrupter	3, 4, 31, 34, 75, 76, 91, 92,164, 237, 238, 239, 319
Endocrine Disrupters	3, 4, 31, 34, 75, 91, 92,164, 319
Energy Star	162
Enforcement	5, 6, 9, 34, 35, 36, 37, 96,195, 203, 204, 208, 236, 299, 300, 301, 302
Environmental Education	6, 35, 36, 38
Environmental Information	133,138,195, 215, 227, 230, 233, 299, 324
Exchange Network	109,309
Global Change	89
Great Lakes	55, 56, 85, 86,181,182,183, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281,
  282, 283, 284, 285
Gulf of Mexico	1, 61, 83, 84, 213, 217, 290, 292
Homeland Security	92, 94,156,157
Human Health Risk Assessment	90
Indoor Air	7, 20, 22, 23, 45, 46,142,150,151
Information Security	Ill, 112, 325, 326
Lead	7, 8, 33, 90, 91, 233, 250, 293, 305
Long Island Sound	266
Marine Pollution	183,266
Mexico Border	18,33
NAAQS	20, 21, 39, 40, 42, 50, 90, 91,122,126,163, 293
Oil	8, 9, 28, 30, 70, 71, 72,156, 208, 223, 224
Pollution Prevention .. 14,105, 250, 252, 254, 255, 256, 257, 260, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308,
  309, 310, 318
                                  Performance-110

-------
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)	166,171
Puerto Rico	179,213
Radon	45,142,144,145
Science Advisory Board	134,139,155, 254
Surface Water Protection	17,23
Sustainability	105,264,318
Tribal General Assistance Program	9,10, 24, 25, 35, 36
Underground Storage Tanks	222, 223, 234, 235
Waste Management	10, 28, 29, 30, 34, 38,158, 308
Water Quality	60,169,184,188,192,193,194,196,198,199, 206, 207, 211, 266, 267, 282
Wetlands	265, 267, 268, 270, 272
                                  Performance-Ill

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Inspector General

Resource Summary Table	1
Program Projects in IG	1
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations	2
   Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations	3

-------

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                        APPROPRIATION: Inspector General
                              Resource Summary Table
                               (Dollars in Thousands)

Inspector General
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations

$45,007.1
270.8
FY 2006
Enacted

$36,904.0
267.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$35,100.0
267.7
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

($1,804.0)
0.0
                   BILL LANGUAGE: OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General in carrying out the provisions of the
Inspector  General  Act  of 1978,  as  amended,  and for [construction,]  alteration,  repair,
rehabilitation, and  renovation of facilities, not to  exceed $85,000 per project,  $35,100,000,
[$37,455,000], to remain available until September 30, [2007] 2008.

                               Program Projects in IG
                               (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Inspector General Congressionally Mandated
Projects
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Subtotal, Congressionally Mandated Projects
FY 2005
Obligations

$44,580.7

$426.4
$426.4
FY 2006
Enacted

$36,904.0

$0.0
$0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$35,100.0

$0.0
$0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

($1,804.0)

$0.0
$0.0
                                       IG-1

-------
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations and Investigations
                       IG-2

-------
                                                  Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
                                      Program Area: Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$44,580. 7
$15,182.0
$59,762.7
357.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$36,904.0
$13,337.0
$50,241.0
361.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$35,100.0
$13,316.0
$48,416.0
361.8
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
($1,804.0)
($21.0)
($1,825.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA's Inspector  General (IG)  provides  audit, evaluation, investigative, public  liaison,  and
advisory services that fulfill the requirements  of the Inspector General  Act, as amended, by
contributing to improved human health and environmental quality and promoting the economy,
efficiency,  and effectiveness  of Agency  operations. These activities add value and enhance
public trust by providing the  Agency and Congress with best practices, independent analyses,
and recommendations to address management challenges, efficiently accomplish environmental
objectives,  achieve Government Performance and Results Act goals, and safeguard resources.
They also result in the prevention, detection, and prosecution of financial fraud, laboratory fraud,
and cyber crime. The EPA IG also serves  as the Inspector General for the  U.S. Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB).

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Office  of Inspector General  seeks to assist the Agency in its efforts to  reduce environmental
and  human health risks, improve  business  systems  and program operations,  save taxpayer
dollars, and resolve major management challenges. Work in FY 2007 will emphasize improved
Agency business  systems including strengthening accountability and data integrity leading to
positive environmental  impacts  and the attainment of EPA's Strategic Goals.  Further, issues
relating to  environmental stewardship, watershed management, voluntary programs,  state  and
Federal roles, grants and contracts will increasingly become integrative elements of OIG work.

Audits and  Evaluations

Air

Evaluations will focus on how EPA can: 1)  maximize the effectiveness  of its fine particulate
matter (PM 2.5) ambient monitoring and emissions control strategies; 2) better execute its ozone
reduction strategies; 3) improve the effectiveness of major risk reduction strategies, including
                                         IG-3

-------
multi-pollutant strategies; and  4)  obtain  air data more cost-effectively while improving its
reliability in relation to program needs.   The OIG will  also  focus on the use  of market
mechanisms, such as emissions trading, to promote achievement of air quality goals.

Water

Evaluations will determine how EPA can cost effectively achieve water quality goals.  We will
evaluate: 1) how EPA works with its state partners to more effectively and efficiently control,
protect, and monitor watersheds, non-point sources of pollution, and water quality; 2) how EPA
can effectively use  and  improve regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce water pollution
loadings; 3) EPA's use of market mechanisms and economic incentives to  help  communities
finance and support new and existing wastewater and drinking water infrastructure; and 4) how
EPA  can  improve  the quality  of its  water data to support incentives  for  compliance,
infrastructure  financing, and  conservation.   Further,  the  Office  of Inspector  General  will
determine how effective EPA's plans, approaches and investments are in addressing the need for
critical and expensive repairs and improvements to the nation's water infrastructure.

Land

In addition to  the Superfund work, evaluations will focus on: 1) opportunities to improve  cost
effectiveness in providing oversight and assistance to states implementing hazardous material
management programs and underground  storage tank programs; and 2) factors underlying EPA's
progress in achieving reductions of priority chemicals and other voluntary initiatives  to achieve
resource conservation and environmental protection.

Cross-Media

Evaluations will concentrate on how EPA can: 1) best execute its Homeland Security Strategic
Plan to prevent, prepare  for, and respond to a possible terrorist attack to minimize adverse impacts
on  human  health and  the  environment; 2)  determine which  voluntary  programs are cost
effectively achieving their environmental goals; 3) employ established environmental protection
tools, programs and approaches to protect, sustain,  and restore community health; and  4) optimize
the use of  traditional and  market-based  enforcement techniques  to  cost effectively  improve
regulatory compliance.

Evaluations of the U.S. Chemical  Safety and Hazard Investigation  Board (CSB)  will focus  on
how  efficiently and effectively  the  CSB:  1) protects its customers  and  their surrounding
communities from hazardous chemical plant practices; 2) minimizes risks from both  natural and
intentional events, and 3) reduces chemical accident rates.

Good Government

Audits will  focus on whether EPA (1) assistance agreements and contracts are efficiently and
effectively administered to  accomplish the  Agency's  mission;  (2)  information technology
systems have  cost-effective  controls to  provide timely,  accurate, complete,  useful and secure
financial and performance data for decision making and accountability;  (3) systems, including
planning,  budgeting, management, and  human capital, effectively  support accomplishment of


                                          IG-4

-------
environmental goals; and (4) financial statements are fairly presented. A significant portion of
audit resources will be devoted to mandated work involving the financial statements of EPA and
the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), the information security practices of
EPA and CSB required by the Federal Information Security Management Act, financial audits of
costs claimed by recipients of EPA assistance agreements conducted pursuant to the Single Audit
Act,  and the  processing  of financial audits of EPA  contractors  performed by  the Defense
Contract Audit Agency.  Discretionary work will involve: (1) financial audits of costs claimed by
certain assistance agreement recipients and EPA contractors; (2) audits of grant  and contract
administration, including  Superfund contracts;  (3)  results achieved with  Clean Water and
Drinking Water Revolving Funds; and (4) audits and studies of EPA's business systems.

Investigations

The OIG will conduct investigations into allegations or indications, and seek prosecution, of
criminal activity and  serious misconduct in EPA programs and operations that undermine the
integrity of or confidence in programs and create imminent environmental risks. Investigations
focus on:  (1) fraudulent activities in the awarding, performance, and payment of funds under
EPA  contracts,  grants,  and  other assistance  agreements  to  individuals,  companies  and
organizations; (2) criminal activity or serious misconduct affecting EPA programs or involving
EPA personnel (such as false  certifications  for asbestos removal and  fraudulent use of the
Agency seal) which could undermine or erode the public trust;  (3) laboratory fraud focusing on
erroneous environmental  testing data and results that could undermine the bases for  EPA
decision-making, regulatory compliance,  and  enforcement actions;  and (4) intrusions into and
attacks against EPA's network as well as incidents of computer misuse and theft of intellectual
property. In addition, we assist EPA in testing its network infrastructure to provide a threat and
vulnerability assessment used to minimize or mitigate hostile infrastructure attacks.  In response
to an attack, the OIG will  provide protection of EPA information and resources, will coordinate
with state, local, and other Federal law enforcement authorities, will increase awareness of fraud
indicators, and will create a network of potential resources.

Public Liaison

Public liaison work will continue addressing critical  public and governmental concerns in FY
2007. This activity involves responding to requests from the public, Congress, EPA employees,
or other  government  entities to provide information and  to conduct reviews in  response to
complaints or allegations  of fraud, waste,  abuse,  or mismanagement in EPA programs. To
accomplish this work, the Office of Inspector General initiates reviews and if needed contracts
with subject  matter experts to  assist with such reviews,  and coordinates these efforts with
ongoing audits, evaluations, or investigations.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives.  The performance measures are included
in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
                                          IG-5

-------
FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$2,579.9)   This  decrease reflects a  general  reduction to the Inspector  General
       Appropriation.

   •   (-$500.0)  This decrease reflects a reduction  to  the  Chemical Safety and Hazard
       Investigation Board activities.

   •   (+$1,276.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.

Statutory Authority:

Inspector  General Act,   as  amended;  Government  Management  Reform  Act;  Reports
Consolidation Act; Single Audit Act; and Pesticides Registration Improvement Act; CFO Act;
CERLA; FFMIA; FISMA; FQPA.
                                        IG-6

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                 Inspector General

Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations	1,3
Clean Water	5
Congressionally Mandated Projects	1
Drinking Water	5
Environmental Information	3
Homeland Security	4
Information Security	5, 6
Inspector General Congressionally Mandated Projects	1
                                       IG-7

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Buildings and Facilities

Resource Summary Table	1
Program Projects in B&F	1
Program Area: Homeland Security	2
   Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	3
Program Area: Operations and Administration	5
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	6

-------

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                      APPROPRIATION: Building and Facilities
                              Resource Summary Table
                               (Dollars in Thousands)

Building and Facilities
Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations

$45,181.0
0.0
FY 2006
Enacted

$39,626.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$39,816.0
0.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

$190.0
0.0
                     BILL LANGUAGE: BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

For construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or
facilities of, or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, [$40,218,000] $39,816,000, to
remain available until expended.

                              Program Projects in B&F
                               (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
FY 2005
Obligations

$12,936.5

$32,244.5
$32,244.5
FY 2006
Enacted

$11,331.0

$28,295.0
$28,295.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud

$11,385.1

$28,430.9
$28,430.9
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted

$54.1

$135.9
$135.9
                                      B&F-l

-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
             B&F-2

-------
                     Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
                                                        Program Area: Homeland Security

  Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
 involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
   of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
 (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
                        of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$9,102.2
$2,517.6
$12,936.5
$694.2
$25,250.5
4.4
FY 2006
Enacted
$6,199.0
$2,050.0
$11,331.0
$588.0
$20,168.0
3.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,268.9
$2,079.0
$11,385.1
$594.2
$20,327.2
3.0
FY 2007 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2006 Enacted
$69.9
$29.0
$54.1
$6.2
$159.2
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and that the Agency is prepared to conduct its essential functions during an emergency or threat
situation. This involves safeguarding EPA's  staff, ensuring the continuity of operations and
protecting the capability of EPA's vital infrastructure assets.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency will continue to update physical security vulnerability assessments in accordance
with the Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment  of
Federal Facilities guidelines at its  191 facilities and continue the mitigation of vulnerabilities at
our most sensitive facilities. In FY 2007, the Agency will conduct physical security vulnerability
assessments and mitigation  efforts;  perform window security  vulnerability  assessments,
engineering analyses and post mitigation analyses; ensure new construction, new leased, and
major  modernization  projects  meet physical  security requirements;  and expand  or realign
existing laboratories for homeland  security support activities.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports  multiple performance objectives.  Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$54.1)  This increase will support physical security activities.
                                         B&F-3

-------
Statutory Authority:

Public Health  Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; and Secure
Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629).
                                        B&F-4

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
                   B&F-5

-------
                                                Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
                                             Program Area: Operations and Administration

Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2005
Obligations
$317,744.7
$8,892.1
$32,244.5
$982.9
$552.1
$65,156.8
$425,573.1
364.1
FY 2006
Enacted
$343,908.0
$8,511.0
$28,295.0
$894.0
$500.0
$69,667.0
$451,775.0
437.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$294,760.1
$70,239.5
$28,430.9
$916.8
$499.3
$73,944.7
$468,791.3
438.6
FY 2007 Pres Bud v.
FY 2006 Enacted
($49,147.9)
$61,728.5
$135.9
$22.8
($0.7)
$4,277.7
$17,016.3
1.4
Program Project Description:

Facilities activities in Buildings and Facilities Appropriation include design, construction, repair
and  improvement projects  costing  over  $85,000 for buildings  occupied  by EPA, whether
federally owned or leased.

FY 2007 Activities and Performance Plan:

These resources help to improve operating efficiency and encourage the use of new, advanced
technologies and advanced energy sources.  Additionally, the Agency will also meet the Federal
Facility environmental objectives of Executive Orders related to efficient building management
practices.  Efforts will include comprehensive facility energy audits, sustainable building design
in Agency construction and alteration projects, energy savings performance contracts to achieve
energy efficiencies, the use of off-grid energy equipment, energy load reduction strategies, green
power purchases, and the use of Energy Star products and Energy Star rated buildings.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple objectives.  Performance information is included in
the Program Performance and Assessment section.

FY 2007 Change from FY 2006 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$135.9) This increase  will support repair  and improvement activities in  Agency
       facilities.
                                        B&F-6

-------
Statutory Authority:

FPASA; PBA; annual Appropriations Acts; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act; EO 10577 and
12598; United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities Report;
Homeland Security FDD 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
                                        B&F-7

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                              Buildings and Facilities
Energy Star	6
Environmental Information	3, 6
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	1, 6
Homeland Security	1,2,3, 7
  Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	1, 3
Oil	6
Operations and Administration	1, 5, 6
Underground Storage Tanks	6
                                      B&F-8

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Appendix	

Coordination with Other Federal Agencies - Environmental Programs                  1
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies - Enabling Support Programs	31
Major Management Challenges	36
EPA User Fee Program	50
Working Capital Fund	53
Acronyms for Statutory Authorities	54
STAG Categorical Program Grants - Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses	59
Infrastructure / STAG Project Financing                                         70
Program Projects by Appropriation	74

-------

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                     COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
                          ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

Goal 1- Clean Air and Global Climate Change

Objective: Healthier Outdoor Air

The  Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA)  cooperates with other Federal, state, Tribal, and
local agencies in achieving goals related to ground level ozone and PM.  EPA continues to work
closely with the Department of Agriculture and the Forest  Service in developing its burning
policy  and  reviewing  practices  that  can reduce  emissions.    EPA,  the  Department  of
Transportation (DOT), and the Army Corps  of Engineers (COE) work  with state  and local
agencies to integrate transportation and air quality plans, reduce traffic congestion, and promote
livable communities.   EPA continues  to  work with the Department of the Interior (DOT),
National Park Service (NFS), in developing  its regional haze  program and  deploying  the
IMPROVE visibility monitoring network.  The operation and analysis  of data produced by the
particulate matter (PM) monitoring  system is an example of the close coordination of  effort
between the EPA and state and Tribal governments.

For  pollution assessments and transport, EPA is working with the National  Aeronautics and
Space Administration  (NASA) on technology transfer  using  satellite imagery.   EPA will be
working to further distribute NASA satellite products to and NOAA air quality forecast products
to Regions, states, local agencies, and Tribes to provide better understanding of air quality on a
day-to-day basis and to assist with PM forecasting. EPA will also work with NASA to develop a
better understanding of PM formation using satellite data.  EPA works with the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense (DoD) on advancing emission measurement technology and
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce
for meteorological support for our modeling and monitoring efforts.

To better understand the magnitude,  sources, and causes of mobile source pollution, EPA works
with the Departments of Energy (DOE) and  DOT to fund  research  projects.  A program to
characterize the exhaust emissions from light-duty gasoline vehicles is being co-funded by DOE
and  DOT. Other DOT mobile  source projects  include  TRANSIMS (TRansportation ANalysis
and  SIMulation  System) and other  transportation modeling projects;  DOE  is funding  these
projects through the  National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  EPA also works closely with DOE
on refinery cost modeling analyses  and the development of clean fuel programs.  For mobile
sources program outreach,  the Agency  is  participating in a collaborative  effort with DOT's
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
designed to educate  the public about the impacts of transportation choices on traffic congestion,
air quality, and human health. This community-based public education initiative also includes the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC).   In  addition,  EPA is working  with DOE to identify
opportunities in the  Clean Cities program. EPA also works with other Federal  agencies such as
the U.S.  Coast Guard (USCG) on air emission issues.   Other programs targeted to reduce air
toxics from mobile  sources are coordinated with DOT.  These partnerships can involve policy
assessments and toxic emission reduction strategies in different regions of the country.
                                      Appendix-1

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

To  develop new continuous source monitoring technology  for  toxic metals emitted from
smokestacks, EPA has partnered with the DoD.  This partnership will provide a new source
monitoring tool  that will  streamline source monitoring requirements that  a number  of DoD
incinerators are required to meet and improve the operation of DoD incinerators with real-time
emissions information resulting in reduced releases of air toxics to the environment.  In time, this
technology is expected to be available for use at non-DoD facilities.

For the clean fuel  programs, EPA works  closely  with the DOE on  refinery  cost modeling
analyses. For mobile sources program outreach, the Agency is participating in a collaborative
effort with FHWA and FTA designed to educate the public about the impacts of transportation
choices on  traffic congestion, air quality,  and public  health. This community-based public
education initiative also includes  the  CDC. In addition, EPA works with  DOE to identify
opportunities in the Clean Cities program.  EPA also works cooperatively with DOE to better
characterize gasoline PM emissions and characterize the contribution of gasoline vehicles and
engine emissions to ambient PM levels.

To  reduce  air toxic emissions that do not inadvertently  increase worker  exposures, EPA is
continuing  to work closely with the Department of Labor's Occupational  Safety  and Health
Administration (OSHA) to coordinate the development of EPA and  OSHA standards. EPA also
works closely  with  other  health  agencies such  as the  CDC, the  National  Institute  of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health on  health risk characterization.   To assess atmospheric deposition  and  characterize
ecological effects, EPA works with NOAA  and the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS).

The Agency has worked extensively with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
on the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Study to identify mercury  accumulations in
humans.   EPA also has worked  with DOE on the  'Fate of Mercury' study to  characterize
mercury transport and traceability in Lake Superior.

To  determine the extent to which agricultural  activities contribute to  air pollution, EPA will
continue to work closely with the USD A through the joint USD A/EPA Agricultural Air Quality
Task Force (AAQTF).  The AAQTF is a workgroup set up by Congress to oversee  agricultural
air quality-related issues and to develop cost-effective ways in which the agricultural community
can improve air quality. In addition, the AAQTF coordinates research on agricultural air quality
issues to avoid duplication and ensure data quality and sound interpretation of data.

In developing regional and  international air quality  programs and  projects  and  working on
regional  agreements,  EPA works  primarily with  the Department of State, the  Agency for
International Development (USAID),  and the  DOE  as well  as with  regional organizations.
EPA's international air quality management program will  complement EPA's programs on
children's health, Trade and the Environment,  and trans-boundary air pollution.  In addition,
EPA will partner with  others worldwide, including international organizations such as the United
Nations  Environment  Programme, the  European Union,  the Organization  for  Economic
                                      Appendix-2

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Development and Co-operation (OECD), the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and our
colleagues in Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Japan.

Objective: Healthier Indoor Air

EPA works closely through a variety of mechanisms with a broad range of Federal, state, Tribal,
and local government agencies, industry, non-profit  organizations, and individuals, as well as
other nations, to promote more  effective approaches to identifying and solving indoor air quality
problems.  At the Federal level, EPA works closely with several departments or agencies:

    •  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop  and conduction programs
       aimed at reducing children's  exposure to known indoor triggers of asthma, including
       secondhand smoke;
    •  Department of Housing and Urban Development  (HUD) on home health and safety
       issues, especially those affecting children;
    •  Consumer  Product  Safety  Commission  (CPSC) to identify  and  mitigate the health
       hazards of consumer products designed for indoor use;
    •  Department of Education (DoEd) to encourage construction  and operation of schools
       with good indoor air quality; and
    •  Department of Agriculture  (USDA) to encourage USDA Extension Agents to  conduct
       local projects designed  to reduce risks from indoor air quality. EPA plays a leadership
       role on the President's  Task Force on Environmental Health Risks  and  Safety Risks to
       Children, particularly with respect to asthma and school environmental health issues.

As Co-chair of the interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality (CIAQ), EPA works with the
CPSC, DOE,  the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and OSHA to review
EPA draft publications, arrange the distribution of EPA publications, and coordinate the efforts
of Federal agencies with those of state and local agencies concerned with indoor air issues.

Objective: Protect the Ozone Layer

In an effort to curb the illegal importation of ozone depleting substances (ODSs), an interagency
task force was formed consisting of representatives from EPA, the Departments of Justice (DOJ),
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of State,  Department of Commerce, and
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Venting of illegally imported chemicals has the potential to
prevent the United States from meeting the goals of the Montreal Protocol  to restore the ozone
layer.

EPA works very closely with the Department of State and other Federal agencies as appropriate
in international  negotiations  among Parties to the Protocol. EPA works with the Office of the
United States Trade Representative  to analyze potential trade implications in stratospheric
protection regulations that affect imports and exports.

EPA is working with USDA and the Department of State to facilitate research and development
of alternatives to methyl bromide. EPA collaborates with these agencies to prepare U.S. requests
                                      Appendix-3

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

for emergency and critical use exemptions of methyl bromide.  EPA is providing input to USDA
on rulemakings for methyl bromide-related programs.  EPA consults with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) on the potential for domestic methyl bromide needs.

EPA also coordinates closely with FDA to ensure that sufficient supplies of chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) are available for the production of life-saving metered-dose inhalers for the treatment of
asthma and other lung diseases.  This partnership between EPA and  FDA combines the critical
goals of protecting public health and limiting damage to the stratospheric ozone layer.

EPA works with the CDC and the National Weather Service (NWS) to coordinate the Ultraviolet
Radiation (UV) Index and the health messages that accompany index reports. EPA is a member
of the Federal Council  on  Skin  Cancer Prevention, which educates and  protects  all  Federal
employees from the risks of overexposure to UV radiation.

In addition to collecting its own UV data, EPA coordinates with NASA and NOAA to  monitor
the state of the stratospheric ozone layer.  EPA works with NASA on assessing essential uses
and other exemptions for critical shuttle and rocket needs, as well as effects of direct emissions
of high-speed aircraft flying in the stratosphere.

EPA coordinates with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to  ensure that proposed rules
are developed in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Objective: Radiation

In addition to the specific activities described above,  EPA  continues to work  with  Federal
agencies including Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), DOE, and DHS to prevent metals
and finished products suspected of having radioactive contamination from entering the country.
EPA also works with the DOT on initiatives to promote use of non-nuclear density gauges for
highway paving, and with the DOE and NRC to develop state-of-the-art tracking systems for
radioactive sources in U.S. commerce.

Objective: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity

Voluntary climate protection programs government-wide stimulate the  development and use of
renewable energy technologies and energy  efficient products that will  help reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.  The effort is led by EPA and DOE with significant involvement  from  USDA,
HUD and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Agencies throughout the government make significant contributions to the climate protection
programs.  For example, DOE will pursue actions such as promoting  the research,  development,
and  deployment of advanced technologies (for  example,  renewable energy  sources).   The
Treasury Department will administer proposed tax incentives for specific  investments that will
reduce emissions.   EPA  is working with  DOE to demonstrate  technologies  that  oxidize
ventilation air methane from coal mines. EPA is broadening its public information transportation
choices  campaign as a joint effort with DOT.   EPA  coordinates with each of the above-
mentioned agencies to ensure that our programs are complementary and in no way duplicative.
                                      Appendix-4

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

This coordination is evident in work recently completed by an interagency task force, including
representatives from the Department of State, EPA, DOE, USD A, DOT, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Department of Commerce, USGCRP, NOAA, NASA, and the DoD, to
prepare the Third National Communication to the Secretariat as required under the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).  The FCCC was ratified by the United States Senate in
1992.  A portion of the Third National Communication describes policies  and measures (such as
ENERGY STAR and EPA's Clean Automotive Technology initiative) undertaken by the U.S. to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, implementation status  of the policies and measures, and their
actual  and projected  benefits.  One result of this interagency  review process  has been a
refinement of future goals for these policies and measures which were communicated to the
Secretariat of the FCCC  in 2002.   The "U.S.  Climate  Action Report 2002:  Third National
Communication  of the United  States  of America under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change" is available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/usnc3.pdf.

EPA works primarily with the Department of State, USAID and DOE as well as with regional
organizations in implementing climate-related programs and projects. In addition, EPA partners
with others worldwide,  including  international  organizations such  as the  United Nations
Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, the International Energy
Agency,  the  OECD, the  World Bank,  the Asian Development Bank, and our colleagues in
Canada, Mexico, Europe and Japan.

EPA works primarily with the Department of State, the Agency for International Development as
well as local and regional foreign governments in implementing climate-related programs and
projects.  In addition, EPA partners with others worldwide, including  international organizations
such as  the United  Nations  Environment  Programme, the  United Nations  Development
Programme,  the  International Energy  Agency,  the OECD,  the  World Bank,  the  Asian
Development Bank, and our colleagues in Canada,  Mexico, Europe, and Japan.

Objective: Enhance Science and Research

EPA works with the National Park Service in operating Clean Air Status and Trends Network
(CASTNET).   In  addition,  DOE will pursue  actions such as  promoting  the research,
development, and deployment  of advanced  technologies (for example,  renewable energy
sources).  In the case of fuel cell vehicle technology, EPA is working closely with DOE as the
Administration's FreedomCAR initiative develops, taking the lead on emissions-related issues.

The President's call for a greatly expanded and coordinated inter-agency particulate matter (PM)
research  effort  led to  the creation  in  1999  of the  Parti culate Matter  Workgroup, which is
administered by the Air Quality Research Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources (CENR). This workgroup, co-chaired by EPA and NIEHS, has completed its
Strategic Research  Plan  for Particulate  Matter1 to guide the coordinated Federal  research
program  over the next five to ten years.
1 Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Air Quality Research Subcommittee, Strategic Research Plan for
Particulate Matter (Washington: CENR, 2002). Available at: 
                                      Appendix-5

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

The body of national PM research dealing with atmospheric sciences is coordinated under North
American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone) NARSTO.2 Its membership of more than
65  organizations, which includes  all major Federal,  state, and provincial governments, private
industry, and utilities, recently released an assessment3 of PM atmospheric science to help policy
makers implement air quality  standards for PM.  It presents the latest understanding of PM
atmospheric phenomena over North America and recommends additional work to fill identified
gaps.

EPA's air toxics research is coordinated as needed with other Federal agencies, such as  the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences  (NIEHS) and the National  Toxicology
Program (as a source of toxicity testing data).  EPA also supports the Health Effects Institute
(HEI),4 which coordinates with  industry partners.   In  addition, EPA conducts research on
advanced source measurement approaches jointly with the Department of Defense through the
Strategic Environmental  Research  and Development Program (SERDP).5

Goal 2- Clean and Safe Water

Objective: Protect Human Health

The 1996  SDWA amendments include a  provision that mandates joint EPA/CDC  study  of
waterborne diseases and occurrence  studies  in public water supplies.   CDC is involved  in
assisting EPA in training health care providers (doctors, nurses,  public health officials, etc.) on
public health issues related to drinking water contamination  and there is close  CDC/EPA
coordination on research on microbial contaminants in drinking water. EPA has in place a MOU
and an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the CDC to implement this provision.

In implementing its source water assessment and protection efforts,  the Agency  coordinates
many of its activities with other Federal agencies.  There are three major areas of relationships
with other agencies concerning source water assessments and protection.

Public Water Systems (PWS)

Some Federal agencies,  (i.e., USDA (Forest Service), DoD, DOE, DOI/NPS, and USPS), own
and operate public water systems.  EPA's coordination with these agencies focuses primarily on
ensuring that they cooperate with the states in which  their systems are located, and that they are
accounted  for in the states'  source  water assessment  programs  as mandated in  the  1996
amendments to the SDWA.
2 Formerly an acronym for the North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone, the term NARSTO now describes a
public-private partnership across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico for dealing with tropospheric pollution, including ozone and
suspended particulate matter. For more information, visit: 
3 NARSTO, Particulate Matter Science for Policy Makers: A NARSTO Assessment (London: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Available at: 
4 For more information, visit: 
5 For more information, visit: 
                                        Appendix-6

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Data Availability, Outreach and Technical Assistance

EPA coordinates with USGS, USDA (Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Cooperative State Research, Education, and  Extension Service  (CSREES), Rural  Utilities
Service); DOT, DoD, DOE, DOT (NFS and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Land Management,
and Reclamation); HHS (Indian Health Service) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

Tribal Access Coordination

EPA will continue to  work with other Federal agencies  to develop a coordinated approach to
improving tribal  access to safe  drinking water.  In  response to commitments made during the
2002 World Summit in Johannesburg, the EPA committed to the goal of coordinating with other
Federal agencies to reduce by half the number of households on tribal lands lacking  access to
safe drinking water by 2015. United Nations. 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development:  Johannesburg, South Africa,  26 August - 4 September, 2002.  New York, NY:
United Nations.

Collaboration  with USGS

EPA and USGS have identified the need to engage in joint, collaborative field activities, research
and  testing, data exchange, and analyses, in areas such as the occurrence of unregulated
contaminants,  the environmental relationships affecting contaminant occurrence, evaluation of
currently  regulated contaminants,  improved protection  area delineation  methods, laboratory
methods,  and  test methods  evaluation.  EPA has an IAG with  USGS  to  accomplish such
activities.  This  collaborative effort has improved  the quality  of  information to support risk
management decision-making at all levels  of government, generated valuable new data, and
eliminated potential redundancies.

Collaboration  with Public and Private Partners on Critical Water Infrastructure Protection

EPA  coordinates with other Federal  agencies, primarily DHS,  CDC,  FDA  and  DoD  on
biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants, and how to respond to their presence in
drinking water and wastewater systems. A close linkage with the FBI, particularly with respect to
ensuring the effectiveness of the ISAC, will be continued.  The  Agency is  strengthening  its
working relationships  with the  American Water  Works Association Research Foundation, the
Water Environment  Research  Federation  and  other research institutions  to  increase  our
knowledge on technologies to detect contaminants, monitoring protocols  and techniques, and
treatment effectiveness.

Collaboration  with FDA

EPA and FDA have issued joint national fish consumption advisories to protect the public from
exposure to mercury in commercially and recreationally  caught fish, as well  as fish caught for
subsistence. EPA's advisory covers the recreational  and subsistence fisheries in fresh waters
where states and Tribes have  not assessed the waters for  the need for an advisory, ibid.
http://map 1 .epa.gov/html/federaladv FDA's advisory covers commercially caught fish, and fish
                                      Appendix-7

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

caught in marine waters. Ibid,  http://map 1.epa.gov/html/federaladv   EPA works closely with
FDA to distribute the advisory  to the public.  In addition, EPA works with FDA to investigate
the need for advisories for other contaminants and to ensure that these federal advisories support
and augment advisories issued by states and Tribes.

Beach Monitoring and Public Notification

The BEACH Act requires that all Federal agencies with jurisdiction over coastal and Great Lakes
recreation waters adjacent to beaches used by the public implement beach monitoring and public
notification programs.  These programs must be consistent with guidance published by EPA.
ibid. "National Beach Guidance  and Required Performance  Criteria for Grants."  EPA  will
continue to work with the USPS and other Federal  agencies to ensure that their beach water
quality monitoring and notification programs are technically sound and consistent with program
performance criteria published by EPA.

Objective: Protect Water Quality

Watersheds

Protecting and restoring watersheds will depend largely on  the direct involvement of many
Federal agencies and state, Tribal and local governments who manage the multitude of programs
necessary  to address water quality  on  a watershed  basis.  Federal agency  involvement  will
include USDA (Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, Agriculture Research
Service), DOI (Bureau of Land Management, Office of Surface Mining, USGS, USFWS, and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs), NOAA, DOT, and DoD (Navy and COE). At the state level, agencies
involved in  watershed management typically include departments of natural resources or the
environment, public health agencies, and forestry and recreation agencies.  Locally, numerous
agencies are involved, including Regional planning entities such as councils of governments, as
well as local departments of environment, health  and recreation  who frequently have strong
interests in watershed projects.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES)

Since inception of the NPDES program under Section 402 of the CWA, EPA and the authorized
states have  developed expanded relationships with various Federal  agencies to  implement
pollution controls for point sources.  EPA works closely with USFWS and the National Marine
Fisheries Service on consultation for protection of endangered species through a Memorandum
of Agreement.  EPA works  with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on National
Historic Preservation Act implementation.  EPA and the states rely on monitoring data from
USGS  to help  confirm pollution control decisions.   The Agency also works closely with SBA
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure  that regulatory  programs are fair
and reasonable.  The  Agency  coordinates  with the NOAA on efforts to ensure  that NPDES
programs support coastal and national estuary efforts; and with the DOI on mining issues.
                                      Appendix-8

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Joint Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations

The Agency is working closely with the USDA to implement the Unified National Strategy for
Animal Feeding Operations finalized on March 9, 1999.  The Strategy sets forth a framework of
actions that USDA and EPA will take to minimize water quality and public health impacts from
improperly managed animal wastes in a manner designed to preserve and enhance the long-term
sustainability of livestock production. EPA's recent revisions to the CAFO Regulations (effluent
guidelines and NPDES permit regulations) will be a key element of EPA and USDA's plan to
address water pollution from  CAFOs.  EPA and USDA senior management meet routinely to
ensure effective coordination across the two agencies.

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)

Representatives from  EPA's  SRF program,  HUD's Community Development Block  Grant
program, and USDA's Rural Utility Service have signed a MOU committing to assisting state or
Federal implementers in: (1)  coordination of the funding cycles of the three Federal agencies;
(2) consolidation of plans of action (operating plans, intended use plans, strategic plans,  etc.);
and  (3) preparation of  one environmental review  document,  when possible, to satisfy the
requirements of all participating Federal agencies.  A coordination group at the Federal level has
been formed to further  these efforts and maintain lines of communication.  In many states,
coordination committees have  been established with representatives from the three programs.

In implementation of the Indian set-aside grant program under Title VI of the CWA, EPA works
closely with the  Indian Health Service  to administer grant funds to the various Indian Tribes,
including determination of the priority ranking  system for the various wastewater needs in Indian
Country.   In 1998, EPA and the  Rural Utilities Service of the USDA formalized a partnership
between the  two agencies to provide coordinated financial and technical assistance to Tribes.

Construction Grants Program - US Army Corps of Engineers

Throughout  the history of the  construction grants program under Title II of the CWA, EPA and
the delegated states have made broad use of the  construction expertise of the COE to provide
varied assistance in construction oversight  and  administrative  matters.   EPA works with the
Corps to provide oversight for construction of the special projects that Congress has designated.
The mechanism  for this expertise has been  and continues  to  be an IAG between the two
agencies.

Nonpoint Sources

EPA will  continue to work closely with its Federal partners to  achieve the ambitious strategic
objective  of reducing pollutant  discharges, including at least  20  percent  from 1992 erosion
levels. Most significantly, EPA will continue to work with the USDA, which has a key role in
reducing  sediment loadings through its continued implementation of the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and other conservation programs. USDA
also plays a major role in reducing nutrient discharges through these same programs and through
                                      Appendix-9

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

activities related to the AFO Strategy.  EPA will also continue to work closely with the Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management,  whose  programs can  contribute  significantly  to
reduced pollutant loadings of sediment,  especially on  the vast public lands that comprise 29
percent of all land in  the United States.  EPA will work with these agencies,  USGS, and the
states to document improvements in land management and water quality.

EPA will also work with other Federal agencies to advance a watershed approach to Federal land
and resource  management to help  ensure that Federal land management agencies serve as  a
model  for water quality  stewardship in the prevention of water pollution and the restoration of
degraded water resources.  Implementation of a watershed approach will require coordination
among Federal  agencies at a watershed  scale and collaboration with  states, Tribes and other
interested stakeholders.

Vessel Discharges

Regarding vessel discharges, EPA will continue working closely with the USCG on addressing
ballast water discharges domestically, and with the interagency work group and U.S. delegation
to Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) on international controls.  EPA will
continue to work closely with the USCG, Alaska and other states, and the International Council
of Cruise Lines  regarding regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to managing wastewater
discharges from  cruise ships.  EPA will also  continue to work with  the Coast Guard regarding
the vessel sewage discharge standards and with the Navy on developing Uniform National
Discharge Standards for Armed Forces vessels. Regarding dredged material management, EPA
will  continue to work closely with the COE on standards for permit review, as well as site
selection/designation and monitoring.

OIA also serves  as the primary point-of-contact and liaison with USAID. Specially drawing on
expertise from  throughout EPA, OIA administers a number of interagency  agreements for
environmental assistance.

EPA works closely with a number of other Federal agencies with environmental, health, or safety
mandates. These include (among others) the DOL, DOT, USD A, DOI, HHS and FDA.

EPA works with the Department of State, NOAA, USCG, Navy, and other Federal agencies in
developing the  technical basis and policy decisions necessary for  negotiating global treaties
concerning marine antifouling systems, invasive species, and air pollution from ships. EPA also
works with the same Agencies in addressing land-based sources of marine pollution in the Gulf
of Mexico and Wider Caribbean Basin.

Objective: Enhance Science and Research

While EPA is the Federal agency mandated to ensure safe drinking water, other Federal and non-
Federal entities are  conducting research that complements  EPA's research program on priority
contaminants  in  drinking water.  For example, the CDC and NIEHS conduct health effects and
exposure research. FDA also performs research on children's risks.
                                     Appendix-10

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Many of these research activities are being conducted in collaboration with EPA scientists.  The
private sector, particularly the water treatment industry, is conducting research in such areas as
analytical  methods, treatment  technologies, and the  development and  maintenance of water
resources.   Cooperative research efforts have been ongoing with the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation and other  stakeholders to coordinate drinking water research.
EPA is also  working with USGS  to evaluate performance of newly developed methods for
measuring microbes in potential drinking water sources.

EPA has developed joint research initiatives with NOAA and USGS for linking monitoring data
and field study information with available toxicity data and assessment  models for developing
sediment criteria.

The issue  of eutrophication, hypoxia, and harmful algal blooms (HABs) is a priority with the
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR).  An interagency research strategy
for pfiesteria and other harmful algal species was developed in 1998, and EPA is continuing to
implement that strategy. EPA is working closely with NOAA on the issue of nutrients and risks
posed by HABs.  This CENR is also coordinating the research efforts among Federal agencies to
assess the impacts of nutrients and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.

Urban wet weather flow research is being coordinated with other organizations such as the Water
Environment Research Foundation's Wet Weather Advisory Panel, the ASCE Urban  Water
Resources  Research Council,  the  COE,  and  USGS.   Research on the  characterization and
management  of pollutants from agricultural operations (e.g., CAFOs) is being coordinated with
USDA through workshops and other discussions.

EPA is pursuing collaborative research projects with the USGS to utilize water quality data from
urban  areas  obtained  through the USGS National  Ambient Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program, showing levels of pesticides that are even higher than in many agricultural
area  streams.  These data have potential  uses for identifying sources of urban pesticides, and
EPA will  evaluate how the USGS  data could be integrated into the Geographic Information
System (GIS) database system.

Goal 3-Land Preservation and Restoration

Objective: Reserve Land

Pollution prevention activities entail coordination with other Federal departments/agencies, such
as the  General Services Administration (GSA)  (use of safer products for indoor painting and
cleaning),  the DoD (use of safer  paving materials  for parking lots), and  Defense Logistics
Agency (safer solvents). The  program also works with the NIST, the International Standards
Organization, and other groups to develop  standards for Environmental Management Systems.

In addition to business, industry and other non-governmental organizations, EPA will work with
Federal, state, Tribal, and local governments to encourage reduced generation as well  as the safe
recycling of wastes. Frequently, successful  programs require multiple partners to address the
                                      Appendix-11

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

multi-media nature of effective source reduction and recycling. The Agency has brought together
a range  of stakeholders to examine  alternatives  in  specific  industrial sectors,  and  several
regulatory changes have followed which encourage hazardous waste recycling. Partners in this
effort include the Environmental Council of States, the Tribal Association on Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, and  the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials.

As Federal partners, EPA and the USPS work together on several municipal solid waste projects.
For instance, rather than dispose of returned or unwanted mail,  EPA and the USPS developed
and implemented successful recycling procedures and markets.   For  example, unwanted mail
(advertisements,  catalogues, etc.) is being returned to the Post Office for recycling rather than
disposal  by the  recipient. In addition, Integrated  Solid Waste  Management Plans are being
implemented at parks in western states because of Regional offices' assistance to the NPS. EPA
also works with the SBA to provide support to recycling businesses.

The Federal government is the single largest potential source for "green"  procurement in the
country for office products as well as products for industrial use.  EPA works with other Federal
agencies  and departments in advancing  the purchase and use  of recycled-content and other
"green" products. In particular, the Agency is currently engaged with other organizations within
the Executive Branch to foster compliance with Executive Order 13101 and in tracking and
reporting purchases of products made with recycled contents.

In addition, the  Agency is currently engaged  with the DoD, DoEd, DOE, USPS, and other
agencies  to foster proper management of surplus electronics equipment, with a  preference for
reuse  and recycling. With these agencies, and in cooperation with the electronics  industry, EPA
participated in developing  a draft  interagency MOU  which will lead to increased reuse and
recycling of an array of computers  and other electronics hardware used by civilian and military
agencies.  Implementation of this MOU will divert substantial quantities of plastic, glass, lead,
mercury, silver, and other materials from disposal.  Currently, EPA works with USDA and FDA
on a variety  of issues related to the disposal  of agricultural  products  (food and/or animals),
contaminated with chemical or biological pathogens.

Concerns about the use of contaminants of concern (e.g., methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether, or MTBE)
in gasoline further underscores EPA's and the state's emphasis on promoting compliance with all
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) requirements.  EPA provides technical information, forums
for information exchanges and training opportunities to sates, Tribes and Intertribal Consorita to
encourage program development and/or implementation of the UST program. In FY 2007, EPA
will continue to promote cross media opportunities (e.g. targeted public health protection through
UST and Source Water Protection Programs, support  core development and implementation of
state  and Tribal  UST  programs,  strengthen  partnerships  among stakeholders and  provide
technical assistance, compliance assistance, and training to promote and enforce UST facilities'
compliance.
                                      Appendix-12

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Objective: Restore Land

Superfund Remedial Program

The  Superfund Remedial program coordinates with many  other Federal and state agencies in
accomplishing its mission. Currently, EPA has active interagency agreements with NOAA, DOT,
OSHA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and USCG.

These agencies provide numerous Superfund related services such as providing technical support
during hazardous waste site investigations and identifying  and evaluating the severity of risks
posed to natural resources from  hazardous waste sites; providing scientific support for response
operations in EPA's Regional offices;  supporting the national response system by  providing
emergency preparedness  expertise  and  administrative support to the National Response Team
and the Regional Response Teams; assisting in the coordination among Federal and state natural
resource  trustee  agencies;  conducting  outreach to states,  Indian  Tribes  and Federal natural
resource trustee officials regarding natural resource damage  assessments; conducting compliance
assistance visits to review site safety and health plans and  developing  guidelines  for assessing
safety and health at hazardous waste sites; supporting the Superfund program in the management
and coordination of training programs for local officials through the Emergency  Management
Institute and the National Fire Academy; responding to actual or potential releases of hazardous
substances involving the  coastal zones, including the Great Lakes and designated inland river
ports; and, litigating and settling cleanup agreements and cost recovery cases.

Superfund Federal Facilities Program

The  Superfund Federal Facilities Program coordinates with Federal agencies (e.g. DoD, DOE,
DOI, etc.),  states,  Tribes  and  state  associations and  others  to implement  its  statutory
responsibilities to ensure  cleanup and property reuse. The  Federal Facilities Program provides
technical and regulatory oversight at Federal facilities to  ensure human health and environment
are protected.  Executive  Order  12580 delegates certain authorities for implementing Superfund
to other Federal agencies. EPA's participation in the acceleration process of the first four rounds
of Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC) was funded  through  an  IAG which expires on
September 30, 2008.  BRAC  Round  5, finalized in 2005,  will result in additional  work
requirements in FY 2006  and outyears.  In expediting DOE's cleanup program, DOE has signed
lAGs with EPA for technical input regarding innovative  and flexible  regulatory approaches,
streamlining of documentation,  integration  of projects, deletion of sites from the NPL, field
assessments,  and development  of management documents and processes.   The lAGs have
received recognition by DOE as  a model for potential use at  other DOE field offices.

The  Agency also works  in partnership with state and Tribal  governments to strengthen their
hazardous waste  programs and improve the efficiency and  effectiveness of the nation's overall
hazardous waste  response capability. EPA assists the states in developing their Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) implementation programs
through infrastructure support, financial  and technical assistance, and training. Partnerships with
states increase the number of site cleanups, improve the timeliness of responses, and make land
                                      Appendix-13

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

available for economic redevelopment earlier in the process, while allowing for more direct local
involvement in the cleanup process.

EPA partners with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and private industry to
fulfill Superfund program priorities when a site is radioactively contaminated. Under CERCLA,
radioactively contaminated sites are addressed in  a  manner consistent with how chemically
contaminated sites  are addressed, accounting for the technical  differences.    The radiation
program provides radiological scientific and technical expertise and leadership in evaluating
projects as well as providing field and laboratory support.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

The Agency maintains  a close relationship with the state agencies that  are  authorized to
implement  the Resource  Conservation  and Recovery  Act (RCRA) Permitting and Corrective
Action Programs.  EPA expects states to achieve the same level of Federal standards as the
Agency, including annual performance goals  of human  exposures and  groundwater releases
controlled,  as well as the number of facilities brought under approved controls.   As part of the
state grant process, Regional offices negotiate with  the  states  their progress in meeting the
corrective action environmental indicator goals.

Encouraging states to become authorized for the RCRA Corrective Action Program remains a
priority.  Currently, 41 states and territories have been authorized to implement the program.
EPA also encourages states to use alternate (non-RCRA) authorities to accomplish the goals of
the Corrective Action Program. These include state Superfund and voluntary programs.

The RCRA Permitting and Corrective Action Programs also  coordinate closely with  other
Federal agencies, primarily the DoD and DOE, which have many  sites in the corrective action
universe. Encouraging Federal facilities to meet  the RCRA Corrective Action program's goals
remains a top priority.

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

EPA, with  very few exceptions,  does not perform the cleanup of leaking underground storage
tanks (LUST).  States and territories use the LUST Trust Fund to administer their corrective
action  programs,  oversee cleanups by responsible parties, undertake necessary enforcement
actions, and pay for cleanups in cases where a responsible party cannot be found or is unwilling
or unable to pay for a cleanup.  Thirty-seven states have their own cleanup funds to pay for the
majority of owners' and operators' cleanup costs. The vast majority of LUST cleanups are paid
for by state LUST cleanup funds and not  by private parties;  state funds  are separate from the
Federal LUST Trust Fund.

States  are  key to achieving the objectives  and  long-term strategic goals.  Except in Indian
Country, EPA relies on state agencies to implement the LUST Program,  including overseeing
cleanups by responsible parties and responding  to emergency LUST releases. LUST cooperative
agreements awarded by EPA are directly given  to the states to assist them in implementing their
                                      Appendix-14

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

oversight and programmatic role.  The EPA LUST Program  also coordinates its efforts with
EPA's Office of Water to jointly work with the states to address contamination in areas that are
the sources of drinking water.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks accidental and intentional releases of harmful
substances  and oil pose to human health and  the  environment.   This requires continuous
coordination with many Federal, state and local agencies.  As the Federal on-scene coordinator
(OSC) in the inland zone, EPA evaluates and responds to thousands of releases annually as part
of the National Response Plan (NRP). The NRP is a multi-agency preparedness and response
mechanism that includes the following key components:  the National Response Center (NRC);
the National Response Team (NRT), composed of 16 Federal  agencies; 13 Regional Response
Teams (RRTs); and Federal OSCs.  These organizations work with state and local officials to
develop and maintain contingency plans  will  enable  the  Nation to respond effectively to
hazardous substance and oil emergencies.

In addition, the Agency plays a leadership role in crisis management, requiring participation on a
number of interagency committees and workgroups.   Building on current efforts to enhance
national emergency  response management, EPA  and  its  role  on the  NRT will  continue
implementation of the new National Incident Management System (NIMS).

The NRP, under the direction  of DHS provides for the delivery of Federal assistance to states to
help them deal with the consequences of terrorist events as well as natural and other significant
disasters.  EPA has the lead responsibility for the plan's Emergency Support Function covering
hazardous materials and inland petroleum releases. Accordingly, EPA participates in the Federal
Emergency Support Function Leaders Group which addresses NRP planning and implementation
at the operational level. Through this interagency organization, Federal agencies handle issue
formulation and  resolution, review after-action reports, and evaluate the  need for changes to
NRP planning and implementation strategies. They  also participate in NRP exercises, training
and post event evaluation actions, coordinating these activities closely with the NRT.

EPA coordinates its preparedness activities with DHS, FEMA, Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), other Federal agencies,  states and local governments. EPA will also continue to clarify its
roles  and  responsibilities to  ensure that Agency security  programs are consistent with the
national homeland security strategy.

EPA provides staff support to the Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) during national
disasters and emergencies, response to terrorist incidents and  other responses  under the NRP.
EPA will  also continue to  develop and participate in training courses on emergency support
function responsibilities, deliver presentations on  the NRP to national forums and participate in
nationwide exercises to test and improve the Federal government's preparedness and response
system as well as its capabilities.
                                      Appendix-15

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Under the Oil Spill Program, EPA works with other Federal agencies such as USFWS, NOAA,
USCG, FEMA, DOT, DOT, DOE, and other Federal agencies and states, as well as with local
government authorities to develop Area Contingency Plans.  DOJ also provides assistance to
agencies with judicial referrals when enforcement of violations becomes necessary. EPA and the
USCG work in  coordination  with  other Federal  authorities  to  implement  the National
Preparedness for Response Program.

The  COE and the Bureau of Reclamation contribute to the cleanup of Superfund  sites by
providing technical support for the design and construction of many remediation projects through
site-specific interagency  agreements. These Federal  partners have  the technical  design and
construction expertise and contracting capability needed to assist EPA regions in implementing
most  of Superfund's high-cost fund-financed remedial action projects. The two agencies also
provide technical  on-site support to Regions in the  enforcement oversight  of numerous
construction projects performed by Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).

EPA expends substantial  effort coordinating its research with other Federal agencies, including
work with DoD in its Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, DOE and its Office of Health
and Environmental Research. EPA also conducts collaborative  laboratory research with DoD,
DOE,  DOT (particularly the USGS),  and  NASA to  improve  characterization and risk
management options for dealing with subsurface contamination.

Other research efforts involving coordination include the unique controlled-spill field  research
facility designed  in  cooperation  with the Bureau of Reclamation.   Geophysical  research
experiments and  development of software for subsurface  characterization and detection  of
contaminants are  being conducted with the USGS  and DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. The USGS also has a number of programs, such as the Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program, that support studies related to contamination of surface water and groundwater by
hazardous materials.

The  Agency is also working  with NIEHS, which manages a  large basic research program
focusing  on Superfund issues, to advance fundamental Superfund research.  The  Agency for
Toxic Substances  and Disease Registry (ATSDR) also provides critical health-based  information
to assist  EPA in making effective  cleanup decisions.   EPA works with these agencies on
collaborative projects, information exchange,  and identification of research issues and has  a
MOU with each agency. Additionally, the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) has
proved an effective forum  for  coordinating Federal  and state  activities  and for  defining
continuing research needs through its teams on topics including permeable  reactive  barriers,
radionuclides, and Brownfields EPA has developed an MOU6 with several other agencies [DOE,
DoD, NRC, USGS, NOAA, and USD A] for multimedia modeling research and development.
6 For more information please go to: Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Models MOU,
http://www.iscmem.org/Memorandum.htm
                                      Appendix-16

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 4-Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Objective: Chemical, Organism and Pesticide Risks

Coordination with state  lead  agencies  and with the USDA provides added impetus to the
implementation of the  Certification  and Training program.   States  also  provide essential
activities in developing  and implementing the Endangered Species and Worker  Protection
programs and are involved in numerous special projects and investigations, including emergency
response efforts. The Regions provide technical guidance and assistance to the states and Tribes
in the implementation of all pesticide program activities.

EPA  uses  a range  of  outreach  and coordination approaches for pesticide  users, agencies
implementing various pesticide programs and projects, and the general public.  Outreach and
coordination activities  are  essential to  effective implementation  of regulatory decisions.  In
addition coordination activities protect  workers and endangered  species, provide training for
pesticide applicators, promote integrated pest management and environmental stewardship, and
support for compliance through EPA's Regional programs and those of the states and Tribes.

In addition to  the training  that EPA provides to farm workers  and restricted use pesticide
applicators, EPA works with the State Cooperative Extension Services designing and providing
specialized training for various groups. Such training includes instructing private applicators on
the proper use of personal protective equipment and application equipment calibration, handling
spill  and injury situations, farm family safety, preventing pesticide  spray drift, and pesticide and
container disposal. Other specialized training is provided to public  works employees on grounds
maintenance, to pesticide control operators on proper insect identification, and on weed control
for agribusiness.

EPA coordinates with and  uses information from a variety of Federal, state and international
organizations  and agencies in our  efforts to protect  the safety  of  America's health  and
environment from hazardous or higher risk pesticides. In May 1991, the USDA implemented the
Pesticide Data  Program (PDF) to collect objective and statistically reliable data on pesticide
residues on food commodities.  This action was in response  to public concern about the effects of
pesticides on human  health and environmental quality.  EPA uses  PDF data to improve dietary
risk assessment to support the registration of pesticides for minor crop uses.

PDF is critical to  implementing the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The system provides
improved  data collection of pesticide  residues, standardized analytical and reporting methods,
and sampling of foods most likely consumed by infants and children.  PDF sampling, residue,
testing and data  reporting are  coordinated  by the Agricultural  Marketing  Service  using
cooperative agreements with ten participating states representing all regions of the country.  PDF
serves as a showcase  for Federal-state cooperation on pesticide and  food safety issues.

FQPA requires EPA to  consult with other government agencies on major decisions.  EPA,
USDA and FDA work closely together using both a MOU and working committees to deal with
                                      Appendix-17

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

a variety of issues that  affect the involved agencies' missions.   For example,  agencies work
together on residue testing programs and on enforcement actions  that involve pesticide residues
on food, and we coordinate our review of antimicrobial pesticides.  The Agency coordinates with
USDA/ARS  in  promotion  and   communication   of  resistance   management  strategies.
Additionally, we participate actively in the Federal  Interagency Committee on Invasive Animals
and Pathogens (ITAP) which includes members from USDA, DOL,  DoD, DHS and CDC to
coordinate planning and technical advice among Federal entities involved in invasive species
research, control and management.

While EPA is responsible for making registration and tolerance decisions, the Agency relies on
others to carry out some of the enforcement activities.  Registration-related requirements under
FIFRA are enforced by  the states.  The HSS/FDA enforces tolerances for most foods and the
USDA/Food Safety and  Inspection  Service enforces tolerances for meat, poultry and some egg
products.

Internationally, the Agency collaborates with the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety
(IFCS),   the  CODEX  Alimentarius  Commission,   the  North  American  Commission  on
Environmental  Cooperation  (NACEC), the  Organization for   Economic  Cooperation  and
Development (OECD) and NAFTA Commission.  These activities serve to coordinate policies,
harmonize guidelines, share information, correct deficiencies, build other nations'  capacity to
reduce risk,  develop strategies to deal with potentially harmful pesticides and develop greater
confidence in the safety of the food supply.

One of the  Agency's most valuable partners on pesticide issues is the  Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee (PPDC), which brings together a broad cross-section of  knowledgeable
individuals from  organizations  representing divergent views to  discuss pesticide regulatory,
policy  and  implementation issues.   The  PPDC consists of members from industry/trade
associations, pesticide user and commodity groups, consumer and environmental/public interest
groups and others.

The PPDC  provides  a  structured environment for  meaningful information  exchanges  and
consensus building  discussions,  keeping the  public  involved in decisions  that affect  them.
Dialogue with outside groups is essential if the Agency is to remain responsive  to the needs of
the affected public, growers and industry organizations.

EPA works  closely with Federal agencies  to improve the health of children and older adults.
Working with the CDC, the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), and the Association of
State  and  Territorial  Health  Officials  (ASTHO),  a  national action  agenda  to  reduce
environmental triggers of childhood asthma was developed and implemented.

The Agency continues to work with other Federal agencies in the  development of children's
environmental health indicators used to monitor the outcomes of children's health efforts. The
Agency collaborates with the CDC, National Center for Health Statistics and obtains approval
from the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (www.childstats.gov) on the
reporting of appropriate children's health  indicators  and data.  EPA also participates in the
                                      Appendix-18

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

development of the annual report entitled "America's Children: Key National Indicators of Weil-
Being."

As a member of the Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics, EPA helps to assure that key
indicators associated with important aspects of older Americans' lives are considered in reports
such as "Older Americans 2004: Key Indicators of Weil-Being."

EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) support the Pediatric
Environmental Health Specialty Units  (PEHSUs)  which provide education and consultation
services on children's environmental health issues to health professionals, public health officials,
and the public.

EPA works closely with other Federal  agencies to improve children's health in schools. For
example, EPA has incorporated into the new Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool
(Healthy SEAT),  a number of recommendations  and requirements from the Department of
Education, the CDC, DOT, DOE, CPSC and OSHA.

EPA relies on data  from  HHS to help assess  the  risk  of pesticides  to  children.   Other
collaborative efforts that go beyond our reliance on the data they collect include developing and
validating methods to  analyze domestic  and imported food samples for  organophosphates,
carcinogens, neurotoxins and other chemicals  of concern. These joint efforts protect Americans
from unhealthful pesticide residue levels.

EPA's  chemical  testing data provides information  for the OSHA worker protection programs,
NIOSH for research, and  the Consumer  Product  Safety Commission (CPSC)  for informing
consumers about products  through labeling.   EPA  frequently consults with these Agencies on
project design, progress and the results of chemical testing projects.

The Agency works with a full range of stakeholders on homeland security issues:  USD A, CDC,
other Federal agencies, industry and the scientific community. Review of the  agents that may be
effective against anthrax has involved GSA, State Department, Research Institute for Infectious
Disease, FDA, EOSA, USPS, and others, and this effort will build on this network.

The  Acute Exposure Guidelines  (AEGL) program is a collaborative effort that includes ten
Federal agencies (EPA, DHS, DOE, DoD, DOT,  NIOSH, OSHA, CDC,  ATSDR, and FDA),
numerous state agencies, private industry, academia, emergency medical  associations, unions,
and  other organizations in the  private  sector.    The  program also  has been supported
internationally by the OECD and includes active participation by the Netherlands, Germany and
France.

The  success of EPA's lead program is due in part  to effective coordination with other Federal
agencies, states and Indian Tribes through the President's Task Force  on Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks to Children. EPA will continue to coordinate with HUD to clarify how
new rules may affect existing EPA and HUD regulatory programs, and with the FHWA and
OSHA on worker protection issues. EPA will continue to work closely with state and Federally
                                     Appendix-19

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

recognized Tribes to ensure that authorized state and Tribal programs continue to comply with
requirements established under TSCA, that the ongoing Federal accreditation certification and
training program for lead professionals is administered effectively, and  states and Tribes adopt
the Renovation and Remodeling  and the Buildings and Structures Rules when these rules
become effective.

EPA has a MOU with HUD on coordination of efforts on lead-based paint issues. As a result of
the MOU, EPA and HUD have co-chaired the President's Task Force  since 1997.  There are
fourteen other Federal agencies including CDC and DoD on the Task Force.  HUD and EPA also
maintain the National Lead Information Center and share enforcement of the Disclosure Rule.

Mitigation of existing risk is a  common interest for other Federal agencies  addressing issues of
asbestos and PCBs. EPA will continue to coordinate  interagency strategies for assessing and
managing potential risks from asbestos and other fibers. Coordination on safe PCB disposal is
an area of ongoing emphasis with the DoD, and particularly with the U.S. Navy, which has
special concerns regarding PCBs encountered during ship scrapping.  PCBs  and mercury storage
and safe disposal are also important issues requiring coordination with the Department of Energy
and DoD as they develop alternatives and explore better technologies for storing and disposing
high risk chemicals.

To effectively participate in the  international agreements on POPs,  heavy  metals and PIC
substances, EPA  must  continue  to coordinate with  other Federal  agencies  and external
stakeholders, such as Congressional staff, industry, and environmental groups.  For example,
EPA has an interest in ensuring that the listing of chemicals, including the application of criteria
and processes  for evaluating future chemicals for possible international controls, is based on
sound science.  Similarly, the  Agency typically coordinates with  FDA's National Toxicology
Program, the CDC/ATSDR,  NIEHS and/or the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
on matters relating to OECD test guideline harmonization.

EPA's objective is to promote improved health and environmental protection, both domestically
and worldwide. The success of this objective is dependent on successful coordination not only
with  other countries,  but also  with  various  international  organizations  such  as  the
Intergovernmental Forum  on Chemical  Safety (IFCS), the  North American Commission on
Environmental Cooperation  (NACEC),  OECD, the United Nations  Environment Program
(UNEP) and the CODEX Alimentarius Commission.  NAFTA and cooperation with Canada and
Mexico play an integral part in the harmonization of data requirements.

EPA is a leader in global discussions on mercury and was instrumental in the launch of UNEP's
Global Mercury Program, and we will continue to work with developing countries and with other
developed countries in the context of that program.  In addition,  we have developed a strong
network of domestic partners interested  in working on this issue,  including the DOE and the
USGS.

EPA  has  developed cooperative  efforts on persistant organic pollutants (POPs) with key
international organizations  and bodies,  such as the United Nations  Food and  Agricultural
                                     Appendix-20

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Organization, the United Nations Environment Program,  the Arctic Council,  and the World
Bank.   EPA  is  partnering with  domestic  and  international  industry  groups and  foreign
governments to develop successful programs.

Objective: Communities

The  Governments of Mexico  and the United States agreed,  in  November  1993, to  assist
communities  on both sides of the border in coordinating and  carrying out  environmental
infrastructure projects. The agreement between Mexico and the United States furthers the goals
of the North American Free  Trade Agreement and  the North  American  Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation. To  this  purpose, the governments established  two international
institutions,  the  Border  Environmental Cooperation  Commission (BECC) and  the North
American Development  Bank  (NADBank),  which  manages  the  Border  Environmental
Infrastructure  Fund  (BEIF), to  support  the financing  and  construction  of much  need
environmental infrastructure.

The BECC, with headquarters in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, assists local communities
and other sponsors in developing and implementing environmental infrastructure projects.  The
BECC also  certifies projects  as eligible  for NADBank  financing.   The  NADBank, with
headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, is capitalized in equal shares by the United States and
Mexico.  NADBank provides new financing to supplement existing sources of funds and foster
the expanded participation of private capital.

A significant number of residents along the U.S.-Mexico border area are without basic services
such as potable  water and wastewater treatment and the problem  has become progressively
worse in the last few decades. Over the last several years, EPA has continued to work with the
U.S. and Mexican Sections  of the International Boundary and Water Commission to further
efforts to improve water  and wastewater services to communities within  100 km of the U.S.-
Mexico border. Recently, EPA has been involved in efforts to plan, design and construct more
than 10 water and wastewater facilities in the border region.

EPA's environmental mandate and expertise make it uniquely qualified to represent the nation's
environmental interests abroad. While the Department of State is responsible for the conduct of
overall U.S.  foreign policy, implementation of particular programs, projects, and agreements is
often the responsibility  of  other agencies with   specific technical expertise  and resources.
Relations between EPA and DOS cut across several offices and/or bureaus in both organizations.

EPA works extensively with the Office of the U.S.  Trade Representative (USTR), as well as the
USTR-chaired interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee  (TPSC) system, to ensure that U.S.
trade and environmental polices  are mutually  supportive. (The TPSC system consists of various
interagency workgroups that develop trade  policy  for political level review and decision.) For
example, through the Agency's participation in the  negotiation of both regional and bilateral
trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements,  EPA works with USTR to
ensure that U.S.  obligations under international trade agreements do not hamper the ability of
Federal and state governments to maintain high levels of domestic environmental protection.
                                     Appendix-21

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
The two agencies also work together to ensure that new obligations are consistent with U.S. law
and EPA's rules, regulations, and programs.  In addition to the work with USTR, EPA also
cooperates with many other Federal agencies in the development and execution  of U.S. trade
policy,  and  in  performing environmental  reviews of  trade  agreements,  developing and
implementing environmental  cooperation  agreements associated with  each new FTA, and
developing and implementing the associated  environmental capacity building projects.  EPA
works most  closely with the Department of State, USAID and USTR in the capacity building
area. Finally, the Agency also serves as the co-lead (with USTR) of the Trade and Environment
Policy  Advisory  Committee  (TEPAC), a  formally-constituted advisory  body  made up  of
respected experts from industry, NGOs and academia.

Brownfields

Under the Brownfields Federal  Partnership Action Agenda, EPA and its  partnering agencies
work together to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. More than
20 federal agencies dedicated to brownfields cleanup and redevelopment have committed their
resources to help revitalize communities throughout the nation.  Building on these partnerships,
EPA is initiating a collaborative effort with other agencies involved in brownfields revitalization
to develop a shared performance standard that focuses on  property reuse.  Through this effort,
EPA and  its partners  will analyze methods to demonstrate and  measure the  transition  of
brownfields  into productive reuse.

Objective: Ecosystems

National Estuary Program

Effectively implementing successful comprehensive management plans for the estuaries in the
NEP depends on the cooperation, involvement,  and commitment of Federal and state agency
partners that have some role in protecting and/or managing those estuaries.  Common Federal
partners include  NOAA, USFWS,  COE, and USDA.  Other partners include state and local
government   agencies,  universities, industry, non-governmental organizations  (NGO), and
members of the public.

Wetlands

Federal agencies share the goal of increasing wetlands functions and values, and implementing a
fair and flexible approach to wetlands regulations.  In addition, EPA has committed to working
with ACOE to ensure that the Clean Water Act Section 404 program is more open, consistent,
predictable,  and based on sound science.

Coastal America

In efforts to better leverage our  collaborative authorities to  address  coastal communities'
environmental issues (e.g.,  coastal habitat losses,  nonpoint source pollution,  endangered species,
                                     Appendix-22

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

invasive species, etc.), EPA, by memorandum of agreement in 2002 entered into an agreement
with Multi-agency signatories.   November 2002.  Coastal  America 2002 Memorandum of
Understanding. Available online at http://www.coastalamerica.gov/text/mou02.htm

Great Lakes

Pursuant to the mandate in Section  118 of the Clean Water  Act to "coordinate action of the
Agency with the actions of other Federal agencies and state and local authorities..." Great Lakes
National  Program  Office (GLNPO) is  engaged in extensive coordination efforts with state,
Tribal, and other Federal agencies, as well as with our counterparts in Canada. EPA and its
local, state, tribal and Federal partners are coordinating restoration of the Great Lakes pursuant to
a Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.  EPA previously joined with states, Tribes, and Federal
agencies that have stewardship responsibilities for the Lakes in developing the new Great Lakes
Strategy. In addition to the eight Great  Lakes States and interested  Tribes, partners include the
COE, USCG, USFWS, USGS, NOAA and NRCS.  The Strategy joins environmental protection
agencies with natural resource agencies  in pursuit of common goals. These organizations meet
semi-annually  as the Great Lakes U.S. Policy  Committee  to strategically plan and prioritize
environmental actions.   GLNPO monitoring involves extensive  coordination among these
partners, both in terms of implementing the monitoring program, and in utilizing results from the
monitoring to  manage environmental programs.  GLNPO's sediments program works closely
with the  states and the Corps regarding dredging  issues.  Implementation of the  Binational
Toxics Strategy involves extensive coordination with Great Lakes States.  GLNPO works closely
with states, Tribes, FWS, and NRCS in  addressing habitat issues in the Great Lakes.  EPA  also
coordinates with these partners  regarding development and  implementation of Lakewide
Management  Plans for each of the Great Lakes and  for Remedial Action Plans for the 31
U.S./binational Areas of Concern.

Chesapeake Bay

The Chesapeake Bay Program has a Federal Agencies Committee, chaired by EPA, which  was
formed in 1984 and has met regularly ever  since. There are currently  over 20 different Federal
agencies actively involved with the Bay Program through the Federal Agencies Committee.  The
Federal agencies have worked together over the past decade to implement the commitments laid
out in the 1994 Agreement of Federal Agencies on Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake
Bay  and  the  1998 Federal Agencies Chesapeake  Ecosystem Unified Plan (FACEUP}.   The
Federal Agencies Committee has been focusing on how  its members can help to achieve the 104
commitments contained in the Chesapeake 2000  agreement adopted by the Chesapeake  Bay
Program in June 2000.  Through this interagency partnership Federal agencies have contributed
to some major successes, such as the U.S. Forest Service helping to meet the year 2010 goal to
restore 2,010  miles of riparian  forest buffers  eight years early; the  NFS the effort to  establish
over 500 miles of water trails three years early; and the USFWS in reaching the Program's fish
passage goal of reopening 1,357 miles of formerly blocked river  habitat in 2004.  Also in 2004,
through the Federal Agencies Committee,  the members sought better coordination of agency
budgets and other programs to try to leverage maximum benefit to the state, private, and Federal
efforts protect and restore the Bay.
                                     Appendix-23

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Gulf of Mexico

Key to the continued progress of the Gulf of Mexico Program is a broad multi-organizational
Gulf states-led partnership comprised of regional; business and industry; agriculture; state and
local  government;  citizens;  environmental  and fishery  interests;  and,  numerous Federal
departments and  agencies.   This  Gulf partnership is comprised of members  of the  Gulf
Program's Policy Review Board, subcommittees, and workgroups. Established in 1988, the Gulf
of Mexico Program is designed to assist the Gulf States  and stakeholders in developing a
regional, ecosystem-based framework for restoring and protecting the Gulf of Mexico through
coordinated Gulf-wide  as well as priority area-specific efforts.  The Gulf States strategically
identify the key environmental issues and work at the regional, state, and local level to define,
recommend, and voluntarily implement the supporting solutions.   To achieve the  Program's
environmental objectives, the partnership must target specific Federal, state, local, and private
programs, processes, and financial  authorities in order  to  leverage the resources  needed to
support state and community actions.

Objective: Enhance Science and Research

Several Federal agencies sponsor research on variability and susceptibility in risks from exposure
to environmental contaminants. EPA collaborates with a number of the Institutes within the NIH
and CDC.   For example, NIEHS conducts multi-disciplinary biomedical research  programs,
prevention and intervention  efforts, and  communication strategies.   The NIEHS program
includes  an effort to study the effects of chemicals, including pesticides and other toxics, on
children. EPA collaborates with NIEHS in supporting the Centers for Children's Environmental
Health and Disease Prevention, which study whether and how environmental factors  play a role
in children's health.

Research in ecosystems protection is coordinated government-wide through  the Committee on
Environment and Natural  Resources  (CENR). EPA is an active participant in  the CENR, and all
work  is  fully  consistent  and complementary with other  Committee member activities.  EPA
researchers work within the CENR on the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) and other  ecosystems protection research, including the restoration  of habitats and
species, impacts of landscape change, invasive species and inventory and monitoring programs.

The Mid-Atlantic Landscape Atlas represents one of the EMAP's first regional-scale ecological
assessments,  and  was  developed in cooperation with NOAA, USFWS,  the University of
Tennessee, and DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  Development of the Networking and
Information Technology Research & Development (NITR) Modeling System is coordinated with
the  COE, USDA and DOE.  Through interagency agreements with USGS, EPA has  worked to
investigate and develop tools for assessing the impact  of hydrogeology on riparian  restoration
efforts. The collaborative  work with  the USGS continues to play  a vital role in investigating the
impact and fate of atmospheric loadings  of nitrogen and  nitrogen applications  as part of
restoration technologies  on terrestrial  and aquatic ecosystems.  All of these  efforts  have
                                      Appendix-24

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

significant implications for risk management in watersheds, total maximum daily load (TMDL)
implementation, and management of non-point source pollutants.

The  Agency, through partnerships with private sector companies, non-profits,  other Federal
agencies, universities, and states, including California EPA, has worked to identify and control
human exposure to methyl-mercury.  EPA  has also been working with DOE and USGS to
address risk management issues associated with mercury emissions from utilities.

Homeland Security research is conducted in collaboration with numerous agencies, leveraging
funding across multiple programs and producing synergistic results. EPA's National Homeland
Security Research Center (NHSRC) works closely with the DHS to assure that EPA's efforts are
directly supportive of DHS priorities. EPA  is also working with DHS to provide  support and
guidance to DHS in the startup of their University Centers of Excellence program.  Recognizing
that the DoD has  significant  expertise and facilities related to biological and  chemical warfare
agents, the NHSRC works closely with the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC),
the Technical Support Working Group, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other Department of
Defense organizations to address areas of mutual interest and concern. In conducting biological
agent research, the NHSRC is also collaborating with CDC.  The NHSRC works with DOE to
access and support research conducted by DOE's National Laboratories, as well as to obtain data
related to radioactive materials.

In addition to these major collaborations, the NHSRC has relationships with numerous  other
Federal agencies,  including the U.S. Air Force,  U.S. Navy, FDA, USGS, and NIST. Also, the
NHSRC is working with state and local emergency response personnel to understand better their
needs and build relationships, which will enable the quick deployment of NHSRC products.  In
the water infrastructure arena, the  NHSRC is providing information to the Water  Information
Sharing and Analysis Center (WaterlSAC) operated by the Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies (AMWA).  The National Academy of Sciences has also been engaged to provide
advice on the long-term direction of the water research and technical support program.

Goal 5-Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Objective: Improve Compliance

The  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program coordinates closely with  DOJ on  all
enforcement matters.  In addition, the  program coordinates  with  other agencies  on  specific
environmental issues as described herein.

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance  Assurance (OECA) coordinates with the Chemical
Safety and Accident Investigation Board, OSHA, and Agency for Toxic Substances  and Disease
Registry in preventing and responding to accidental releases and endangerment situations, with
the BIA on Tribal issues relative to compliance with environmental laws on Tribal Lands, and
with the SBA on  the implementation of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA). OECA also  shares information  with the IRS on cases which require defendants
to pay civil penalties,  thereby assisting the IRS in assuring compliance with tax laws.  In
                                     Appendix-25

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

addition, it coordinates with the SBA and a number of other Federal agencies in implementing
the Business  Compliance One-Stop Project, an "E-Government" project that is part of the
President's Regulatory Management Agenda.   OECA  also works  with a variety of Federal
agencies including  the DOL  and the  IRS to organize  a  Federal  Compliance Assistance
Roundtable to address cross cutting compliance assistance issues. Coordination also occurs with
the COE on wetlands.

Due to  changes in the Food Security Act, the USDA/NRCS has a major role  in determining
whether areas on agricultural lands meet the definition of wetlands and are therefore regulated
under the CWA. Civil Enforcement coordinates with USDA/NRCS on these issues also.  The
program coordinates closely with the  USDA on the implementation  of the Unified National
Strategy for  Animal  Feedlot  Operations. EPA's  Enforcement  and Compliance Assurance
Program also  coordinates with USDA on food safety issues arising from the misuse of pesticides,
and shares joint jurisdiction with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on  pesticide  labeling and
advertising.   Coordination also occurs with Customs on pesticide imports.  EPA and the FDA
share jurisdiction over general-purpose  disinfectants used  on non-critical  surfaces and some
dental and medical equipment surfaces (e.g., wheelchairs). The Agency has entered into a MOU
with HUD concerning lead poisoning.

The  Criminal Enforcement program coordinates with other Federal law enforcement agencies
(i.e.  FBI, Customs, DOL, U.S.  Treasury, USCG and DOJ)  and  with state  and  local law
enforcement organizations in the investigation  and  prosecution of environmental crimes.  EPA
also actively works with DOJ to establish task forces that bring together Federal, state and  local
law enforcement organizations to address environmental  crimes. In addition, the program has an
Interagency Agreement with the DHS to provide specialized criminal environmental training to
Federal,  state, local, and tribal law enforcement personnel at the  Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA.

Under Executive Order 12088,  EPA is directed to provide technical  assistance to other Federal
agencies to help ensure their compliance  with  all  environmental laws.   The Federal  Facility
Enforcement  Program  coordinates with  other Federal  agencies,  states,  local, and  tribal
governments to ensure compliance by Federal agencies with all environmental laws.

OECA collaborates with the states and Tribes.  States perform the vast majority of inspections,
direct compliance assistance, and enforcement actions. Most EPA statutes envision a partnership
between EPA and the  states under which EPA develops national standards and policies and the
states implement the  program  under authority  delegated by EPA.   If  a state does  not  seek
approval of a program, EPA must implement that program in the state. Historically, the level of
state approvals has increased as programs mature and state  capacity  expands, with many of the
key environmental  programs approaching approval  in nearly  all states.  EPA will increase  its
effort to coordinate with states on  training,  compliance assistance,  capacity building and
enforcement.   EPA  will  continue to enhance the network  of  state  and tribal compliance
assistance providers.
                                     Appendix-26

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance chairs the Interagency Environmental
Leadership Workgroup established by Executive Order 13148. The Workgroup consists of over
100 representatives from most Federal  departments and agencies.  Its mission is to assist all
Federal agencies with meeting the mandates of the Executive Order, including implementation of
environmental management systems and environmental compliance auditing programs, reducing
both releases  and uses  of toxic  chemicals, and  compliance with pollution prevention and
pollution reporting requirements.  In FY 2007, the OECA will work directly with a number of
other Federal  agencies to improve CWA compliance at Federal facilities.  OECA  and other
agencies will jointly investigate the underlying causes of persistent CWA violations and design
and implement fixes to the problems to keep facilities in  compliance over the long term.  OECA
anticipates that FY 2007  will  see the completion of a multiple-year partnership with the Veterans
Health Administration (VHA),  a part of the Department  of Veterans Affairs (VA). OECA and
the VHA formed the partnership in 2002 to improve compliance at VHA medical centers across
the nation.   Since then,  EPA and  VHA have jointly designed and begun  implementing
environmental management systems at  all VHA medical centers, completed multi-day onsite
reviews at more  than 20 medical centers to assess the  strengths and weaknesses of their
environmental programs and to guide the VHA  in  making program improvements at all its
medical centers, and delivered multiple environmental compliance courses for VHA staff and
managers.

EPA works directly with Canada and Mexico bilaterally and in the trilateral Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC). EPA's border activities require close coordination with the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of
Justice, and the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.

Objective: Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation

EPA is involved  in  a broad range of pollution prevention (P2) activities which  can yield
reductions in  waste generation and energy consumption  in both the public  and private  sectors.
For example,  the EPP  initiative,  which  implements   Executive Orders  12873  and  13101,
promotes the use of cleaner products by Federal agencies. This is aimed at stimulating demand
for the development of such products by industry.

This effort includes a number of demonstration projects with other federal Departments and
agencies, such as the NFS (to use Green Purchasing as a tool to achieve the sustainability goals
of the  parks), DoD (use of environmentally preferable construction materials), and Defense
Logistics  Agency (identification of environmental attributes for products in its purchasing
system).  The program is also working within EPA to "green" its own operations. The program
also works with NIST to  develop a life-cycle based decision support tool for purchasers.

Under  the Suppliers' Partnership for the Environment program and its umbrella program,  the
GSN, EPA's P2  Program is working  closely with NIST  and its Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program to provide technical assistance to the process of "greening" industry supply
                                     Appendix-27

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

chains.  The EPA is also working with the DOE's Industrial Technologies Program to provide
energy audits and technical assistance to these supply chains.

The Agency is required to review  environmental impact  statements and other major  actions
impacting the  environment and  public health  proposed by all  Federal agencies, and make
recommendations  to the proposing Federal agency on how to remedy/mitigate those impacts.
Although EPA is required under ง 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to review and comment on
proposed Federal actions, neither the National Environmental Policy Act nor ง 309 CAA require
a Federal  agency  to  modify its proposal to accommodate EPA's concerns.  EPA does  have
authority under these statutes to refer major disagreements with other Federal agencies to the
Council on Environmental Quality. Accordingly, many of the beneficial environmental changes
or mitigation that EPA recommends must be negotiated with the other Federal agency.  The
majority  of  the actions EPA  reviews  are  proposed  by the Forest Service, Department of
Transportation  (including  FHWA  and  FAA),  COE,  DOT  (including   Bureau  of Land
Management, Minerals Management  Service and NFS),  DOE (including Federal Regulatory
Commission), and DoD.

EPA and  DOT  are coordinating  an  Interagency Tribal  Information Steering  Committee that
includes the Bureau of Reclamation, DOE, HUD, USGS, Federal Geographic Data Committee,
BIA, Indian Health Service, Department of the  Treasury, and DOJ.  This Interagency effort is
aimed to coordinate the exchange of selected sets of environmental, resource, and programmatic
information pertaining to Indian Country among Federal agencies in a "dynamic" information
management system that is continuously and automatically updated and refreshed, to be shared
equally among partners and other constituents.

Under  a two-party interagency agreement,  EPA works extensively with the Indian Health
Service to cooperatively address the drinking  water  and wastewater infrastructure  needs of
Indian  Tribes.  EPA is developing protocols with the Indian Health Service Sanitation Facilities
Construction Program for integration of databases of the two agencies, within the framework of
the Tribal Enterprise Architecture.

EPA has  organized  a Tribal  Data  Working  Group under the  Federal  Geographic  Data
Committee, and, along with BIA, is the co-chair of this group.   EPA will  play a lead role in
establishing common  geographic data and metadata standards for Tribal data, and in establishing
protocols  for exchange of information among Federal,  non-Federal and  Tribal cooperating
partners.

EPA is developing protocols with the Bureau of Reclamation, Native American Program, for
integration of databases of the two  agencies, within the framework of the Tribal Enterprise
Architecture.  EPA is also developing agreements to  share information with the Alaska District,
COE.

To promote mutual goals as leadership programs with industry, the Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation (OPEI) through its National Environmental Performance Track, works with the
Voluntary Protection  Programs (VPP) in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
                                     Appendix-28

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

(OSHA).  EPA and OSHA collaborate  in  developing incentives for members,  identifying
potential members, providing joint recognition, and sharing best practices from their experience
in managing leadership programs.

Under a MOU,  EPA and NPS  established  a partnership to share resources for promoting
environmental management system  approaches  that are good  for both the environment and
business. The MOU promotes the implementation of cost-effective environmental management
practices for businesses in the tourism  industry,  including the approximately  600 NPS
concessionaires that provide various visitor services in more than 130 national parks.

Information on regulations and other issues that may have an adverse impact on small businesses
is shared regularly with the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy.  An ongoing
activity includes the coordination of interactions among the Office of Air  and Radiation, the
State  Small Business Assistance Program's National Steering  Committee,  and the Office  of
Advocacy in  the development  of the proposed 55 area source  Maximum Achievable  Control
Technology (MACT) rules that will impact small businesses and state programs.

The  Sector  Strategies  program  addresses  issues  that  directly  affect the environmental
performance of selected industries and other sectors of the economy. At times, actions taken to
enhance  sector-wide performance involve other Federal agencies.   This  work tends to  be
informal and issue-specific,  as opposed to formal inter-agency  partnerships.  For example,
previous work  on Agribusiness sector issues involved the Natural Resource  Conservation
Service of the USDA.  Energy conservation work with the Metal Foundry sector involved the
DOE's innovative technologies program.  In 2005, Port sector stakeholders include the U.S.
Maritime Administration (DOT), COE and NOAA. Data work with the Cement sector involves
USGS contacts.  And future "green highway" work of the  Construction Sector may involve the
FHWA.

Activities associated with the  Environmental Education Program are  coordinated with other
Federal agencies in a variety of ways:

EPA currently funds approximately  $1.5M for eight  interagency agreements with four Federal
agencies.  Current projects are focused on helping  these agencies to better coordinate their
environmental education efforts (see  www.handsontheland.org)  and  improving capacity  to
measure environmental education program outcomes.  All of the activities are funded jointly  by
the cooperating Federal agency and  a third non-profit partner.   Detailed information about the
interagency agreements is available at http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/iag.html.

EPA chairs the Task Force  on Environmental  Education which meets periodically to share
information. The current focus involves sharing information on linking environmental education
programs to the strategic planning initiatives of Federal agencies and developing program impact
measures.
                                     Appendix-29

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

As a participant on the following interagency workgroups, EPA remains informed of related
efforts across the  government and  provides coordination  assistance  as necessary:   The
Interagency Committee on Education  (Chair:  Department of Education);  Partners in Resource
Education (Chair: National Environmental Education and  Training Foundation); the Federal
Interagency Committee on Interpretation (Chair: National Park Service);  Ocean Education Task
Force (workgroup of the  U.S. Ocean Commission);  and the Afterschool.gov (Chair: General
Services Administration).

EPA's  web   portal  of   all  Federal  environmental  education   program  web   sites  is:
http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/FTFmemws.html.

Objective: Enhance Science and Research

EPA is coordinating with DoD's Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP) in an ongoing partnership, especially in the areas of pollution prevention research and
incorporation of materials lifecycle analysis into the manufacturing process for weapons and
military equipment.  The agency has also made contact with USDA  regarding lifecycle analysis
of biologically- and genetically-altered products. EPA and the COE will address the costs and
benefits associated with new engineering projects and technologies in order to respond to the
economic  impacts of environmental innovation.   EPA's People, Prosperity, and Planet (P3)
student design competition for sustainability will partner with NASA, NSF, OFEE, USAID,
USDA, CEQ, and OSTP.

EPA will  continue work  under the MOA with the  USCG  and the State of Massachusetts  on
ballast water  treatment technologies and mercury continuous emission monitors.  The agency
also coordinates technology  verifications with NOAA  (multiparameter water quality probes);
DOE (mercury continuous emission monitors); DoD (explosives monitors, PCB detectors, dust
suppressants); USDA (ambient ammonia monitors); Alaska and Pennsylvania (arsenic removal);
Georgia, Kentucky, and Michigan (storm water treatment); and Colorado and New York (waste-
to-energy technologies).
                                     Appendix-30

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                     COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
                         ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS

Office of the Administrator (OA)

EPA collaborates with other Federal agencies in the collection  of economic data used in the
conduct of  economic benefit-cost analyses of environmental regulations and  policies. The
Agency collaborates with the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census on the Pollution
Abatement Costs and  Expenditure (PACE)  survey in order to obtain information on pollution
abatement expenditures by industry. In our effort to measure the beneficial outcomes  of Agency
programs, we co-sponsor with several other agencies the U.S. Forest  Service's National  Survey
on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), which measures national recreation participation
and recreation trends.  EPA also collaborates with other natural resource agencies (e.g., USDA,
Department of Interior, Forest Service, NOAA) to foster improved interdisciplinary research and
reporting of economic information by collaboratively supporting workshops and symposiums on
environmental economics topics  (ecosystem valuation  resource  evaluation);  economics  of
invasive species; and measuring health benefits.

The Agency also continues to work with other Federal agencies in the development of children's
environmental health indicators used to monitor the outcomes of children's health efforts. The
Agency collaborates with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National
Center for Health Statistics to obtain approval of the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and
Family  Statistics  (www.childstats.gov)  on  the  reporting of appropriate  children's   health
indicators and data.

The Office of Homeland Security (OHS) continues to focus on broad, Agency and government-
wide homeland security policy issues that cannot be adequately addressed by a single program
office, as well as ensuring implementation of EPA's Homeland Security Strategy.  A  significant
amount of the responsibilities require close coordination with Federal partners, through  Policy
Coordinating Committees (PCCs), briefings and discussions with  individual senior Federal
officials.  OHS represents the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, and other senior Agency
officials  at meetings  with  personnel from the  White House and Department  of  Homeland
Security  (DHS),  and  other  high-level  stakeholders.  OHS  coordinates the development  of
responses to inquiries from the White House, DHS, the Congress, and others with oversight
responsibilities for homeland security efforts.  EPA's ability to effectively implement its broad
range of homeland security responsibilities is significantly enhanced though these efforts.  OHS
helps to reduce/eliminate  redundancy in homeland security efforts, therefore ensuring consistent
development and implementation of the  Agency's policies and procedures,  while building  an
external network of partners so  that EPA's efforts can be integrated into,  and build upon, the
efforts of other Federal agencies.

The Science Advisory Board (SAB) primarily provides the Administrator with independent peer
reviews and advice on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues to inform the
Agency's environmental decision-making. Often,  the Agency program office seeking the SAB's
                                      Appendix-31

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

review and advice has identified the Federal agencies interested in the scientific topic at issue.
The SAB coordinates with those Federal agencies by providing notice of its activities through the
Federal Register,  and as appropriate, inviting Federal agency experts to participate in the  peer
review or advisory activity. The SAB, from time to time, also convenes science workshops on
emerging issues, and invites Federal agency participation through the greater Federal scientific
and research community.

EPA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) works with the Small
Business Administration (SBA) and other federal agencies to increase the participation of small
and  disadvantaged  businesses in  EPA's  procurement of  goods,  services,  equipment,   and
construction.  OSDBU works with the SBA to develop EPA's goals for contracting with small
and disadvantaged businesses; address bonding issues that pose a roadblock for small businesses
in specific industries, such as environmental  clean-up and construction;  and address data-
collection issues that are of concern to OSDBUs throughout the federal government.  EPA's
OSDBU works closely with the Center for Veterans Enterprise and EPA's regional and program
offices to increase  the  amount  of EPA  procurement dollars awarded to Service-Disabled
Veteran-Owned Small Businesses.  It also works with the  Department of Education  and the
White  House HBCU (Historically  Black College and University)  Workgroup to increase
opportunities for HBCUs to partner with small businesses and federal agencies, especially in the
area of scientific research and development.  Work  is also coordinated  with  the Minority
Business Development Agency to fund opportunities for small disadvantaged businesses, and to
collaborate to  provide  outreach  to  small  disadvantage  businesses and Minority-Serving
Institutions throughout the United States and the trust territories.  EPA's OSDBU Director is an
active participant  in the federal OSDBU Council (www.osdbu.gov), and served as the Council's
Chairperson in FY 2004  and FY 2006.  The OSDBU Directors collaborate to the extent possible
to support major outreach efforts  to  small  and  disadvantaged businesses, Service-Disabled
Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, and minority-serving educational institutions via conferences,
business fairs, and speaking engagements.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)

To achieve its mission, EPA has undertaken specific coordination efforts with Federal and  state
agencies  and departments through two separate vehicles:  1) the National Academy of Public
Administration's Consortium on Improving Government Performance; 2) active contributions to
standing  interagency management committees, including the Chief Financial Officers  Council
and the Federal Financial Managers' Council. These groups are focused on improving resources
management  and accountability throughout  the  Federal government. EPA also coordinates
appropriately with Congress and other Federal agencies, such as Department  of Treasury, Office
of Management of Budget, and the Government Accountability Office.

Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM)

EPA is committed to working  with federal partners that focus on improving management and
accountability throughout the  federal  government.   The  Agency  provides  leadership   and
                                     Appendix-32

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

expertise  to Government-wide  activities  in  various  areas  of human  resources,  grants
administration, contracts management and Homeland Security. These activities include specific
collaboration efforts with Federal agencies and departments through the following activities:

Chief Human Capital  Officers, a group of senior leaders that discuss human capital initiatives
across the federal government;

Legislative & Policy Committee, a committee comprised of other federal agency representatives
who assist Office of Personnel Management in  developing plans and policies for training and
development across the government;

The Agency is participating in the government's implementation of Public Law 106-107 to
improve the effectiveness  and performance of Federal financial assistance programs,  simplify
application and reporting requirements, and improve the delivery of services to the public. This
includes membership  on the Grants Policy Committee,  the  Grants Executive Board, and the
Grants.gov Users Group.  EPA also participates in the Federal Demonstration Partnership to
reduce the administrative burdens associated with research grants;

The Chief Acquisition Officers Council, the principal interagency forum for monitoring and
improving  the federal acquisition system.   The Council also is focused  on promoting the
President's Management Agenda  in all aspects  of the  acquisition system, as well  as the
President's specific acquisition-related initiatives and policies; and

EPA is working with the Office of Management and Budget,  General Services Administrations,
and Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology to implement
Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 12 - Policy for a Common Identification  Standard
for Federal Employees and Contractors.

Office of Environmental Information (OEI)

EPA is a leader in many areas, such as E-dockets. EPA has a modern well-supported system that
can host other Agencies' docket systems, thereby reducing their costs to develop or deploy such
a system.   EPA will also  continue to coordinate with state  agencies on IT infrastructure and
security issues through state organizations such as the National Association of State Information
Resources Executives.  In  addition, EPA, along  with other Federal agencies, is involved in the
OMB led e-Gov initiatives. As part of this effort, EPA, OMB, the Department of Transportation,
and ten other Federal agencies are examining the expansion of EPA's Regulatory Public Access
System, a consolidated on-line rule-making docket system providing a single point of access for
all Federal rules.   EPA is also coordinating efforts with the National  Archives  and  Records
Administration on an e-records initiative. This effort is aimed at establishing uniform procedures,
requirements, and standards for electronic record  keeping of Federal e-Gov records.

EPA works with its state partners under the State/EPA Information Management Workgroup and
the Network Steering  Board.  This workgroup has created action teams to jointly develop key
                                      Appendix-33

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

information projects.   Action  teams consist  of EPA,  state, and  Tribal members. They are
structured to result in consensus solutions to information management issues which affect states,
tribes,  and EPA, such  as  the  development  and  use of environmental data standards, and
implementation of new technologies for collecting and reporting information.

EPA also participates  in multiple workgroups with other Federal agencies including the United
States  Geological Survey (USGS),  Federal Geographic Data  Committee (FGDC), and  CIO
Council  (http://www.cio.gov/).   The Agency is actively involved with  several agencies  in
developing government-wide e-government reforms, and continues to participate with the Office
of Homeland  Security and national security agencies on homeland security. These multi-agency
workgroups are  designed to ensure consistent implementation of standards and technologies
across Federal agencies in order to support efficient data sharing.

EPA will continue to coordinate with key Federal  data sharing partners including the USGS,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as state and local data sharing
partners  in   public  access information  initiatives.    With  respect  to  community-based
environmental programs, EPA  coordinates with state, Tribal, and local  agencies, and  with
non-governmental organizations, to design and  implement specific projects.

The nature and degree of EPA's interaction with other entities varies widely, depending on the
nature of the project and the location(s) in which it is implemented.  EPA is working closely with
the FGDC and the USGS to develop and implement the infrastructure for national spatial  data.
EPA is coordinating  its  program with other state  and Federal organizations, including the
Council for Environmental Quality  and the Environmental Council of States, to insure that the
appropriate context is represented for observed  environmental and human health conditions.

EPA will continue to  coordinate with other Federal  agencies on IT infrastructure and  security
issues  by participating on  the  Federal  CIO  Council.   For example,  EPA  (along with the
Department of Labor) recently co-chaired a Federal government committee on security.  EPA
will  continue to  participate on the  CIO Council  committees on security, capital planning,
workforce development, interoperability, and e-Gov, and will engage with other Federal agencies
in ensuring the infrastructure for homeland security.

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

The EPA Inspector General is a member of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency
(PCIE), an organization comprised  of Federal  Inspectors General (IG).  The PCIE coordinates
and  improves the way IGs  conduct audits  and investigations,  and completes projects  of
government-wide interest.  The EPA IG chairs the PCIE's Environmental Consortium, GPRA
Roundtable,  and Human Resources Committee.    The Consortium,  which  seeks effective
solutions to cross-cutting environmental  issues, currently includes representatives from  19
executive agencies and GAO. The OIG Computer Crimes Unit coordinates activities with other
law enforcement organizations that have computer crimes units such as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the  Secret Service,   and the Department of  Justice.   In addition, the  OIG


                                     Appendix-34

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

participates with various inter-governmental audit forums, professional  associations, and other
cross-governmental  forums  to  exchange  information,  share best  practices,  and  direct
collaborative efforts.
                                     Appendix-35

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                      MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

In April 2005, EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) identified areas they consider to be EPA's most pressing management challenges.
While OIG identified the majority of the areas, GAO raised a number of the same concerns, such
as human capital and assistance agreements. Notably, neither OIG nor GAO suggested elevating
any of the issues to the level of a material weakness—a reportable condition that could adversely
impact the integrity of Agency programs and activities. Most of the challenges identified are
recurring issues that take time to resolve.  EPA has been working to address these long-standing
issues and has made great progress.

EPA senior managers are committed to resolving current issues  and identifying and  addressing
emerging  issues before  they become serious  problems.   EPA  continues to strengthen  its
management practices by  maintaining a system  of internal controls that helps identify and
resolve potential management vulnerabilities.  In FY 2005, for the fourth consecutive year, EPA
reported no material weaknesses under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA).
The  Agency  resolved two of its internal  Agency-level  weaknesses, which  are  reportable
conditions less severe than material weaknesses, but that merit the attention of the Administrator.
Currently, EPA has elevated three management challenges (human capital, assistance agreement,
and homeland  security) to the level of Agency-level weaknesses under FMFIA. EPA leaders
meet periodically to review and discuss the progress the Agency is making to address the issues,
and  each year the Agency  reports  on  the status  of its efforts in  its Performance and
Accountability Report and Budget Submissions.

OMB continues to  recognize EPA's efforts  to maintain effective and efficient management
controls.   Since June 2003, the Agency has maintained its "green"  status  score for Improved
Financial  Performance under the President's Management Agenda (PMA).   Following are
discussions of the Agency's management challenges and the progress made in addressing them.

Challenges in Addressing the Air Toxics Regulatory  Program Goals

Scope of Challenge:  While EPA has achieved its Phase I goal of issuing technology-based
standards, there are concerns about EPA 's efforts to assess and implement Phase 2, residual risk
standards, as well as the accuracy of air toxics data used in measuring progress.

Agency Response:  The Air Toxics Program faces significant challenges because much remains
to be  done to address requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)  Amendments (e.g., issuance of
final standards for 70 stationary area source categories). However, the Agency has made great
progress in reducing air toxic emissions.  In  FY 2004, EPA closed Air Toxics Program as  an
Agency-level weakness because it had developed a strategy for achieving toxic risk reductions.
EPA issued 96 MACT standards that apply to  174 industrial categories.  These MACT standards
have resulted in annual reductions of 1.5 million tons of toxic emissions. By 2007, even greater
reductions will be achieved when all major stationary  sources  come into compliance under the
MACT program.   To date, EPA has completed  16 area source standards and is  working to
                                     Appendix-36

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

develop standards for an additional 25 (4 of which are under court-ordered deadlines).   Once
completed, standards for the 25 area source categories will address a significant portion of urban
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions,  as outlined in EPA's FY 1999 Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy. EPA also expects to have completed the first eight  residual risk standards by
the end of 2006.

Implementing the residual risk program, as dictated by the Clean Air  Act, remains a significant
time and resource challenge.  The statute  requires a comprehensive quantitative assessment of
the exposures and risks associated with air emissions from all of the sources in each category to
inform the potential development of a standard for the category which is more stringent than the
original standard.  It also, therefore, requires knowledge  of the methods available to reduce
emissions and risks beyond those required in the original  standard, as well as the  quantitative
knowledge of the emission reductions expected from implementation  of each of those methods.
Each of these assessments is turning out to be quite extensive in terms of the resources and time
required  to conduct, and  the uncertainties  associated with  the  results  remain  fairly  large
compared to the desired outcome and the decisions required. For example, we estimate that the
development of the  average  residual risk regulation, from start to finish, requires significant
funding and FTE over the course of 4 years.  Given the fact  that this requirement extends to
about 170 source categories over 10 years, it is easy to see that the  entire program will entail
significant resources  to complete, and all of this is occurring in a time of dwindling resources for
EPA in general and the air toxics program specifically

In the meantime, we have embarked on developing a voluntary process rule, which may reduce
any potential cost burden associated with residual risk rules, and which will allow the residual
risk program to focus its resources on addressing the most significant risks associated with major
stationary sources of air toxics.  This rule,  the Total Facility Low Risk Demonstration (TFLRD)
rule, will allow individual facilities which are currently subject  to technology-based standards to
conduct their own risk assessments in order to demonstrate to us and to their local permitting
authority  that  they  present  negligible health and environmental risks  to  their surrounding
community, and  thereby  ensure their future compliance  with any subsequently developed
residual  risk  rules.    This will  provide  EPA  with  more  accurate  site-specific emissions
information about low-risk sources and help to focus residual risk requirements on those sources
which present significant  risks.  This should help to reduce  the resource burden required to
develop residual risk standards in addition to reducing the implementation burden associated
with standards which are developed.

Modeling studies, such as the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), predict that the air toxic
risks to  the public  occur on two  distinct  geographic scales.   To improve  our ability to
characterize these risks, EPA along with its state, local government, and tribal partners recently
started a national air toxic monitoring network with regional and local components to measure
ambient levels of key air toxics pollutants.  Several air toxic pollutants have been predicted to
contribute to widespread regional and/or national exposures and risks.  The regional component
of the national air toxic monitoring network, the National Air Toxic Trends Sites (NATTS),
comprises 22 sites nationwide designed to capture the impacts of these pollutants. The first year
                                      Appendix-37

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

of NATTS  monitoring was  completed.   The local  component  of the monitoring network
comprises unique local  scale  monitoring  projects designed  to  answer  specific questions
pertaining to local air toxic issues.  Thirteen local scale projects awarded in 2005  are nearing
completion.  In early 2006, the Agency will award grants to communities to initiate 19 new local
scale monitoring projects.

The NATA provides nationwide census tract resolution of cancer and non-cancer risk estimates
from HAPs.  The Agency uses NATA information to help set priorities, measure progress against
goals, and develop study plans for more  detailed local  assessments.  These detailed local
assessments  will help identify areas where potentially higher exposures (i.e., hotspots) may exist
in urban environments  and link these concerns to local risk reductions.  The NATA is  updated
periodically.

The Agency will continue to make Air Toxics Program tracking a high priority and will adjust its
strategy as necessary to comport with legal constraints and to maximize air toxic risk reduction.

Highlights of Progress:

   •   Completed one residual risk standard for coke ovens.
   •   Proposed 5 additional residual risk rules.
   •   Continue to work on seven residual risk assessments for the 2-, 4-year source categories
       with  court-ordered dates.
   •   In  addition to EPA's 23  National Air Toxics Trends Sites (NATTS), EPA funded $6.3
       million in 19 separate grants to State  and local agencies to support additional local-scale
       monitoring efforts and methods development in FY06.

Plans for  Further Improvements:

   •   Continue to  develop tools and databases to  more accurately perform and improve the
       quality and the timeliness of risk characterization.
   •   Continue to develop  a  performance measure,  toxicity-weight  emission, to act as  a
       surrogate for risk reduction progress.
   •   Exploring pollution prevention approaches  for area sources and engaging with five
       industry groups  to explore and pilot these ideas.
   •   Developing an  "Area  Source Program  White Paper" to  provide  flexibility  in how the
       states and /or EPA address the area source program.
   •   Continuing to  improve the quality  and timeliness  of EPA's  air toxic  emissions
       inventories.
   •   Developing an air toxic monitoring network to supplement "toxicity-weighted emissions"
       as  a measure of  progress  in risk reduction.
   •   Developing a mobile source air toxics rulemaking to examine the need for and feasibility
       of  additional mobile source  controls  options for gasoline, motor  vehicles, and portable
       gasoline containers.
                                      Appendix-38

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

   •   Conducting research on  near-roadway exposure  to  assist federal, state, and  local
       transportation and air quality planners.

Superfund Evaluation and Policy Identification

Scope of Challenge:  OIG believes EPA faces significant challenges in its ability to effectively
meet current  and future Superfund fiscal and program management challenges and needs to
establish a strong working relationship  between states and tribes in order to achieve its
environmental goals.

Agency Response:  While acknowledging its fiscal and program management challenges, EPA
does  not believe it  has any weaknesses in the area of Superfund  evaluation and policy
identification.   Despite the program's complexity and  unique administrative structure, the
Agency has made and  continues to make significant progress in cleaning up Superfund sites and
reducing risk to human health and the environment.

With regard to OIG's concern that EPA has failed to proactively identify or communicate current
fiscal and other program management challenges, EPA has taken a number of actions to improve
program performance  and address management challenges.  During FY 2004, EPA completed
and published an internal review of its Superfund program, Superfund: Building on the  Past,
Looking to the Future.  The purpose of this  120-Day  Study was  to identify opportunities for
program efficiencies that would enable the Agency to begin and ultimately complete more  long-
term cleanups with current resources.  An in-house workgroup  has been established to review
and implement the recommendations  and  to track progress made  in improving the Superfund
program.   Some of the recommendations that have  been or are being addressed  include:
establishing the  Superfund Board  of Directors, which issued  the "Principles for Superfund
Cleanup in the 21st Century" and set a hierarchy of goals for the program; increasing the number
of Records of Decisions that will be reviewed by the Remedy Review Board by 5 to 10 percent;
and establishing a new enforcement performance measure to implement the "Enforcement First"
policy.

The Agency's three major initiatives since  1998 have produced some positive results and lessons
that have been incorporated into its current strategy for managing the tribal role. To ensure  tribal
needs are addressed, EPA established the Superfund tribal  forum  as a mechanism for sharing
information among regions to provide learning or improvement opportunities.  The Superfund
program will continue to coordinate with tribes and  EPA regions  in  implementing a  final
Superfund tribal strategy.

Highlights of Progress:

   •   Published Superfund: Building on the Past, Looking to the Future, an internal review of
       the Superfund program that contains recommendations for program improvements.
   •   Published the 120-Day Study Action Plan, which  outlines how EPA will  carry out the
       recommendations of the study (February 2005).
                                     Appendix-39

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

   •   Initiated a formal benchmarking program  to  identify best practices that can be  used
       throughout the program.
   •   Benchmarked site-specific payroll  charging  practices  in  the  regions to identify  and
       transfer best practices to properly account for staff time spent working on site-specific
       activities for cost recovery and public accountability purposes.
   •   Improved communication of site cleanup progress in new and innovative ways through
       the recently released Superfund Site Progress Profiles on the internet.
   •   Completed the Superfund Tribal Strategy and Implementation Plan (June 2005).

Plans for Further Improvements:

   •   Continue  to develop an  Out-year  Liability  Model  to  support  forecasting  costs  and
       accomplishments of the Superfund Program over a 30-year period.
   •   Analyze all unliquidated obligations balances to determine whether they can be made
       available through the deobligation process.
   •   Initiate a workforce analysis  on the  effects  of workload changes  on FTE needs for
       Agency programs.
   •   Develop a brochure for EPA Superfund staff working with tribes that provides ideas for
       consultation.

Information System Security

Scope of Challenge: Due to the dynamic nature of information security, EPA needs to continue
its emphasis and vigilance on strong information security.

Agency Response:  EPA acknowledges  that as technology  evolves, security of all types
(personnel, physical and cyber) remains a key  concern  for  both public  and private sector
organizations. While OIG commends  EPA for its efforts to enhance its security program through
strengthened management controls, risk assessments, penetration testing, and monitoring of the
Agency's firewalls, the dynamics of security require  continued emphasis and vigilance.  In FY
2004, EPA closed Information Security as an Agency-level weakness because it had addressed
OIG's specific management control concerns.

OIG stated that the Agency needs to  develop and ensure implementation of a training program
for employees with significant security responsibilities.  EPA  currently has  a robust training
program that requires all EPA employees with significant security responsibilities to complete at
least two role-based security training courses.  This  requirement is in addition to the annual
mandatory  Security Awareness Training that EPA employees are required to complete.  The
status of all employee security training is tracked in a web-based database.

In FY 2005, OMB  identified EPA as one  of only eight agencies deemed "green" in its color
coded scorecard for progress and status under the President's Management Agenda (PMA). The
Agency will  continue  to implement a PMA "green" security program which includes all
                                     Appendix-40

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

necessary and many innovative security processes to ensure the collection and analysis of quality
data now and in the future.
                                     Appendix-41

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Highlights of Progress:

    •  Established a robust training program that requires all EPA employees with significant
       security responsibilities to complete at least two role-based security training courses.
    •  Developed a draft EPA Certification & Accreditation (C&A) Guide, a tool designed to
       help assist EPA staff in conducting C&A for EPA information systems.
    •  Continued  to use the Plan of Action and Milestones process to effectively  monitor
       program offices' mitigation progress  for IT security weaknesses identified and reported
       to the Chief Information Officer.

Plans for Further Improvements:

    •  Continue to implement a PMA "green" security  program which  includes innovative
       security processes to  ensure the collection and analysis of quality data now and in the
       future.

Information Resources Management (IRM) and Data Quality

Scope of Challenge:  EPA faces a number of challenges (e.g., implementing data standards to
facilitate data  sharing;  establishing  quality assurance practices  to  improve the reliability,
accuracy, and scientific basis of environmental data) with the data it uses to make decisions and
monitor progress against environmental goals.

Agency Response:  EPA has made  significant progress in addressing this challenge.  In FY
2001,  EPA acknowledged both laboratory quality  system practices  and data management
practices as Agency-level weaknesses.  In FY 2004, the Agency corrected its laboratory quality
system practices as a  FMFIA weakness.  The Agency's  actions to address and validate the
effectiveness of corrective  actions included providing tools, technical evaluations, and training
for  environmental  laboratories  and  coordinating  discussions with  internal   and  external
representatives  on how to assure the quality of laboratory data.  Additionally, the Science Policy
Council's Forum  on  Environmental Measurement  developed  an approach to ensure and
document the competency  of Agency laboratories, which was issued as a policy directive in
February 2004.  Under this policy, Agency laboratories must demonstrate on-going performance
through  independent  external  assessments  and participation  in inter-laboratory comparison
studies.

In FY 2005, the Agency  corrected its data management practices as an Agency-level weakness.
EPA completed specific corrective actions  for this  weakness and validated those actions to
ensure deficiencies identified were effectively eliminated.   Specifically,  EPA developed  an
effective data standards program and  promulgated six Reinventing Environmental Information
Data Standards for the Agency.  Additionally, EPA developed an Agency Data Architecture
which serves as a blueprint for the information needed to support cross-organizational activities.
Having a well-defined and reliable  architecture to guide  information management decisions
                                      Appendix-42

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

promotes improved data quality and enables multiple and secondary uses of the data.  In FY
2005, the Agency developed a process for ensuring data management policies and procedures are
planned, maintained, and revised as appropriate. For example, the Agency changed the structure
and operating procedures of the Quality and Information Council (QIC) to better fulfill its role as
the information-policy-making body.

Data standards are an essential component of EPA's information program.  As part of its process
for developing data standards, EPA has established a System of Registries that  provides  a
reference point for implementing  the  standards.   However, coordinating  data standards in
information collections, from initial planning to data analysis, is not yet routine in all programs.
EPA requires  a process for ensuring that each data standard adopted by the Agency is fully
implemented in a cost-effective and timely manner.  Therefore, EPA is proposing a new Agency-
level weakness, Implementation of Data Standards, to address the issue.

Highlights of Progress:

   •   Developed an Agency-approved planning process to identify key data gaps by building
       on data gaps information included in EPA''s Draft Report on the Environment 2003. 7
   •   Proposed a new Agency-level weakness, Implementation of Data Standards, to ensure
       that new standards adopted by the Agency are fully implemented in a cost effective  and
       timely manner.

Plans for Further Improvements:

   •   Establish a procedure for reporting on the process of implementation across the Agency
       to the QIC and the Chief Financial Officer on a regular basis.
   •   Develop a detailed description of the Agency's strategy to correct the Implementation of
       Data Standards weakness, including major milestones and a validation  plan.

Human Capital Strategy Implementation/Employee Competencies

Scope of Challenge: While EPA has made progress in addressing human capital concerns, OIG
believes EPA continues to face challenges in developing and sustaining a highly skilled, diverse,
result-oriented workforce with  the right mix of technical expertise, experience and leadership
capabilities.

Agency Response:  OIG and GAO acknowledge the Agency's progress  in addressing human
capital concerns, but believe EPA needs to continue monitoring its Agency-wide implementation
of human capital activities. In FY 2005, EPA initiated a number  of activities that helped the
Agency make  progress  in addressing many of its human capital challenges.  Specifically, EPA
implemented  a human  capital  accountability  system to monitor and  report on the Agency's
7 U.S. EPA, EPA Draft Report on the Environment 2003 (EPA-260-R-02-006). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm
                                     Appendix-43

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

progress in human capital management.  This allows EPA to gauge the overall effectiveness of
its Strategy for Human Capital and to determine whether the Agency is achieving its desired
results.  Additionally, each headquarters program and regional  office was required to develop a
local-level human capital action plan by adopting the required  goals and strategies identified in
the Agency's Strategy for Human Capital and reporting on its  results.  To further the Agency's
workforce planning efforts in developing an agency-level Strategic Workforce Plan (SWP), each
headquarters and regional office submitted workforce (occupation-based) needs using a planning
template. This information was used to develop a high-level SWP to identify competency needs
and  frame the Agency's  comprehensive  National  Recruitment and  Outreach  Strategy that
coordinates  outreach activities for a variety of positions and Agency programs,  particularly
focusing on Hispanics, African Americans, and American Indians/Alaska Natives.

EPA is committed to  addressing its human capital challenges.  The Agency will  continue to
implement an aggressive corrective action plan to  ensure that deficiencies identified  do not
impair the Agency's ability to accomplish its mission.

Highlights of Progress:

   •  Established a Senior Human Capital Official in each program and regional office.
   •  Completed  a review  of the  Human Capital  Strategy  conducted  by EPA's Human
      Resources Council resulting in improved outcome-based goals.
   •  Revised EPA's approach to its  Agency-wide strategic workforce planning and  began
      integrating workforce planning into the Agency's planning and budgeting process.
   •  Developed  human capital measures and achievements for inclusion  in  the FY 2007
      Annual Plan.
   •  Completed  advertising for EPA's eighth Intern Program class to facilitate outreach and
      recruitment efforts.

Plans for Further Improvements:

   •  Develop a Strategic Workforce Plan for the Agency that will be revised in  conjunction
      with the Agency's Strategic Plan.
   •  Continue to train and develop  coaches to increase the Agency's  diverse "Coaching
      Cadre."
   •  Identify a competency assessment tool  and/or survey instrument to capture workforce
      competencies mission critical occupations (MCO), including leaders (Senior Executive
      Service and GS-13, 14, and  15 supervisors and managers). Technical competencies will
      be  developed for MCOs throughout FY 2006.
   •  Work with  programs  and regions to report  on effective strategies and solutions used to
      close competency gap.

Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security (formerly. Protecting Critical Infrastructure
from Non-traditional Attacks)
                                      Appendix-44

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Scope of Challenge: EPA needs to continue to work with stakeholders to develop performance
measures for water security, identify impediments preventing water systems from addressing
vulnerabilities  in  computer  systems, take steps  to ensure  it is  performing all designated
BioWatch responsibilities, and develop a better process for identifying, obtaining, maintaining,
and tracking response equipment necessary for Nationally Significant Incidents.

Agency Response:  EPA continues  to  refine its  role and  strengthen its efforts in Homeland
Security. In FY 2005, EPA declared Homeland Security  an Agency weakness and is developing
a detailed strategy to correct the weakness, including major milestones,  a validation plan, and
anticipated correction date.

The Agency has done extensive research on various aspects of water security and is making
important  progress  on  the  WaterSentinel  surveillance  and  monitoring  project, including
beginning a pilot testing  program.  EPA continues to work with state and local stakeholders to
develop comprehensive and accurate performance measures for water security and to identify
impediments preventing  water  systems from addressing vulnerabilities  in  computer systems.
EPA has taken multiple steps to ensure that all of its BioWatch responsibilities are performed.
The Agency has on-going dialogue with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as well as
state and local stakeholders,  to ensure strong lines of communication on this critical project.
EPA is involved in many aspects of BioWatch: from the technical recommendations that aid in
developing the monitors to their installation in the field.  Additionally, EPA is directly involved
with emergency response activities regarding BioWatch.  The Agency is  currently developing a
better process for identifying, obtaining, maintaining, and tracking response equipment necessary
for Nationally  Significant Incidents using the lessons learned from the  response to Hurricane
Katrina.  Using real-world examples like these will ensure the accuracy of the process and its
applicability to the Agency's actual needs.

Highlights of Progress:
    •   Updated EPA's Homeland  Security  Strategic  Plan to identify  the range of EPA's
       homeland security activities, taking into consideration the evolving role of the DHS.
    •   Began  the WaterSentinel pilot.  This pilot will gather valuable information that will be
       used to design EPA's most important water monitoring projects.
    •   Strengthened  relationships with the DHS,  as well as with  state and  local stakeholders,
       relative to BioWatch. Constantly  evaluating and revising techniques and  standards of
       operation to ensure maximum  efficiency.

Plans for Further Improvements:
    •   Continue to enhance  and improve the WaterSentinel, based  on lessons learned from the
       pilot.
    •   Finalize  a  process  for  identifying,  obtaining,  maintaining,  and  tracking  response
       equipment necessary for Nationally Significant Incidents.
    •   Develop performance measures for EPA's major homeland security projects.

Linking Mission and Management


                                      Appendix-45

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Scope of Challenge:  OIG believes that while EPA has begun linking costs to goals,  it must
continue to work with its partners to develop appropriate outcome measures and accounting
systems that  track environmental and  human health results across the Agency's new goal
structure. This information must then become an integral part of the Agency's decision-making
process.

Agency  Response:   EPA has sustained its commitment to improving the  way the Agency
manages for results and uses cost and performance information in decision making.  During FY
2005, the Agency developed and implemented a new performance tracking feature in its  Annual
Commitment  System (ACS).    This  function  supports the  entry and tracking of actual
performance data against annual regional performance commitments, most of which are directly
linked to national performance goals that support the Agency's Strategic Plan.  The Agency
continues to experience a high demand for access to the ACS as more national programs begin to
use the system to track regional  performance against key program measures.  To date, six
national program offices and all ten regional offices use the ACS.  Also in FY 2005, the Agency
redefined its  cost accounting unit from Sub-Objective  to  Program/Project to allow EPA to
develop a variety of reports to address financial requirements of Statement of  Federal Financial
Accounting Standards No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting.

OMB continues to recognize EPA for its efforts to improve the way the Agency manages for
results and uses cost and performance information in decision making.  Since September 2003
(eight consecutive quarters), EPA has maintained a "green" status score for Improved Financial
Performance under PMA.  EPA has also received a progress score of "green" for Budget and
Performance Integration for all but one consecutive quarter since June 2002.

Highlights of Progress:

    •   Developed and implemented a new performance tracking feature in the  Agency's  Annual
       Commitment  System that supports the entry and tracking of annual performance data
       against annual regional performance commitments.
    •   Improved  PART scores.   (As of July 2005, 6  of the 32 EPA programs assessed show
       results not demonstrated.)
    •   Enhanced the Office of the Chief Financial Officer's Reporting and Business Intelligence
       Tool (ORBIT) functionality by expanding the programmatic and performance reporting
       capability and adding additional data sources (Administrative Data Mart).
    •   Began to develop the Agency's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, including outreach to partners
       and stakeholders and consultation with state and tribal partners.
    •   Implemented  a comprehensive  strategy  to  integrate  PART  measures  and  related
       performance information into EPA's external GPRA  documents (i.e., OMB Submission,
       Annual Plan & Congressional Justification, Performance and Accountability Report).

Plans for Further Improvements:
                                     Appendix-46

-------
                    Environmental Protection Agency
     FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Continue to develop the  Agency's 2006-20011 Strategic Plan, including  outreach to
partners and stakeholders and consultation  with  state and tribal  partners to develop
outcome-oriented goals and objectives.
Continue to improve PART scores by developing efficiency measures for environmental
programs.
                              Appendix-47

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Grants Management and Use of Assistance Agreements

Scope  of Challenge:   EPA needs to improve  oversight for awarding and administering
assistance  agreements  to  ensure  effective  and  efficient use  of resources  in  attaining
environmental goals. Recent OIG and GAO audits continue to identify problems in the use of
assistance agreements.

Agency Response:  Assistance agreements are one of EPA's primary mechanisms for carrying
out its mission to protect human health and the environment. The Agency awards approximately
half of its budget to organizations through assistance agreements.  Thus it is imperative that the
Agency use good management practices in awarding and overseeing these agreements to ensure
they contribute cost effectively to attaining environmental goals.

EPA  acknowledges  OIG  and  GAO  concerns  regarding the  management  of assistance
agreements, and tracks this  issue as an Agency weakness in the FMFIA  process. The Agency
has made significant progress in  developing  and implementing a comprehensive system of
management controls to correct grants management problems.  EPA  issued its first long-term
Grants Management Plan,8  with associated performance  measures, in April 2003.  The plan,
which  GAO  recognizes as a comprehensive  and coordinated  plan  for strengthening  grants
management,  outlines  an  aggressive  approach to ensure that the commitments  are fully
implemented  and that employees are held accountable for managing  grants effectively.   Also,
EPA established a Grants Management Council, composed of EPA's Senior Resource Officials,
to provide the leadership, coordination, and accountability needed to implement the plan.

Highlights of Progress:

   •   Issued a long-term Training Plan that outlines the Agency's strategy for ensuring that
       employees  and  grant applicants are knowledgeable  about  their  grant management
       obligations.
   •   Issued a revised  Grants Competition Policy that substantially reduced the competition
       threshold from $75,000 to $15,000.  In FY 2005, EPA competed approximately 87% of
       new non-profit grants covered by the policy.
   •   Posted grant opportunities and application packages to www.grants.gov making it easier
       for potential recipients to obtain information about Federal grants and submit application
       for those grants.
   •   Established  a  new   "Grant  Awards  Database"  to improve the  transparency  and
       accessibility of grants data to the public.  The database contains a summary of records for
       all non-construction  EPA grants awarded  in the last 10 years and  can be accessed at
       http://vosemite.epa.gov/oarm/igms  egf.nsf/HomePage?ReadForm
   •   Issued a new Environment Results  Order  designed to ensure  that grants are outcome-
       oriented and linked to EPA strategic goals.
 U.S. EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finalreport.pdf


                                     Appendix-48

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

   •   Issued a new policy on the internal review of discretionary grants.  The policy requires
       Assistant and Regional Administrators to certify that non-competitive  discretionary
       grants and  competitive announcements have  appropriate environmental  outcomes and
       support program goals.
   •   Issued a new Order designed to assess, at the pre-award stage, the administrative and
       programmatic capabilities of  non-profit organizations  applying  for  EPA  assistance
       agreements.

Plans for Further Improvements:
   •   Improve the delivery and availability of training programs by developing on-line training
       for project officers, grant specialists, managers and supervisors, and grant recipients.
   •   Strengthen  external peer review of competitive grant applications to  ensure that taxpayer
       dollars are used appropriately and promote accountability, transparency and results.
   •   Improve EPA project officers' efficiency and effectiveness by developing project officer
       workforce plans. In 2006, each EPA office/region will be required to develop a strategy
       for managing its workforce to promote more accountable grants management.
   •   Strengthen  Agency processes under the  Environmental Results Order for identifying and
       reporting on significant grant results information  (e.g., highlighting  results achieved
       through grants in the FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report).
   •   Enhance  accountability by incorporating grants  management  responsibilities  in  the
       Agency's new Performance Assessment Rating System.
   •   Begin pilot  testing  a statistical approach for  selecting  recipients  for  post-award
       monitoring reviews, which should help the Agency obtain more accurate information on
       trends in grantee compliance.

Inconsistency Among EPA's Regional Offices

Scope of Challenge: GAO feels that inconsistency in program delivery among EPA 's regional
offices has often gone beyond the level that should be expected to take into account geographical
diversity.

GAO has reported inconsistent approaches in program delivery among regions,  particularly in
approving or disapproving proposals by states to change their water quality  standards  and in
enforcement philosophy.  GAO  feels that while EPA  attempts  to achieve some level  of
consistency to ensure that the public is afforded equal protection under environmental laws and
that regulated parties, taxpayers, and rate payers are not  subjected to widely  varying costs of
environmental compliance, the extent of variations is well  beyond  the level that  should be
expected.

While EPA has mechanisms in place to ensure basic consistency in environmental programs, the
Agency expects and encourages some variation in regional-state interaction.  States are allowed,
by statute, to have variations in their programs, and some states have chosen to put standards in
place that are more stringent than  federal requirements.   States and  regions have differing
ecological, economic, and other factors that influence which environmental laws and  regulations
                                      Appendix-49

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

require the most immediate attention, and the manner in which they can be most effectively
managed.

EPA has a significant effort underway with the states to better align state, regional, and national
planning processes and better define performance expectations.  This effort, which began in
2004, provides expanded opportunities for states to participate in all aspects of the EPA planning
process—setting mutual goals and priorities and accountability for results.  Efforts underway
include:

  •     The EPA Strategic Plan is the overarching framework for all of the planning, budgeting
        and priority  setting systems.  The EPA Annual Plan  and  Budget  establishes annual
        performance targets and funding levels for the fiscal year to support accomplishment of
        the Strategic Plan. Regional Plans, new in 2005, explain how regional offices will make
        progress toward the Agency's strategic goals over the next three to five years.
  •     Workplans  for  Performance Partnership Agreements  and  Performance  Partnership
        Grants reflect the results of previous joint planning and priority setting efforts.
  •     An  automated  Annual Commitment System through which the regions identify their
        performance commitments for the upcoming fiscal year. The system allows states and
        tribes to review and comment on draft commitments, offering an unprecedented level of
        transparency and collaboration and increasing opportunities to align national, regional,
        state and tribal priorities.
  •     Several  Strategic Planning Pilots are underway,  through a cooperative agreement with
        the  Environmental  Council  of  the States.   The pilots help  build states'  planning
        capabilities, stimulate state-regional joint planning, improve performance reporting, and
        support  improvements to Performance Partnership Agreements and other state-EPA
        agreements.    For example,  Texas focused  on improving alignment of EPA and state
        performance measures.  A crosswalk of the measures showed that 43% to 53% of water
        measures and 55% of air measures were highly  related. Region 6 and  Texas are now
        striving to revise or establish  complementary measures.

Some additional activities and studies are underway that will also look at the issues of flexibility
and consistency  in environmental programs.  First,  the  U.S. Senate  Environment and Public
Works (EPW) Committee is initiating a review of oversight of enforcement approaches among
EPA regions.  EPW staff will visit EPA's regional  offices to review enforcement consistency.
This is expected to be a major, comprehensive  study.   Second, GAO is scoping a potential study
that will focus on the EPA-state relationship  with regard to enforcement:   how priorities are
established,  and  how the programs are implemented. Third, EPA expects to receive a report
from the National Academy of Public Administration by the end of 2006 that discusses how
environmental services are delivered in the nation.

Highlights of Progress:

   •   Improved alignment of EPA and state planning and budgeting processes to better define
       performance expectations (as discussed  above).
                                      Appendix-50

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

   •  Developed the State Enforcement  Program Review Framework  to  achieve  greater
      consistency among state and regional enforcement programs.
   •  Established various  internal  and  external working groups  to  improve program
      consistency, communications and coordination on water quality standards issues across
      regions and states.

Plans for Further Improvements:

   •  Continue to convene monthly meetings of the Water Quality Standards (WQS) Managers
      Association,  Regional WQS  Coordinators,  and Regional Endangered Species  Act
      Coordinators to discuss issues of national significance and ensure an appropriate level of
      consistency.
   •  Reflect regional and  state priorities in  EPA's FY2007 Regional Plans and include a
      strong measurement component and better  link priorities to PART, the EPA  Annual
      Commitment System, and the Agency's budget and accounting system.
                                     Appendix-51

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                             EPA USER FEE PROGRAM

In FY 2007, EPA will have several user fee programs in operation. These user fee programs and
proposals are as follows:

Current Fees: Pesticides

The FY 2007 President's Budget reflects the continued collection  of Maintenance Fees for
review of  existing  pesticide registrations,  and Enhanced Registration Service Fees for the
accelerated review of new pesticide registration applications.

   •   Pesticides Maintenance Fee Extension

       The Maintenance Fee provides funding for  the Reregi strati on program  and a certain
       percentage  supports  the  processing  of  applications  involving  "me-too" or  inert
       ingredients. The Agency is scheduled to complete issuance of Reregi strati on Eligibility
       Decisions for the Reregi strati on program in 2008.  In FY 2007, the Agency expects to
       collect $21,000,000 in Maintenance fees.

   •   Enhanced Registration Services

       Entities seeking to register pesticides for use in the United States pay a fee at the time the
       registration action request is  submitted  to EPA specifically for  accelerated pesticide
       registration decision service.  This process  has introduced new pesticides to the market
       more quickly.  In FY 2007, the Agency expects  to collect $10,000,000 in Enhanced
       Registration Service fees under current law.

Current Fees: Other

   •   Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee

       Since  1989, the Pre-Manufacturing Notifications (PMN)  fee has been collected for the
       review and processing  of  new chemical pre-manufacturing notifications submitted to
       EPA by the chemical industry. These fees are paid at the time of submission of the PMN
       for review by EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.  PMN Fees
       are authorized by the Toxic Substances Control Act and contain a cap on the amount the
       Agency may charge for a PMN review. EPA is authorized to collect up to $1,800,000 in
       PMN Fees in FY 2007 under current law.

   •   Lead Accreditation and Certification Fee

       The  Toxic  Substances  Control  Act,   Title IV,  Section 402(a)(3),  mandates  the
       development of  a schedule  of  fees  for  persons operating  lead  training programs
       accredited under the 402/404 rule and for lead-based paint contractors certified under this
                                      Appendix-52

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

       rule.  The training  programs ensure that  lead paint abatement is done safely.  Fees
       collected for this activity are deposited in the U.S. Treasury. EPA estimates that less than
       $500,000 will be deposited in FY 2007.

   •   Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fee

       This fee is authorized by the Clean Air Act of 1990 and is managed by the Office of Air
       and  Radiation.  Fee collections began in  August  1992.  This  fee  is imposed  on
       manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, light and heavy trucks  and motorcycles.  The fees
       cover EPA's cost  of certifying new engines and vehicles and monitoring compliance of
       in-use engines and vehicles. In 2004, EPA promulgated a rule that updated existing fees
       and established  fees for newly-regulated vehicles and engines.  The fees established for
       new compliance  programs  are  also  imposed  on  heavy-duty,  in-use, and nonroad
       industries, including large diesel  and gas equipment (earthmovers, tractors, forklifts,
       compressors,  etc),  handheld and non-handheld  utility engines  (chainsaws,  weed-
       whackers, leaf-blowers, lawnmowers, tillers, etc.), marine (boat motors, tugs, watercraft,
       jet-skis),  locomotive,   aircraft  and   recreational  vehicles   (off-road  motorcycles,
       snowmobiles).  In  FY 2007, EPA expects to collect  $19,000,000 from this fee.

Fee Proposals: Pesticides

   •   Registration Review Fees

       As the Reregi strati on program approaches completion, the Registration Review program,
       through periodic  15-year cycle reviews,  will be initiated to ensure that  registered
       pesticides in the marketplace  continue to be safe for use in accordance with the latest
       scientific information. In 2007, the President's Budget proposes to collect $22,000,000
       through a new  Registration Review  fee aligned  with estimated costs associated with
       registration review and evaluating potential effects of pesticides on endangered species.

   •   Pesticides Tolerance Fee

       A tolerance is the maximum legal limit of a pesticide residue  in and on food commodities
       and  animal  feed.    In  1954,  the Federal  Food,  Drug,  and  Cosmetic Act  (FFDCA)
       authorized the collection of fees for the establishment of tolerances on raw agricultural
       commodities and  in food commodities.  The collection of this fee  has been blocked by
       Congressional  action  through 2008. Language  will  be submitted  to  eliminate  the
       prohibition on collecting pesticide Tolerance fees.   In FY 2007, the President's Budget
       proposes to collect $13,000,000 in Tolerance Fees.

   •   Enhanced Registration Services

       In  FY 2007, the President's Budget  proposes to publish a new fee schedule  and
       restructuring proposal for registration services to collect an additional $12,000,000.
                                      Appendix-53

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
   •   Pesticides Maintenance Fee Extension

       Under current law, the Agency expects to collect $21,000,000 in Maintenance fees in FY
       2007.  Language will be submitted to increase  the authorized  level  of collections and
       restructure the fee in 2007 to collect an additional $9,000,000 in order to align more
       closely with program costs.

Fee Proposals:  Other

   •   Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee

       Under the current fee structure, the Agency would collect $1,800,000 in FY 2007.
       Language will be submitted to remove the statutory cap in the Toxic Substances Control
       Act on Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fees.  In FY 2007, EPA expects to collect an
       additional $4,000,000 by removing the statutory cap.
                                     Appendix-54

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                                WORKING CAPITAL FUND

In FY 2007,  the Agency begins its eleventh year of operation of the Working  Capital Fund
(WCF). It is a revolving fund authorized by law to finance a cycle of operations, where the costs
of goods and services provided are charged to users  on  a fee-for-service basis.  The funds
received are available without fiscal year limitation, to continue operations and to replace capital
equipment.   EPA's WCF was implemented  under  the  authority of Section  403 of  the
Government  Management Reform Act of 1994  and  EPA's FY  1997 Appropriations Act.
Permanent WCF authority was contained in the Agency's FY 1998 Appropriations Act.

The  Chief  Financial Officer initiated the WCF in FY 1997 as part of an effort to:  (1) be
accountable to Agency offices,  the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress;  (2)
increase the  efficiency of the administrative  services provided to program  offices;  and  (3)
increase customer service and responsiveness.   The Agency has a WCF Board which provides
policy and  planning oversight and advises the CFO regarding the WCF  financial position.  The
Board, chaired by  the Associate Chief Financial Officer,  is composed of eighteen permanent
members from the program and regional offices.

Two Agency  Activities begun in FY 1997 will continue into FY 2007.   These are the Agency's
information technology  and telecommunications  operations, managed  by  the Office  of
Environmental  Information,  and  Agency  postage  costs,  managed  by  the  Office  of
Administration. A third Activity, Financial Management, will be provided pending a successful
WCF pilot program in FY 2006. This Activity provides the Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS), which is the core accounting system for the Agency, and it is managed by  the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

The  Agency's FY 2007 budget request includes resources for these  three Activities in each
National  Program Manager's   submission,  totaling approximately $170.0  million.   These
estimated resources may be increased to incorporate program office's  additional  service needs
during the  operating year.   To the extent that these  increases are subject to Congressional
reprogramming notifications, the Agency will comply with all  applicable requirements.  In  FY
2007, the Agency will continue to market its information technology services to  other Federal
agencies in an effort to deliver high quality services external to EPA, which will result in lower
costs to EPA customers.
                                     Appendix-55

-------
                         Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                     ACRONYMS FOR STATUTORY AUTHORITIES

AEA: Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and Reorganization Plan #3

AHERA: Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act

AHPA: Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act

ASHAA: Asbestos in Schools Hazard Abatement Act

APA: Administrative Procedures Act

ASTCA: Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act

BEACH Act of 2000: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act

BRERA: Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act

CAA: Clean Air Act

CAAA: Clean Air Act Amendments

CCA: Clinger Cohen Act

CCAA: Canadian Clean Air Act

CEPA: Canadian Environmental Protection Act

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (1980)

CFOA: Chief Financial Officers Act

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CICA: Competition in Contracting Act

CSA: Computer Security Act

CWPPR: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990

CWA: Clean Water Act

CZARA: Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments


                                   Appendix-56

-------
                         Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act

DPA: Deepwater Ports Act

DREAA: Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

ECRA: Economic Cleanup Responsibility Act

EFOIA: Electronic Freedom of Information Act

EPAA: Environmental Programs Assistance Act

EPAAR: EPA Acquisition Regulations

EPCA: Energy Policy and Conservation Act

EPACT: Energy Policy Act

EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act

ERD&DAA: Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act

ESA: Endangered Species Act

ESECA: Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act

FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act

FAIR: Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act

FCMA: Fishery Conservation and Management Act

FEPCA: Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act; enacted as amendments to FIFRA.

FFDCA: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FGCAA: Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act

FIFRA: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act


                                   Appendix-57

-------
                         Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

FOIA: Freedom of Information Act

FPA: Federal Pesticide Act

FPPA: Federal Pollution Prevention Act

FPR: Federal Procurement Regulation

FQPA: Food Quality Protection Act

FRA:  Federal Register Act

FSA: Food Security Act

FUA:  Fuel Use Act

FWCA: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

FWPCA: Federal Water Pollution and Control Act (aka CWA)

GISRA: Government Information Security Reform Act

GMRA: Government Management Reform Act

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act

HMTA: Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

IGA: Inspector General Act

IP A: Intergovernmental Personnel Act

IPIA:  Improper Payments Information Act

ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

LPA-US/MX-BR: 1983 La Paz Agreement on US/Mexico Border Region

MPPRCA:  Marine Plastic Pollution, Research and Control Act of 1987

MPRSA: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act


                                   Appendix-58

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

NAAEC: North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NAWCA: North American Wetlands Conservation Act,

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act

NIPDWR: National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations

NISA: National Invasive Species Act of 1996

ODA: Ocean Dumping Act

OPA: The Oil Pollution Act

PFCRA: Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act

PHSA: Public Health Service Act

PLIRRA: Pollution Liability Insurance and Risk Retention Act

PR: Privacy Act

PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act

QCA: Quiet Communities Act

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RLBPHRA: Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act

RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act

RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

SBREFA: Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
                                    Appendix-59

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

SBLRBRERA:  Small  Business   Liability  Relief  and  Brownfields  Revitalization  and
Environmental Restoration Act

SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act

SICEA: Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act

SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

SPA: Shore Protection Act of 1988

SWDA: Solid Waste Disposal Act

TCA: Tribal Cooperative Agreement

TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act

UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

UMTRLWA: Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Land Withdrawal Act

USC: United States Code

USTCA: Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act

WQA: Water Quality Act of 1987

WRDA: Water Resources Development Act

WSRA: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

WWWQA: Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000
                                   Appendix-60

-------
               Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

    FY 2007 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
             Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management








State and Local
Air Quality
Management

















Statutory
Authorities
Clean Air Act,
ง103








Clean Air Act,
ง103


















Eligible
Recipients*
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
theCAA






Multi-
jurisdictional
organizations
(non-profit
organizations
whose boards of
directors or
membership is
made up of CAA
section 302(b)
agency officers
and Tribal
representatives
and whose
mission is to
support the
continuing
environmental
programs of the
states)

Eligible Uses
S/L monitoring
and data
collection
activities in
support of the
establishment of
aPM2.5
monitoring
network and
associated
program costs
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
addressing
regional haze













FY2006
Enacted
Dollars(X1000)
$42,500.0









$5,000.0



















FY2007
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
Obj. 1








Goal 1,
f~\]^ • 1
Obj. 1

















FY2007
Request
Dollars(X1000)
$0.0









$2,500.0



















                        Appendix-61

-------
               Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management

































Statutory
Authorities
Clean Air Act,
Sections 103,
105, 106

































Eligible
Recipients*
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
the CAA; Multi-
jurisdictional
organizations
(non-profit
organizations
whose boards of
directors or
membership is
made up of CAA
section 302(b)
agency officers
and whose
mission is to
support the
continuing
environmental
programs of the
states); Interstate
air quality
control region
designated
pursuant to
section 107 of
the CAA or of
implementing
section 176A, or
section 184
NOTE: only the
Ozone Transport
Commission is
eligible as of
2/1/99
Eligible Uses
Carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA and
associated
program support
costs;
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA;
Supporting
training for CAA
section 302(b)
air pollution
control agency
staff; and
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
control interstate
air pollution



FY2006
Enacted
Dollars(X1000)
$172,761.0



































FY2007
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 1

































FY2007
Request
Dollars(X1000)
$182,679.5



































                        Appendix-62

-------
               Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Grant Title
Tribal Air
Quality
Management


















Radon







Water Pollution
Control (Section
106)










Statutory
Authorities
Clean Air Act,
Sections 103 and
105; Tribal
Cooperative
Agreements
(TCA) in annual
Appropriations
Acts













Toxic
Substances
Control Act,
Sections 10 and
306; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts
FWPCA, as
amended, ง106;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts








Eligible
Recipients*
Tribes;
Intertribal
Consortia;
State/ Tribal
college or
university















State Agencies,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia




States, Tribes
and Intertribal
Consortia, and
Interstate
Agencies









Eligible Uses
Conducting air
quality
assessment
activities to
determine a
Tribe's need to
develop a CAA
program;
Carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA and
associated
program costs;
Supporting
training for CAA
for federally
recognized
Tribes
Assist in the
development and
implementation
of programs for
the assessment
and mitigation of
radon

Develop and
carry out surface
and ground
water pollution
control
programs,
including
NPDES permits,
TMDL's,WQ
standards,
monitoring, and
NPS control
activities.
FY2006
Enacted
Dollars(X1000)
$10,887.0




















$7,439.0







$216,172.0












FY2007
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,

Obj. 1


















Goal 1,
rvhi o
WUJ. Z





Goal 2,
rvhi o
WUJ. Z










FY2007
Request
Dollars(X1000)
$10,939.5




















$8,073.5







$221,661.0












                        Appendix-63

-------
               Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Grant Title
Nonpoint Source
(NPS - Section
319)







Wetlands
Program
Development







Targeted
Watershed
Grants





Public Water
System
Supervision
(PWSS)








Homeland
Security Grants






Statutory
Authorities
FWPCA, as
amended,
ง319(h);TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts




FWPCA, as
amended,
ง104(b)(3);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts




Department of
Interior,
Environment
and Related
Agencies
Appropriation
Act, 2006 Public
Law 109-54
Safe Drinking
Water Act,
ง1443(a);TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.






Safe Drinking
Water Act,
1442; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.


Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia







States, Local
Governments,
Tribes,
Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, and
Non-Profit
Organizations

States, Local
Governments,
Tribes, Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, and
Non-Profit
Organizations
States, Tribes,
and Intertribal
Consortia









States, Tribes,
and Intertribal
Consortia






Eligible Uses
Implement EPA-
approved state
and tribal
nonpoint source
management
programs and
fund priority
projects as
selected by the
State.
To develop new
wetland
programs or
enhance existing
programs for the
protection,
management and
restoration of
wetland
resources.
Assistance for
watersheds to
expand and
improve existing
watershed
protection
efforts.

Assistance to
implement and
enforce National
Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations to
ensure the safety
of the Nation's
drinking water
resources and to
protect public
health.
To assist States
and Tribes in
coordinating
their water
security
activities with
other homeland
security efforts.
FY2006
Enacted
Dollars(X1000)
$204,278.0









$15,765.0









$16,608.0







$98,279.0











$4,926.0







FY2007
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 2.







Goal 4,

Obi 3
J






Goal 4,

Obj. 3





Goal 2,
/~O-i 1
UuJ. 1









Goal 2,

Obj. 1





FY2007
Request
Dollars(X1000)
$194,040.0









$16,830.0









$6,930.0







$99,099.0











$4,950.0







                        Appendix-64

-------
               Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Underground
Injection Control
[UIC]


Beaches
Protection






Hazardous
Waste Financial
Assistance



Statutory
Authorities
Safe Drinking
Water Act, ง
1443(b); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.


Beaches
Environmental
Assessment and
Coastal Health
Act of 2000;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.




Resource
Conservation
Recovery Act,
ง3011;
FY1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia


States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia, Local
Governments






States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia



Eligible Uses
Implement and
enforce
regulations that
protect
underground
sources of
drinking water
by controlling
Class I-V
underground
injection wells.
Develop and
implement
programs for
monitoring and
notification of
conditions for
coastal
recreation waters
adjacent to
beaches or
similar points of
access that are
used by the
public.
Development &
Implementation
of Hazardous
Waste Programs


FY2006
Enacted
Dollars(X1000)
$10,838.0


$9,853.0






$101,944.0



FY2007
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
Obj. 1


Goal 2,
Obj. 1






Goal3,
Obj. 1
Obj. 2


FY2007
Request
Dollars(X1000)
$10,890.0


$9,900.0






$103,345.5



                        Appendix-65

-------
               Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Brownfields















Statutory
Authorities
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and Liability Act
of 1980, as
amended,
Section 128








Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia













Eligible Uses
Build and
support
Brownfields
programs which
will assess
contaminated
properties,
oversee private
party cleanups,
provide cleanup
support through
low interest
loans, and
provide certainty
for liability
related issues.
FY2006
Enacted
Dollars(X1000)
$49,264.0















FY2007
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,

Obi 2
J












FY2007
Request
Dollars(X1000)
$49,494.9















                        Appendix-66

-------
               Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Underground
Storage Tanks
[UST]













Statutory
Authorities
Solid Waste
Disposal Act of
1976, Section
2007(f)(2), as
amended, 42
U.S.C.
6916(f)(2)and
implemented by
regulations at 40
CFR 35.330;
Resource
Conservation
and Recovery
Act; Section 204
of the
Demonstration
Cities and
Metropolitan
Development
Act, as amended
at 42 U.S.C.
3334;
Departments of
Veterans Affairs,
Housing and
Urban
Development,
and Independent
Agencies
Appropriations
Act of 1999,
Public Law 1 05-
276, (112Stat.
246 1,2499; 42
U.S.C. 6908a);
Underground
Storage Tank
Compliance Act
of 2005; Section
2007 (f)
Eligible
Recipients*
States, federally-
recognized
Tribes and
Intertribal
Consortia













Eligible Uses
Develop and/or
implement state
or Indian UST
program;
provide funding
for SEE
enrollees to
work on the
state's
underground
storage tanks
and to support
direct UST
implementation
programs.











FY2006
Enacted
Dollars(X1000)
$11,774.0













FY2007
Goal/
Objective
Goal3
Obj. 1













FY2007
Request
Dollars(X1000)
$37,566.7













                        Appendix-67

-------
               Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Grant Title

Pesticides
Program
Implementation




























Lead














Statutory
Authorities

The Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
ง 20 & 23; the
FY1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); FY 2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
cirirriicii
Appropriations
Acts.























Toxic
Substances

Control Act,
ง 404 (g);
TSCA 10;
FY2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.


Eligible
Recipients*

States, Tribes
and Intertribal
Consortia




























States, Tribes,
Intertribal

Consortia












Eligible Uses
Assist States and
Tribes to
develop and
implement
pesticide
programs,
including
programs that
protect workers,
ground- water,
and endangered
species from
pesticide risks ,
and other
pesticide
management
programs
designated by
the
Administrator;
develop and
implement
programs for
certification and
training of
pesticide
applicators;
develop
Integrated
Pesticides
Management
(IPM) programs;
support
pesticides
education,
outreach, and
sampling efforts
for Tribes.
To support and
assist States and

Tribes to
develop and
carry out
authorized state
lead abatement
certification,
training and
accreditation
programs; and to
assist tribes in
development of
lead programs.
FY2006
Enacted
Dollars(X1000)

$12,907.0





























$13,499.0














FY2007
Goal/
Objective

Goal 4,
Obj. 1




























Goal 4,
/-yu: i
\JD\ 1
j











FY2007
Request
Dollars(X1000)

$12,968.9





























$13,563.1














                        Appendix-68

-------
               Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Grant Title
Toxic
Substances
Compliance






Pesticide
Enforcement







Statutory
Authorities
Toxic
Substances
Control Act,
ง28(a) and 404
(g); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.

FIFRA
ง 23(a)(l); FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
States,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia




States,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia





Eligible Uses
Assist in
developing and
implementing
toxic substances
enforcement
programs for
PCBs, asbestos,
and lead-based
paint
Assist in
implementing
cooperative
pesticide
enforcement
programs



FY2006
Enacted
Dollars(X1000)
$5,074.0








$18,622.0








FY2007
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,

Obj. 1






Goal 5,
/~O-i 1
UuJ. 1






FY2007
Request
Dollars(X1000)
$5,098.5








$18,711.0








                        Appendix-69

-------
               Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
National
Environmental
Information
Exchange
Network
(NEIEN, aka
"the Exchange
Network")

















Pollution
Prevention




Statutory
Authorities
As appropriate,
Clean Air Act,
Sec. 103; Clean
Water Act, Sec.
104; Solid Waste
Disposal Act,
Sec. 8001;
FIFRA, Sec 20;
TSCA, Sec. 10
and 28; Marine
Protection,
Research and
Sanctuaries Act,
Sec. 203; Safe
Drinking Water
Act, Sec. 1442;
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); Pollution
Prevention Act,
Sec. 6605; FY
2002
Appropriations
Act and FY
2003
Appropriations
Acts.
Pollution
Prevention Act
of 1990, ง6605;
TSCA 10;
FY2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.



Eligible
Recipients*
States, tribes,
interstate
agencies, tribal
consortium, and
other agencies
with related
environmental
information
activities.

















States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia




Eligible Uses
Assists states
and others to
better integrate
environmental
information
systems, better
enable data-
sharing across
programs, and
improve access
to information.

















To assist state
and tribal
programs to
promote the use
of source
reduction
techniques by
businesses and
to promote other
Pollution
Prevention
activities at the
state and tribal
levels.
FY2006
Enacted
Dollars(X1000)
$19,706.0

















$4,926.0





FY2007
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4
Obj.2

















Goal 4,
Obj. 1




FY2007
Request
Dollars(X1000)
$14,850.0

















$5,940.0





                        Appendix-70

-------
               Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Sector Program
(previously
Enforcement &
Compliance
Assurance)














Tribal General
Assistance
Program



Statutory
Authorities
As appropriate,
Clean Air Act,
Sec. 103; Clean
Water Act, Sec.
104; Solid Waste
Disposal Act,
Sec. 8001;
FIFRA, Sec 20;
TSCA, Sec. 10
and 28; Marine
Protection,
Research and
Sanctuaries Act,
Sec. 203; Safe
Drinking Water
Act, Sec. 1442;
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
State,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Multi-
jurisdictional
Organizations














Tribal
Governments
and Intertribal
Consortia



Eligible Uses
Assist in
developing
innovative
sector-based,
multi-media, or
single-media
approaches to
enforcement and
compliance
assurance














Plan and develop
Tribal
environmental
protection
programs.



FY2006
Enacted
Dollars(X1000)
$2,217.0















$56,654.0



FY2007
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,
Obj. 1















Goal 5,
Obj. 3



FY2007
Request
Dollars(X1000)
$2,227.5















$56,925.0



                        Appendix-71

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                 INFRASTRUCTURE / STAG PROJECT FINANCING
                                  (Dollars in Millions)

Infrastructure Financing
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
STAG Projects
Brownfields Environmental Projects
Clean School Bus Initiative
Diesel Emissions Reduction Program
Mexico Border Projects
Alaska Native Villages
Targeted Projects - Puerto Rico
TOTAL
FY 2006
Enacted
Budget

$886.8
$837.5

$88.7
$6.9
$0.0
$49.3
$34.5
$0.0
$1,903. 7
FY 2007
President's
Budget Request

$687.6
$841.5

$89.1
$0.0
$49.5
$24.8
$14.9
$1.0
$1,708.4
Infrastructure and Special Projects Funds
The President's Budget includes a total  of $1,708.4 million in 2007 for EPA's Infrastructure
programs  and State  and  Tribal  Assistance Grant (STAG) projects.   Approximately $1,545
million will support EPA's Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water, $114 million will support EPA's Goal
4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems and  $50 million will support Goal 1: Clean Air and
Global Climate Change.

Infrastructure and targeted projects funding under the STAG appropriation provides financial
assistance to states,  municipalities, interstates, and Tribal governments to fund a variety  of
drinking  water, wastewater, air and Brownfields environmental projects.  These  funds  are
essential  to  fulfill the  Federal government's commitment to help our state, Tribal  and local
partners obtain adequate  funding to construct the facilities required to comply  with Federal
environmental requirements and ensure public health and revitalize contaminated properties.

Providing STAG  funds to  capitalize State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs,  EPA works  in
partnership  with  the states to provide  low-cost loans  to municipalities for infrastructure
construction.  As set-asides of the SRF programs, grants are available to Indian Tribes and
Alaska Native Villages for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs based on national
priority lists.  The Brownfields Environmental Program provides states, Tribes, and political
subdivisions  (including cities,  towns,  and counties)  the necessary  tools, information, and
strategies  for  promoting  a   unified  approach  to  environmental   assessment,   cleanup,
characterization, and  redevelopment at sites contaminated with hazardous wastes and petroleum
contaminants.
                                     Appendix-72

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

The resources included in this budget will enable the Agency, in conjunction with EPA's state,
local, and Tribal partners, to achieve  several important goals for 2007.   Some of these goals
include:

     - 94 percent of the population served by community water  systems will receive drinking
       water meeting all health-based standards.

     - Award 101 assessment grants under the Brownfields program,  bringing the cumulative
       total grants awarded to 1,081 by the end of FY 2007 paving the way for productive reuse
       of these properties.  This will bring the total number of sites  assessed to 9,000 while
       leveraging a total of $10 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funds since 1995.

Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change

Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program

In FY 2007, EPA will support the National Clean Diesel  program, authorized in Sections 791-
797 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  This program focuses on reducing particulate matter
(PM) by up to 95% from existing diesel engines, including on-highway and nonroad equipment
and reducing other, smog-forming emissions  such as nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. Five
sectors are targeted for  reduction:  freight, construction,  school  buses, agriculture, and ports.
Grants will be provided  to eligible entities in  areas of the  country that  are not meeting ambient
air quality standards.  This program will  help provide immediate reductions by retrofitting the
engines with emission control technologies sooner than would otherwise occur through normal
turnover of the fleet because these engines often remain in service for 20 or more years. In 2007,
up to 30 percent of the appropriated funds will be used to provide formula grants to states for the
purpose of establishing  state grant and loan programs. EPA expects to fund at least 200 new
grants deploying technology in various sectors using diesel engines.   These funds  will also
support competitive grants  for replacing,  repowering  and retrofitting  older school buses with
emission control technology, potentially reducing PM emissions by up to 95 percent.

Goal 2: Clean and Safe  Water

Capitalizing Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds

The  Clean Water  and Drinking  Water State Revolving Fund programs demonstrate  a true
partnership between  states,  localities  and the Federal government.  These programs provide
Federal financial assistance to  states, localities, and  Tribal governments to protect the nation's
water resources by providing funds for the construction of drinking water and wastewater
treatment facilities.   The state revolving funds are two  important elements of the nation's
substantial investment  in  sewage  treatment and  drinking water systems,  which  provides
Americans with significant benefits in the form of  reduced  water pollution and safe drinking
water.
                                      Appendix-73

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

EPA  will continue to provide financial assistance  for wastewater  and other water projects
through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).  CWSRF projects include nonpoint
source,  estuary, storm water, and sewer overflow projects.  The dramatic progress made in
improving the quality of wastewater treatment since  the 1970s is  a national success.  In 1972,
only 84 million people were served by  secondary or advanced wastewater treatment facilities.
Today, 99 percent of community wastewater treatment plants, serving 181  million people, use
secondary treatment or better. Water infrastructure projects supported by the program contribute
to direct ecosystem improvements by lowering the amount of nutrients and toxic pollutants in all
types of surface  waters.   While great progress has  been made, many rivers,  lakes  and
ocean/coastal  areas  still suffer  an  enormous  influx of pollutants  after  heavy rains.   The
contaminants result in beach closures, infect fish and degrade the ability of the watersheds to
sustain a healthy ecosystem.  Improvements to our cities infrastructure remain a top priority if we
are to reclaim our water resources.

The FY 2007  President's Budget Request includes $687.6 million in funding for the CWSRF.
More than $23 billion has already been  provided to capitalize the  CWSRF,  well over twice the
original Clean Water Act authorized  level of $8.4 billion.  Total CWSRF funding available for
loans since 1987, reflecting  loan repayments, state match dollars,  and other funding sources, is
approximately $55 billion, of which more than $52 billion has been provided to communities as
financial assistance.

The dramatic progress made in improving the quality  of wastewater treatment since the 1970s is
a national success.  In  1972, only 84 million people were served by secondary or  advanced
wastewater treatment facilities. Today,  99 percent of community wastewater treatment plants,
serving  181 million people, use secondary treatment or better.

The DWSRF will be self-sustaining in the long run and will help offset the costs of ensuring safe
drinking water supplies and assisting  small communities in meeting their  responsibilities. Since
its inception in 1997, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program has made
available $11.1 billion to finance 4,196  infrastructure improvement projects nationwide, with a
return of $1.73 for every $1 of Federal funds invested.

Set-Asides for Tribes:  To improve public health and water quality on Tribal lands, the Agency
will  continue  the  1  /^ percent CWSRF set-aside for funding wastewater grants to tribes as
provided in the Agency's 2002 appropriation.  The 2002 World Summit in Johannesburg adopted
the goal of reducing the number of people lacking access to basic sanitation by 50 percent by
2015.   Through this program,  EPA  contributes to this  goal  which  will provide for the
development of sanitation facilities for tribes and Alaska Native Villages.

Alaska Native Villages

The President's Budget  provides $15 million for Alaska native villages for the  construction of
wastewater and drinking water  facilities  to  address serious  sanitation  problems.  EPA  will
continue to work with the Department of Health and Human Services' Indian Health Service, the
                                      Appendix-74

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

State  of Alaska, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Council and local  communities to provide
needed financial and technical assistance.

Puerto Rico
The  President's  Budget includes  $1.0 million for  the  next  design phase of upgrades  to
Metropolitano's Sergio Cuevas treatment plant in San Juan, Puerto Rico. EPA and Puerto Rico
provided $7 million to date  ($3.8 and $3.2  million, respectively).  When all  upgrades  are
complete, EPA estimates that about 1.4 million people will enjoy safer, cleaner drinking water.

Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Brownfields Environmental Projects
The President's Budget includes $89.0 million for Brownfields environmental projects.  EPA
will  award  grants  for assessment  activities,  cleanup,  and  revolving  loan  funds (RLF).
Additionally, this includes cleanup of sites contaminated by petroleum or petroleum products
and environmental job training grants. In FY 2007, the  funding  provided will result in  the
assessment of 1,000 Brownfields  properties.   Brownfields grantees will leverage cleanup and
redevelopment jobs and $900,000 in cleanup and redevelopment funding.

Mexico Border

The OMB Submission includes a total of $25.0 million for water infrastructure projects along the
U.S./Mexico Border.  The goal of this program is to reduce environmental and human health
risks along the U.S./Mexico Border.   EPA's  U.S./Mexico Border program provides funds to
support the planning, design and construction of high priority  water and wastewater treatment
projects along the border.   The Agency's goal is to provide protection of people in the U.S.-
Mexico border area for health risks by increasing the number of homes connected to potable
water supply and wastewater collection and treatment systems.  The program has sufficient
resources to carry out currently approved projects and provides $25 million to address new needs
in FY 2007.
                                      Appendix-75

-------
                                          Environmental Protection Agency
                    FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                                PROGRAM PROJECTS BY APPROPRIATION
                                                 (Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology


Air Toxics and Quality

   Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs

   Federal Support for Air Quality Management

   Federal Support for Air Toxics Program

   Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification

           Energy  Policy   Act  &   Related  Authorities
           Implementation

           Federal   Vehicle   and  Fuels  Standards   and
           Certification (other activities)

      Subtotal, Federal Vehicle  and  Fuels  Standards  and
         Certification

   Radiation: Protection

   Radiation: Response Preparedness

Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality



Climate Protection Program

   Climate Protection Program


Enforcement

   Forensics Support


Homeland Security

   Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection

           Water sentinel and related training

           Homeland Security:      Critical  Infrastructure
           Protection (other activities)

      Subtotal, Homeland  Security:    Critical  Infrastructure
         Protection

   Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

           Decontamination

           Laboratory Security: Preparedness, Response, and
           Recovery

           Safe Building

           Homeland Security:  Preparedness, Response, and
           Recovery  (other activities)

      Subtotal, Homeland Security:   Preparedness, Response,
         and Recovery

   Homeland Security:  Protection of EPA Personnel  and
   Infrastructure

Subtotal, Homeland Security
FY 2005
Obligations
$8,476.1
$10,747.8
$3,040.8
$0.0
$60,614.9
$60,614.9
$2,552.0
$2,460.0
$87,891.6
$20,448.0
$13,377.9
$0.0
$17,952.2
$17,952.2
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$33,417.3
FY 2006
Enacted
$8,527.0
$10,012.0
$2,225.0
$0.0
$58,613.0
$58,613.0
$2,086.0
$3,468.0
$84,931.0
$18,648.0
$13,129.0
$8,131.0
$4,262.0
$12,393.0
$16,868.0
$591.0
$3,722.0
$14,571.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,259.4
$10,272.9
$2,264.7
$11,400.0
$56,924.5
$68,324.5
$2,054.3
$3,585.9
$95,761.7
$12,549.6
$13,185.2
$41,735.2
$3,515.8
$45,251.0
$24,666.7
$600.0
$4,000.0
$15,231.4
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$732.4
$260.9
$39.7
$11,400.0
($1,688.5)
$9,711.5
($31.7)
$117.9
$10,830.7
($6,098.4)
$56.2
$33,604.2
($746.2)
$32,858.0
$7,798.7
$9.0
$278.0
$660.4
$33,417.3


$2,517.6


$53,887.1
$35,752.0


$2,050.0


$50,195.0
$44,498.1


$2,079.0


$91,828.1
$8,746.1


$29.0


$41,633.1
                                                        Appendix-76

-------
                                         Environmental Protection Agency
                    FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Indoor Air

    Indoor Air:  Radon Program

    Reduce Risks from Indoor Air

Subtotal, Indoor Air



IT / Data Management / Security

    IT / Data Management


Operations and Administration

    Facilities Infrastructure and Operations


Pesticides Licensing

    Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides

    Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides

Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing



Research / Congressional Priorities


Research: Clean Air

    Research: Air Toxics

    Research: Global Change

    Research: NAAQS

Subtotal, Research:  Clean Air



Research: Clean Water

    Research: Drinking Water

    Research: Water Quality

Subtotal, Research:  Clean Water



Research: Human Health and Ecosystems

    Human Health Risk Assessment

    Research: Computational Toxicology

    Research: Endocrine Disrupter

    Research: Fellowships

    Research: Human Health and Ecosystems

Subtotal, Research:  Human Health and Ecosystems
FY 2005
Obligations
$696.7
$909.5
$1,606.2
$4,141.3
$8,892.1
$2,473.1
$2,471.1
$4,944.2
$74,485.5
$14,472.5
$19,395.9
$63,156.4
$97,024.8
$46,824.0
$46,243.2
$93,067.2
$33,247.5
$12,002.9
$12,559.5
$14,476.8
$169,805.8
$242,092.5
FY 2006
Enacted
$429.0
$810.0
$1,239.0
$4,173.0
$8,511.0
$2,463.0
$2,480.0
$4,943.0
$32,919.0
$16,226.0
$18,619.0
$66,777.0
$101,622.0
$45,170.0
$51,269.0
$96,439.0
$35,637.0
$12,327.0
$10,494.0
$11,691.0
$167,703.0
$237,852.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$442.2
$828.7
$1,270.9
$4,268.0
$70,239.5
$2,766. 1
$2,820.4
$5,586.5
$0.0
$12,274.2
$17,456.4
$65,455.6
$95,186.2
$49,242.5
$56,988.2
$106,230.7
$34,488.5
$14,983.1
$9,081.2
$8,383.0
$161,312.7
$228,248.5
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$13.2
$18.7
$31.9
$95.0
$61,728.5
$303.1
$340.4
$643.5
($32,919.0)
($3,951.8)
($1,162.6)
($1,321.4)
($6,435.8)
$4,072.5
$5,719.2
$9,791.7
($1,148.5)
$2,656.1
($1,412.8)
($3,308.0)
($6,390.3)
($9,603.5)
Research:  Land Protection

    Research: Land Protection and Restoration
                                                           $10,257.6
$11,606.0
$10,552.8
($1,053.2)
                                                       Appendix-77

-------
                                          Environmental Protection Agency
                     FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Research: Sustainability

    Research: Economics and Decision Science(EDS)

    Research: Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)

    Research: Sustainability

Subtotal, Research: Sustainability
                                                              FY 2005
                                                            Obligations
$2,465.6

$3,364.9

$36,354.6

$42,185.1
                   FY 2006
                   Enacted
$2,361.0

$2,990.0

$25,803.0

$31,154.0
                       FY 2007
                      Pres Bud
$2,494.6

$0.0

$21,404.9

$23,899.5
                    Pres Bud
                   vs. Enacted
$133.6

($2,990.0)

($4,398.1)

($7,254.5)
Toxic Research and Prevention

    Research: Pesticides and Toxics


Water: Human Health Protection

    Drinking Water Programs


Rescission of Prior Year  Expired Contracts, Grants, and
Interagency Agreements

Total, Science & Technology
$28,276.0       $30,357.0          $26,223.7           ($4,133.3)



$3,326.0        $3,092.0           $3,243.1            $151.1


$0.0            ($1,000.0)          $0.0               $1,000.0


$785,903.1      $729,810.0         $788,274.0          $58,464.0
Environmental Program & Management


Air Toxics and Quality

   Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs

   Federal Stationary Source Regulations

   Federal Support for Air Quality Management

           Energy Policy Act Implementation

           Clean Diesel Initiative

           Federal Support for Air Quality Management (other
           activities)

      Subtotal, Federal Support for Air Quality Management

   Federal Support for Air Toxics Program

   Radiation:  Protection

   Radiation:  Response Preparedness

   Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs

   Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund

Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality



Brownflelds

   Brownfields


Climate Protection Program

   Climate Protection Program

           Energy Star

           Methane to Markets
$17,513.5
$20,555.3
$0.0
$0.0
$89,350.1
$89,350.1
$23,518.7
$11,694.4
$2,284.4
$4,478.1
$9,920.0
$179,314.5
$27,248.4
$0.0
$0.0
$17,708.0
$23,215.0
$0.0
$5,867.0
$90,082.0
$95,949.0
$25,405.0
$11,178.0
$2,632.0
$4,938.0
$8,600.0
$189,625.0
$24,534.0
$49,536.0
$1,971.0
$19,126.4
$25,678.3
$2,800.0
$0.0
$85,265.6
$88,065.6
$25,513.7
$10,648.6
$2,688.7
$5,221.4
$13,365.0
$190,307.7
$24,637.3
$45,722.8
$4,420.5
$1,418.4
$2,463.3
$2,800.0
($5,867.0)
($4,816.4)
($7,883.4)
$108.7
($529.4)
$56.7
$283.4
$4,765.0
$682.7
$103.3
($3,813.2)
$2,449.5
                                                         Appendix-78

-------
                                         Environmental Protection Agency
                    FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
           Climate Protection Program (other activities)

     Subtotal, Climate Protection Program

Subtotal, Climate Protection Program



Compliance


    Compliance Assistance and Centers

           Energy Policy Act Implementation

           Compliance   Assistance   and   Centers  (other
           activities)

     Subtotal, Compliance Assistance and Centers

    Compliance Incentives

    Compliance Monitoring

           Energy Policy Act Implementation

           Compliance Monitoring (other activities)

     Subtotal, Compliance Monitoring

Subtotal, Compliance



Enforcement


    Civil Enforcement

           Energy Policy Act Implementation

           Civil Enforcement (other activities)

     Subtotal, Civil Enforcement

    Criminal Enforcement

    Enforcement Training

    Environmental Justice

    NEPA Implementation

Subtotal, Enforcement



Environmental Protection / Congressional Priorities


Geographic Programs

    Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay

    Geographic Program: Great Lakes

    Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico

    Geographic Program: Lake Champlain

    Geographic Program: Long Island Sound

    Geographic Program: Other

           Geographic Program: Puget Sound
FY 2005
Obligations
$92,457.2
$92,457.2
$92,457.2
$0.0
$27,207.0
$27,207.0
$10,135.7
$0.0
$85,297.9
$85,297.9
$122,640.6
$0.0
$113,719.7
$113,719.7
$35,109.3
$3,766.2
$4,853.2
$13,016.8
$170,465.2
$89,868.8
$22,886.6
$21,098.8
$3,739.8
$686.3
$2,132.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$39,327.0
$90,834.0
$90,834.0
$0.0
$27,935.0
$27,935.0
$9,412.0
$0.0
$85,463.0
$85,463.0
$122,810.0
$0.0
$117,807.0
$117,807.0
$37,565.0
$2,945.0
$5,569.0
$12,640.0
$176,526.0
$49,799.0
$22,118.0
$21,164.0
$4,809.0
$1,926.0
$470.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$41,700.0
$91,843.3
$91,843.3
$111.2
$28,779.5
$28,890.7
$9,702.2
$986.9
$92,031.9
$93,018.8
$131,611.7
$753.2
$120,024.5
$120,777.7
$37,793.5
$2,503.7
$3,859.0
$13,787.5
$178,721.4
$0.0
$26,397.7
$20,577.1
$4,310.7
$933.8
$466.9
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$2,373.0
$1,009.3
$1,009.3
$111.2
$844.5
$955.7
$290.2
$986.9
$6,568.9
$7,555.8
$8,801.7
$753.2
$2,217.5
$2,970.7
$228.5
($441.3)
($1,710.0)
$1,147.5
$2,195.4
($49,799.0)
$4,279.7
($586.9)
($498.3)
($992.2)
($3.1)
$0.0
$1,971.0
$0.0
($1,971.0)
                                                       Appendix-79

-------
                                          Environmental Protection Agency
                    FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
           Community Action for a Renewed Environment
           (CARE)

           Geographic Program: Other (other activities)

      Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other

    Regional Geographic Initiatives

Subtotal, Geographic Programs



Homeland Security


    Homeland Security: Communication and Information

           Laboratory Preparedness and Response

           Homeland  Security:      Communication   and
           Information (other activities)

      Subtotal,  Homeland  Security:    Communication  and
         Information

    Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection

           Decontamination

           Homeland Security:     Critical  Infrastructure
           Protection (other activities)

      Subtotal,  Homeland  Security:   Critical  Infrastructure
         Protection

    Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

           Decontamination

      Subtotal, Homeland Security:  Preparedness,  Response,
         and Recovery

    Homeland Security:   Protection of EPA Personnel  and
    Infrastructure

Subtotal, Homeland Security
Indoor Air

    Indoor Air: Radon Program

    Reduce Risks from Indoor Air

Subtotal, Indoor Air



Information Exchange / Outreach

    Children   and  Other  Sensitive  Populations:  Agency
    Coordination

    Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations

    Environmental Education

    Exchange Network

    Small Business Ombudsman

    Small Minority Business Assistance
FY 2005
Obligations
$0.0
$6,786.1
$6,786.1
$8,057.0
$65,387.3
$0.0
$5,432.4
$5,432.4
$0.0
$6,700.6
$6,700.6
$2,620.2
$2,620.2
$9,102.2
$23,855.4
$5,986.6
$21,464.4
$27,451.0
$7,135.8
$48,407.3
$8,648.1
$16,723.0
$3,691.3
$2,245.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$2,862.0
$5,124.0
$9,957.0
$8,060.0
$68,504.0
$1,212.0
$5,263.0
$6,475.0
$98.0
$6,689.0
$6,787.0
$3,252.0
$3,252.0
$6,199.0
$22,713.0
$5,159.0
$23,137.0
$28,296.0
$5,633.0
$50,291.0
$8,889.0
$17,700.0
$3,343.0
$2,503.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,448.4
$4,601.6
$9,050.0
$9,137.3
$70,873.5
$1,200.0
$5,599.7
$6,799.7
$99.0
$7,143.7
$7,242.7
$3,328.7
$3,328.7
$6,268.9
$23,640.0
$5,519.2
$23,464.3
$28,983.5
$6,063.8
$52,142.7
$0.0
$16,048.5
$3,501.7
$2,646.6
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$1,586.4
($522.4)
($907.0)
$1,077.3
$2,369.5
($12.0)
$336.7
$324.7
$1.0
$454.7
$455.7
$76.7
$76.7
$69.9
$927.0
$360.2
$327.3
$687.5
$430.8
$1,851.7
($8,889.0)
($1,651.5)
$158.7
$143.6
                                                        Appendix-80

-------
                                         Environmental Protection Agency
                    FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
    State and Local Prevention and Preparedness

    TRI / Right to Know

    Tribal - Capacity Building

Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach



International Programs

    Commission for Environmental Cooperation

    Environment and Trade

    International Capacity Building

    POPs Implementation

    US Mexico Border

Subtotal, International Programs



IT / Data Management / Security

    Information Security

    IT / Data Management

Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security



Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review

    Administrative Law

    Alternative Dispute Resolution

    Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance

    Legal Advice: Environmental Program

    Legal Advice: Support Program

    Regional Science and Technology

    Regulatory Innovation

    Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis

    Science Advisory Board

Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review



Operations and Administration

    Acquisition Management

    Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance

    Facilities Infrastructure and Operations

    Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management

    Human Resources Management

Subtotal, Operations and Administration
FY 2005
Obligations
$11,327.5
$15,380.7
$10,937.7
$124,497.1
$3,370.5
$2,211.7
$10,548.5
$3,196.5
$5,951.5
$25,278.7
$4,745.6
$84,371.1
$89,116.7
$4,784.2
$1,531.0
$10,905.7
$32,764.8
$13,864.0
$3,424.8
$21,215.1
$13,875.1
$4,660.8
$107,025.5
$21,830.4
$68,045.9
$317,744.7
$22,223.9
$46,795.7
$476,640.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$11,377.0
$14,289.0
$11,049.0
$125,074.0
$4,116.0
$1,766.0
$6,138.0
$1,697.0
$5,749.0
$19,466.0
$3,751.0
$94,567.0
$98,318.0
$4,607.0
$1,048.0
$10,575.0
$35,931.0
$13,206.0
$3,522.0
$21,511.0
$16,551.0
$4,402.0
$111,353.0
$23,265.0
$73,680.0
$343,908.0
$23,168.0
$41,275.0
$505,296.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,508.4
$15,243.4
$11,435.7
$119,590.8
$4,137.0
$1,861.2
$6,390.3
$1,808.7
$6,061.0
$20,258.2
$5,562.1
$96,807.2
$102,369.3
$4,860.9
$1,229.8
$11,053.7
$37,525.5
$13,465.9
$3,520.7
$25,853.6
$17,554.8
$4,615.7
$119,680.6
$25,418.3
$83,548.1
$294,760.1
$21,847.0
$40,202.5
$465,776.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$1,131.4
$954.4
$386.7
($5,483.2)
$21.0
$95.2
$252.3
$111.7
$312.0
$792.2
$1,811.1
$2,240.2
$4,051.3
$253.9
$181.8
$478.7
$1,594.5
$259.9
($1.3)
$4,342.6
$1,003.8
$213.7
$8,327.6
$2,153.3
$9,868.1
($49,147.9)
($1,321.0)
($1,072.5)
($39,520.0)
                                                       Appendix-81

-------
                                         Environmental Protection Agency
                    FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Pesticides Licensing

    Pesticides: Field Programs

    Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides

    Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides

    Science Policy and Biotechnology

Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing



Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

    RCRA: Corrective Action

    RCRA: Waste Management

    RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling

Subtotal, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)



Toxics Risk Review and Prevention

    Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management

    Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction

    Endocrine Disrupters

    Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program

    Pollution Prevention Program

Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention



Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)

    LUST/UST


Water: Ecosystems

    Great Lakes Legacy Act

    National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways

    Wetlands

Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems



Water: Human Health Protection

    Beach / Fish Programs

    Drinking  Water Programs

Subtotal, Water: Human Health Protection
FY 2005
Obligations
$25,649.5
$39,321.6
$49,074.7
$1,961.5
$116,007.3
$36,575.0
$67,842.9
$10,878.7
$115,296.6
$8,462.3
$45,781.1
$8,696.4
$13,280.9
$15,889.3
$92,110.0
$6,459.2
$13,946.6
$25,902.3
$20,126.7
$59,975.6
$3,723.7
$94,559.1
$98,282.8
FY 2006
Enacted
$24,516.0
$41,604.0
$57,458.0
$1,694.0
$125,272.0
$39,396.0
$65,793.0
$11,825.0
$117,014.0
$9,008.0
$46,542.0
$8,767.0
$10,162.0
$16,621.0
$91,100.0
$7,763.0
$28,989.0
$23,773.0
$19,416.0
$72,178.0
$3,156.0
$95,656.0
$98,812.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$24,926.3
$39,767.6
$51,814.6
$1,754.0
$118,262.5
$40,372.3
$67,887.3
$12,235.1
$120,494.7
$7,736.5
$44,637.0
$7,985.4
$11,367.6
$21,292.4
$93,018.9
$11,713.7
$49,600.0
$18,417.2
$20,992.2
$89,009.4
$2,653.9
$99,121.0
$101,774.9
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$410.3
($1,836.4)
($5,643.4)
$60.0
($7,009.5)
$976.3
$2,094.3
$410.1
$3,480.7
($1,271.5)
($1,905.0)
($781.6)
$1,205.6
$4,671.4
$1,918.9
$3,950.7
$20,611.0
($5,355.8)
$1,576.2
$16,831.4
($502.1)
$3,465.0
$2,962.9
Water Quality Protection

    Marine Pollution

    Surface Water Protection
$13,114.0
$12,212.0
$12,462.4
$250.4
                                                       Appendix-82

-------
                                         Environmental Protection Agency
                    FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
           Water Quality Monitoring

           Surface Water Protection (other activities)

     Subtotal, Surface Water Protection

Subtotal, Water Quality Protection
Rescission of Prior Year Expired Contracts, Grants,  and
Interagency Agreements

Total, Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General


Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations

    Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations


Inspector General Congressionally Mandated Projects

Total, Inspector General



Building and Facilities


Homeland Security

    Homeland  Security:   Protection  of EPA  Personnel and
    Infrastructure


Operations and Administration

    Facilities Infrastructure and Operations

Total, Building and Facilities



Hazardous Substance Superfund


Air Toxics and Quality

    Radiation: Protection


Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations

    Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations


Compliance

    Compliance Assistance and Centers

    Compliance Incentives

    Compliance Monitoring

Subtotal, Compliance
FY 2005 FY 2006
Obligations Enacted
$0.0 $7,193.0
$186,745.5 $182,019.0
$186,745.5 $189,212.0
$199,859.5 $201,424.0
$0.0 ($2,000.0)
$2,309,238.0 $2,344,711.0
$44,580.7 $36,904.0
$426.4 $0.0
$45,007.1 $36,904.0
$12,936.5 $11,331.0
$32,244.5 $28,295.0
$45,181.0 $39,626.0
$1,969.4 $2,120.0
$15,182.0 $13,337.0
$0.0 $11.0
$148.9 $186.0
$1,452.4 $955.0
$1,601.3 $1,152.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$7,120.7
$184,466.5
$191,587.2
$204,049.6
$0.0
$2,306,617.0
$35,100.0
$0.0
$35,100.0
$11,385.1
$28,430.9
$39,816.0
$2,323.3
$13,316.0
$22.2
$142.7
$1,144.1
$1,309.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($72.3)
$2,447.5
$2,375.2
$2,625.6
$2,000.0
($38,094.0)
($1,804.0)
$0.0
($1,804.0)
$54.1
$135.9
$190.0
$203.3
($21.0)
$11.2
($43.3)
$189.1
$157.0
Enforcement
                                                       Appendix-83

-------
                                          Environmental Protection Agency
                    FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
    Civil Enforcement

    Criminal Enforcement

    Enforcement Training

    Environmental Justice

    Forensics Support

    Superfund:  Enforcement

    Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement

Subtotal, Enforcement



Homeland Security


    Homeland Security: Communication and Information

           Laboratory Preparedness and Response

     Subtotal,   Homeland  Security:    Communication  and
         Information

    Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection

           Decontamination

           Homeland  Security:     Critical  Infrastructure
           Protection (other activities)

     Subtotal,   Homeland  Security:   Critical  Infrastructure
         Protection

    Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

           Decontamination

           Laboratory Preparedness and Response

           Homeland Security:  Preparedness, Response,  and
           Recovery  (other activities)

     Subtotal,  Homeland Security:   Preparedness, Response,
         and Recovery

    Homeland  Security:   Protection of EPA Personnel  and
    Infrastructure

Subtotal, Homeland Security
Information Exchange / Outreach

    Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations

    Exchange Network

Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach



IT / Data Management / Security

    Information Security

    IT / Data Management

Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
FY 2005
Obligations
$625.2
$8,070.1
$897.8
$921.5
$3,599.5
$165,634.0
$8,900.3
$188,648.4
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,348.2
$1,348.2
$0.0
$0.0
$38,131.8
$38,131.8
$694.2
$40,174.2
$111.7
$2,330.3
$2,442.0
$234.6
$17,734.0
$17,968.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$796.0
$8,275.0
$581.0
$827.0
$3,643.0
$156,653.0
$9,410.0
$180,185.0
$296.0
$296.0
$197.0
$1,245.0
$1,442.0
$10,395.0
$0.0
$27,184.0
$37,579.0
$588.0
$39,905.0
$48.0
$1,650.0
$1,698.0
$341.0
$17,053.0
$17,394.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$883.0
$8,502.2
$621.9
$756.7
$4,184.2
$163,650.5
$10,196.9
$188,795.4
$300.0
$300.0
$198.0
$1,373.6
$1,571.6
$12,271.3
$9,500.0
$28,003.6
$49,774.9
$594.2
$52,240.7
$130.4
$1,432.4
$1,562.8
$788.6
$17,120.4
$17,909.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$87.0
$227.2
$40.9
($70.3)
$541.2
$6,997.5
$786.9
$8,610.4
$4.0
$4.0
$1.0
$128.6
$129.6
$1,876.3
$9,500.0
$819.6
$12,195.9
$6.2
$12,335.7
$82.4
($217.6)
($135.2)
$447.6
$67.4
$515.0
                                                        Appendix-84

-------
                                         Environmental Protection Agency
                    FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review

    Alternative Dispute Resolution

    Legal Advice: Environmental Program

Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review



Operations and Administration

    Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management

    Facilities Infrastructure and Operations

    Acquisition Management

    Human Resources Management

    Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance

Subtotal, Operations and Administration



Research: Human Health and Ecosystems

    Human Health Risk Assessment


Research: Land Protection

    Research: Land Protection and Restoration

    Research: SITE Program

Subtotal, Research: Land Protection



Research: Sustainability

    Research: Sustainability


Superfund Cleanup

    Superfund:  Emergency Response and Removal

    Superfund:  EPA Emergency Preparedness

    Superfund:  Federal Facilities

    Superfund:  Remedial

    Superfund:  Support to Other Federal Agencies

    Brownfields Projects

Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
FY 2005
Obligations
$980.4
$722.8
$1,703.2
$3,109.3
$65,156.8
$17,464.2
$5,250.8
$20,620.3
$111,601.4
$3,848.8
$23,322.6
$6,730.9
$30,053.5
$501.0
$197,032.3
$11,387.4
$31,063.4
$711,969.6
$5,444.0
$2,299.0
$959,195.7
FY 2006
Enacted
$975.0
$755.0
$1,730.0
$3,060.0
$69,667.0
$19,727.0
$5,665.0
$24,349.0
$122,468.0
$3,755.0
$22,927.0
$1,206.0
$24,133.0
$292.0
$193,584.0
$10,540.0
$31,336.0
$588,905.0
$9,540.0
$0.0
$833,905.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$887.2
$690.8
$1,578.0
$2,920.8
$73,944.7
$23,514.3
$5,270.2
$25,540.8
$131,190.8
$3,847.2
$21,963.9
$0.0
$21,963.9
$0.0
$192,398.9
$8,863.1
$31,486.6
$581,594.9
$8,575.4
$0.0
$822,918.9
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($87.8)
($64.2)
($152.0)
($139.2)
$4,277.7
$3,787.3
($394.8)
$1,191.8
$8,722.8
$92.2
($963.1)
($1,206.0)
($2,169.1)
($292.0)
($1,185.1)
($1,676.9)
$150.6
($7,310.1)
($964.6)
$0.0
($10,986.1)
Rescission of Prior  Year Expired Contracts, Grants, and
Interagency Agreements

Total, Hazardous Substance Superfund


(Transfer to Office of Inspector General)
$0.0           ($11,000.0)         $0.0               $11,000.0


$1,374,889.5    $1,231,074.0        $1,258,955.0        $27,881.0


($15,182.0)     ($13,337.0)         ($13,316.0)         $21.0
                                                       Appendix-85

-------
                                         Environmental Protection Agency
                    FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
(Transfer to Science and Technology)



Leaking Underground Storage Tanks


Compliance

    Compliance Assistance and Centers


IT / Data Management / Security

    IT / Data Management


Operations and Administration

    Acquisition Management

    Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance

    Facilities Infrastructure and Operations

    Human Resources Management

Subtotal, Operations and Administration



Research: Land Protection

    Research: Land Protection and Restoration


Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)

    LUST/UST

    LUST Cooperative Agreements

Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)


Total, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
FY 2005
Obligations
($38,821.1)
$531.6
$108.0
$337.0
$730.4
$982.9
$5.0
$2,055.3
$699.3
$10,146.4
$57,048.9
$67,195.3
FY 2006
Enacted
($30,156.0)
$711.0
$182.0
$358.0
$1,010.0
$894.0
$3.0
$2,265.0
$634.0
$10,514.0
$65,647.0
$76,161.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
($27,811.1)
$839.1
$175.9
$360.8
$1,014.8
$916.8
$3.0
$2,295.4
$651.3
$10,590.1
$58,207.2
$68,797.3
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$2,344.9
$128.1
($6.1)
$2.8
$4.8
$22.8
$0.0
$30.4
$17.3
$76.1
($7,439.8)
($7,363.7)
$70,589.5
$79,953.0
$72,759.0
($7,194.0)
Oil Spill Response


Compliance

   Compliance Assistance and Centers


Enforcement

   Civil Enforcement


IT / Data Management / Security

   IT / Data Management


Oil

   Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response


Operations and Administration

   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$270.1
$39.5
$284.0
$1,900.7       $1,910.0
$31.0
$13,991.5      $12,066.0
$552.1
$500.0
$280.2
                  $1,826.3
$32.5
                  $12,964.6
$499.3
                  ($83.7)
$1.5
                  $898.6
($0.7)
                                                      Appendix-86

-------
                                           Environmental Protection Agency
                     FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Research: Land Protection

    Research: Land Protection and Restoration

Total, Oil Spill Response



State and Tribal Assistance Grants


Air Toxics and Quality

    Clean School Bus Initiative


Brownflelds

    Brownfields Projects


Infrastructure Assistance

    Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages

    Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF

    Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program

    Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF

    Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border

    Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico

Subtotal, Infrastructure Assistance



STAG Infrastructure Grants / Congressional Priorities

Subtotal,  State and Tribal Assistance  Grants (excluding
categorical grants)



Categorical Grants

    Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection

    Categorical Grant: Brownfields

    Categorical Grant: Environmental Information

    Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance

    Categorical Grant: Homeland Security

    Categorical Grant: Lead

    Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)

    Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement

    Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation

    Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)

            Water Quality Monitoring Grants

            Categorical  Grant:  Pollution Control (Sec.  106)
            (other activities)

      Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
FY 2005
Obligations
$841.0
$17,594.9
$0.0
$88,065.1
$50,866.5
$1,110,473.7
$0.0
$847,519.2
$66,176.9
$0.0
$2,075,036.3
$255,255.6
$2,418,357.0
$13,262.7
$47,411.0
$19,837.0
$105,786.4
$4,988.8
$14,169.0
$225,194.2
$20,468.4
$13,347.2
$0.0
$211,124.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$838.0
$15,629.0
$6,897.0
$88,676.0
$34,485.0
$886,759.0
$0.0
$837,495.0
$49,264.0
$0.0
$1,808,003.0
$197,058.0
$2,100,634.0
$9,853.0
$49,264.0
$19,706.0
$101,944.0
$4,926.0
$13,499.0
$204,278.0
$18,622.0
$12,907.0
$18,228.0
$197,944.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$903.1
$16,506.0
$0.0
$89,119.4
$14,850.0
$687,555.0
$49,500.0
$841,500.0
$24,750.0
$990.0
$1,619,145.0
$0.0
$1,708,264.4
$9,900.0
$49,494.9
$14,850.0
$103,345.5
$4,950.0
$13,563.1
$194,040.0
$18,711.0
$12,968.9
$18,500.0
$203,161.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$65.1
$877.0
($6,897.0)
$443.4
($19,635.0)
($199,204.0)
$49,500.0
$4,005.0
($24,514.0)
$990.0
($188,858.0)
($197,058.0)
($392,369.6)
$47.0
$230.9
($4,856.0)
$1,401.5
$24.0
$64.1
($10,238.0)
$89.0
$61.9
$272.0
$5,217.0
$211,124.6
$216,172.0
$221,661.0
$5,489.0
                                                          Appendix-87

-------
                                          Environmental Protection Agency
                    FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
    Categorical Grant:  Pollution Prevention

    Categorical  Grant:   Public  Water System  Supervision
    (PWSS)

    Categorical Grant:  Radon

    Categorical Grant:  Sector Program

    Categorical Grant:  State and Local Air Quality Management

    Categorical Grant:  Targeted Watersheds

    Categorical Grant:  Toxics Substances Compliance

    Categorical Grant:  Tribal Air Quality Management

    Categorical Grant:  Tribal General Assistance Program

    Categorical Grant:  Underground Injection Control (UIC)

    Categorical Grant:  Underground Storage Tanks

    Categorical Grant:  Wastewater Operator Training

    Categorical Grant:  Water Quality Cooperative Agreements

    Categorical Grant:  Wetlands Program Development

Subtotal, Categorical Grants
FY 2005
Obligations
$5,161.7
$104,043.6
$8,739.4
$2,464.3
$233,758.6
$17,706.0
$5,516.4
$12,977.1
$72,212.5
$11,537.5
$12,073.1
$943.0
$12,372.9
$15,027.2
$1,190,122.6
FY 2006
Enacted
$4,926.0
$98,279.0
$7,439.0
$2,217.0
$220,261.0
$16,608.0
$5,074.0
$10,887.0
$56,654.0
$10,838.0
$11,774.0
$1,182.0
$0.0
$15,765.0
$1,113,075.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,940.0
$99,099.0
$8,073.5
$2,227.5
$185,179.5
$6,930.0
$5,098.5
$10,939.5
$56,925.0
$10,890.0
$37,566.7
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$1,089,183.6
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$1,014.0
$820.0
$634.5
$10.5
($35,081.5)
($9,678.0)
$24.5
$52.5
$271.0
$52.0
$25,792.7
($1,182.0)
$0.0
$1,065.0
($23,891.4)
Rescission of Prior Year Expired Contracts,  Grants, and
Interagency Agreements

Total, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
$0.0           ($66,000.0)         $0.0               $66,000.0


$3,608,479.6    $3,147,709.0        $2,797,448.0        ($350,261.0)
                                                        Appendix-88

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                                     Appendix

Acquisition Management	47, 53, 55
Administrative Law	47
Air Toxics	0,1, 2, 38, 42, 50, 56
Air Toxics and Quality	38, 42, 50, 56
Alaska Native Villages	34,36
Alternative Dispute Resolution	47, 53
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations	50
Beach /Fish Programs	49
Beaches Protection	27
Brownfields	17, 22,18, 21, 27, 34, 35, 37, 42, 54, 56
Brownfields Projects	54, 56
Categorical Grant
  Beaches Protection	57
  Brownfields	57
  Environmental Information	57
  Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance	57
  Homeland Security	57
  Lead	57
  Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)	57
  Pesticides Enforcement	57
  Pesticides Program Implementation	57
  Pollution Control (Sec. 106)	57, 58
  Pollution Prevention	58
  Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)	58
  Radon	58
  Sector Program	58
  State and Local Air Quality Management	58
  Targeted Watersheds	58
  Toxics Substances Compliance	58
  Tribal Air Quality Management	58
  Tribal General Assistance Program	58
  Underground Injection Control  (UIC)	58
  Underground Storage Tanks	58
  Wastewater Operator Training	58
  Water Quality Cooperative Agreements	58
  Wetlands Program Development	58
Categorical Grants	57, 58
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	47, 53, 55
Chesapeake Bay	24
Children and Other Sensitive Populations Agency Coordination	46
Civil Enforcement	26, 43, 51, 55
                                    Appendix-89

-------
                         Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance	47
Clean Air	2, 6, 28, 0,1,15,18, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 42
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs	38, 42
Clean Diesel Initiative	42
Clean School Bus Initiative	34, 56
Clean Water	9, 23,18, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36
Climate Protection Program	38, 42, 43
Commission for Environmental Cooperation	27, 46
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)	44
Compliance	26, 27,15, 21, 22, 28, 30, 32, 43, 50, 51, 54, 55
Compliance Assistance and Centers	43, 50, 54, 55
Compliance Incentives	43, 51
Compliance Monitoring	43, 51
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations	46, 52
Corrective Action	14,15
Criminal Enforcement	26, 43, 51
Decontamination	39, 45, 51, 52
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program	35, 56
Drinking Water	21, 26, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 41, 49
Drinking Water Programs	41, 49
Endocrine Disrupter	48
Endocrine Disrupters	48
Energy Policy Act Implementation	42, 43
Energy Star	42
Enforcement	26, 27, 3,12, 21, 30, 32, 38, 43, 44, 51, 55
Enforcement Training	26, 44, 51
Environment and Trade	46
Environmental Education	29,30, 46
Environmental Information	33, 5,17, 31
Environmental Justice	44, 51
Environmental Protection / Congressional Priorities	44
Exchange Network	31,46,52
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	40, 47, 50, 53, 55, 56
Federal Stationary Source Regulations	42
Federal Support for  Air Quality Management	38, 42
Federal Support for  Air Toxics Program	38, 42
Federal Vehicle and  Fuels Standards and Certification	38
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management	47, 53
Forensics Support	38, 51
Geographic Program
  Chesapeake Bay	44
  Great Lakes	44
  Gulf of Mexico	44
  Lake Champlain	44
                                   Appendix-90

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

  Long Island Sound	44
  Other	44
  Puget Sound	44
Geographic Programs	44
Great Lakes	8,14, 23, 49
Great Lakes Legacy Act	49
Gulf of Mexico	11,12, 24
Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance	27
Homeland Security	4,16, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 7, 8, 26, 38, 39, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52
  Communication and Information	44, 45, 51
  Critical Infrastructure Protection	38, 39, 45, 51, 52
  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	39, 45, 52
  Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	39, 45, 50, 52
Human Health Risk Assessment	41, 53
Human Resources Management	47, 53, 55
Indoor Air	4, 39, 45, 46
  Radon Program	39, 45
Information Exchange / Outreach	46, 52
Information Security	4, 20, 46, 52
Infrastructure Assistance	56, 57
  Alaska Native Villages	56
  Clean Water SRF	56
  Drinking Water SRF	56
  Mexico Border	57
  Puerto Rico	57
Inspector General Congressionally Mandated Projects	50
International Capacity Building	46
International Programs	46
IT / Data Management	40, 46, 47, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56
IT / Data Management / Security	40, 46, 47, 52, 53, 54, 55
Laboratory Preparedness and Response	45, 51, 52
Laboratory Security
  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	39
Lead	20,14,21,29
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review	47, 53
Legal Advice
  Environmental Program	47, 53
  Support Program	47
LUST/UST	49,55
LUST Cooperative Agreements	55
Marine Pollution	49
Methane to Markets	42
Mexico Border	20,34,37
NAAQS	20
                                   Appendix-91

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways	49
NEPA Implementation	44
Oil	16,21,55,56
Oil Spill
  Prevention, Preparedness and Response	56
Operations and Administration	40, 47, 48, 50, 53, 55, 56
Particulate Matter	6,7
Pesticides
  Field Programs	48
  Registration of New Pesticides	40, 48
  Review / Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides	40, 48
Pesticides Licensing	40, 48
Pesticides Program Implementation	29
Pollution Prevention	27, 20, 31, 32, 48
Pollution Prevention Program	48
POPs Implementation	46
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)	26
Puerto Rico	34,37
Radiation
  Protection	38,42, 50
  Response Preparedness	38, 42
Radon	25
RCRA
  Corrective Action	48
  Waste Management	48
  Waste Minimization & Recycling	48
Reduce  Risks from Indoor Air	39, 45
Regional Geographic Initiatives	44
Regional Science and Technology	47
Regulatory Innovation	47
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis	47
Research
  Air Toxics	40
  Clean Air	40
  Clean Water	40
  Computational Toxicology	41
  Drinking Water	40
  Economics and Decision Science(EDS)	41
  Endocrine Disrupter	41
  Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)	41
  Fellowships	41
  Global Change	40
  Human Health and Ecosystems	40, 41, 53
  Land Protection	41, 53, 54, 55, 56
                                    Appendix-92

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

  Land Protection and Restoration	41, 53, 55, 56
  NAAQS	40
  Pesticides and Toxics	41
  SITE Program	53
  Sustainability	41, 54
  Sustainability	41
  Sustainability	54
  Water Quality	40
Research /Congressional Priorities	40
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)	14, 48
Safe Building	39
Science Advisory Board	31, 47
Science Policy and Biotechnology	48
Sector Program	32
Small Business Ombudsman	46
Small Minority Business Assistance	46
STAG Infrastructure Grants / Congressional Priorities	57
State and Local Air Quality Management	23, 24
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness	46
Stratospheric Ozone
  Domestic Programs	42
  Multilateral Fund	42
Superfund
  Emergency Response and Removal	54
  Enforcement	51
  EPA Emergency Preparedness	54
  Federal Facilities	54
  Federal Facilities Enforcement	51
  Remedial	54
  Support to Other Federal Agencies	54
Superfund Cleanup	3, 54
Surface Water Protection	49
Toxic Research  and Prevention	41
Toxic Substances
  Chemical Risk Management	48
  Chemical Risk Review and Reduction	48
  Lead Risk Reduction Program	48
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention	48, 49
TRI / Right to Know	46
Tribal - Capacity Building	46
Tribal Air Quality Management	25
Tribal General Assistance Program	33
Underground Storage Tanks	13,15, 28, 49, 54, 55
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /UST)	49, 55
                                   Appendix-93

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2007 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

US Mexico Border	46
Waste Management	12
Water
  Ecosystems	49
  Human Health Protection	49
Water Quality	9,12, 22, 49, 57
Water Quality Monitoring	49, 57
Water Quality Protection	49
Water sentinel and related training	39
Wetlands	23,18, 20, 26, 49
Wetlands Program Development	26
                                   Appendix-94

-------
                        VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
                               GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Tons of SO2  emissions from electric power generation sources (tons/yr from  1980
    baseline)  (PART measure)
•   Percent change in average sulfur deposition and mean ambient sulfate concentrations
    reduced (% from baseline) (PART measure)
•   Percent   change  in  average  nitrogen  deposition  and  mean  ambient   nitrate
    concentrations reduced (% from baseline) (PART measure)
•   Percent change in number of chronically acidic water bodies in acid-sensitive regions
    (PART measure)

Performance Databases:

•   Emissions Tracking System (ETS) - SO2 and NOX emissions
•   Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET)  - dry deposition
•   National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) - wet deposition
•   Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems program (TIME) - surface water chemistry
•   Long-Term Monitoring Network program (LTM) - surface water chemistry

Data Sources: On a quarterly basis, ETS receives and processes hourly measurements of SCh,
NOX, volumetric flow, CO2, and other emission-related parameters from more than 3,400 fossil
fuel-fired utility units affected under the Title IV Acid Rain Program. These measurements are
collected by certified continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) or equivalent continuous
monitoring methods.

CASTNET measures particle and gas acidic deposition chemistry. Specifically, CASTNET
measures sulfate and nitrate dry deposition and meteorological information at approximately 88
monitoring sites, primarily in the East. Two additional sites are planned as part of a multi-year
network refurbishment and modernization project. These sites are scheduled to be in operation
by 2007 and will help fill the coverage gap in the middle of country. CASTNET is a long-term
dry deposition network funded, operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR).  The National Park Service operates approximately 30 of the monitoring stations in
cooperation with EPA.

NADP is a national long-term wet deposition network that measures precipitation chemistry and
provides long-term geographic and temporal trends in concentration and deposition of
precipitation components. Specifically, NADP provides measurements of sulfate and nitrate wet
deposition at approximately 255 monitoring sites. EPA, along with several other Federal
agencies, states, and private organizations, provide funding and support for NADP.  The Illinois
State Water Survey/University of Illinois maintains the NADP database.

-------
The deposition monitoring networks have been in operation for over 25 years. They provide
invaluable measurements on long-term trends and episodes in acid deposition; such data are
essential for assessing progress toward the program's intended environmental outcomes.  These
networks need to be modernized to ensure the continued availability of these direct
environmental measures. Maintaining a robust long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring
network is critical for the accountability of the Acid Rain and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
Programs (and/or Clear Skies if new legislation is enacted).

The TIME project measures surface water chemistry and is based on the concept of a probability
sample, where each site is chosen to be statistically representative of a target population. In the
Northeast (New England and the Adirondacks), this target population consists of lakes likely to
be responsive to changes in rates of acidic deposition (i.e., those with Gran ANC < 100 ueq/L).
In the Mid-Atlantic, the target population is upland streams with a high probability of responding
to changes  in acidic deposition (i.e.,  Northern Appalachian Plateau streams with Gran ANC <
100 ueq/L). Each lake or stream is sampled annually (in summer for lakes, in spring for streams),
and results are extrapolated to the  target population.  The most recent (2003) TIME trends
analysis reported data from 43 Adirondack lakes, 30  New  England lakes, and 31 Appalachian
Plateau streams.

The TIME project goals are to determine not only how a representative sample of water bodies is
changing through time, but also whether the proportion of the population that is acidic has
changed. The project is operated cooperatively  with numerous collaborators in  state agencies,
academic institutions and other federal agencies.

The LTM project complements TIME'S statistical approach to sampling lakes and streams. LTM
samples a subset of sensitive lakes  and streams with long-term data, most dating back to the
early  1980s. These  sites  are  sampled 3 to 15 times per  year. This information is  used to
characterize how the most sensitive aquatic systems in each region are responding to changing
deposition,  as well as providing information on seasonal chemistry and episodic acidification. In
most  regions,  a small number of higher ANC (e.g., GranANC >100  ueq/L) sites are also
sampled, and help separate temporal changes due to acidic deposition from those attributable to
other  disturbances  such as changes in  land use. The  most  recent (2003) LTM trends analysis
reported data from 48 Adirondack lakes, 24 New England lakes, 9 Northern Appalachian Plateau
streams, and 69 streams in the Blue Ridge region of Virginia and West Virginia. The project is
operated cooperatively with numerous collaborators in state  agencies, academic institutions and
other federal agencies.

Methods, Assumption, and Suitability Promulgated methods are used to  aggregate emissions
data across  all United States' utilities for each pollutant and related source  operating parameters
such as heat input.

QA/QC Procedures:
Promulgated QA/QC requirements  dictate performing a series of quality assurance  tests  of
CEMS performance. For  these  tests,  emissions  data are  collected under highly  structured,
carefully designed  testing conditions, which involve either high quality  standard reference

-------
materials  or multiple instruments  performing  simultaneous  emission measurements.  The
resulting data are screened and analyzed using a battery of statistical procedures, including one
that tests for systematic bias.  If a CEM fails the bias test, indicating a potential for systematic
underestimation of emissions, the source of the error must be identified and corrected or the data
are adjusted to minimize the bias.  Each affected plant is required to maintain a written QA plan
documenting performance of  these  procedures and tests. Further information is  available  at:
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/reporting/index.html.

CASTNET established a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in November 2001;  The
QAPP contains data quality objectives and quality control procedures for accuracy and precision.
{U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Clean Air Status and Trends Network
(CASTNet) Quality Assurance Project Plan (Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. EPA, November
2001). In addition, the program publishes annual quality assurance reports.  Both the CASTNET
QAPP and 2003 Annual Quality  Assurance Report may be found at
http://www.epa.gov/castnet/library.html.

NADP has  established data quality objectives  and quality control procedures for accuracy,
precision  and  representation, available on the Internet: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/QA/.  The
intended use of these data is to establish spatial and temporal trends in wet deposition and
precipitation chemistry.

For TIME and LTM, the field protocols, laboratory methods,  and quality assurance procedures
are specific to each research group. QA/QC information is contained in the cited publications of
each research group and compiled in Newell et al. (1987). The EMAP and TIME protocols and
quality assurance methods are generally consistent with those of the LTM cooperators, and are
detailed in Peck (1992) and in Table 3 of Stoddard et al (2003).

Data Quality Review:
The ETS provides instant feedback to sources on data reporting problems, format errors, and
inconsistencies. The electronic data file QA checks are described at
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/reporting/index.html (see Electronic Data Report Review
Process,  ETS  Tolerance Tables, Active ETS Error Codes/Messages and Range Format Errors).
All quarterly reports are analyzed to detect deficiencies and to identify reports that must be
resubmitted to correct problems.  EPA also identifies reports that were not submitted by the
appropriate reporting deadline. Revised quarterly  reports, with corrected deficiencies found
during the data review process, must be obtained from sources by a specified deadline. All data
are reviewed, and preliminary and final emissions data reports are prepared for public release
and compliance determination.

CASTNET underwent formal peer review in 1997 by a panel of scientists from EPA and the
National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Findings are documented in
Examination of CASTNET: Data, Results, Costs,  and Implications (United States EPA, Office of
Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, February 1997).

The NADP methods of determining wet deposition values have undergone extensive peer
review; this process  has been managed by NADP program office  at the Illinois State Water

-------
Survey/University of Illinois. Assessments of changes in NADP methods are developed
primarily through the academic community and reviewed through the technical literature
process.

The  TIME  and LTM data used in EPA  trends analysis  reports are screened for internal
consistency  among variables, including ion balance  and conductance balance.  Samples with
unexplained variation in these variables are deleted. Sites with mean Gran ANC greater than 200
ueq/L also are deleted. EPA trends analyses exclude sites with chloride values that are outliers in
their region, because high Cl- is typically associated with human development in the watershed.
The Cl- and associated Na+ would alter normal soil ion exchange relationships, thus obscuring
the response to acidic deposition.

Data Limitations: In order to improve the spatial resolution of CASTNET, additional
monitoring sites are needed, particularly in the middle of the country.

Error Estimate: None

New/Improved Data or Systems: The program plans to modernize and enhance CASTNET to
ensure network  viability and enhance the monitoring capacity to support ongoing and future
accountability needs, particularly relating to long range pollutant transport. The refurbishment of
CASTNET will result in more comprehensive air quality data and information, made available
faster by enabling real-time access to air quality information and promoting integration with
other networks through regional/rural monitoring strategies. Refurbishment activities to be
pursued in FY 2007 include: (1) completion of a pilot phase study to evaluate options for
upgrading CASTNET with new advanced measurement instrumentation; (2) selection and
procurement of advanced technology monitoring equipment for up to 10 sites; (3) establishment
of 2 new sites in the middle of the country to improve geographic coverage and spatial
resolution; and (4) implementation of new ecological indicators of air quality and atmospheric
deposition to expand the suite of environmental metrics available for measuring the performance
and efficiency of EPA's clean air programs.

References:  For additional information about CASTNET, see http://www.epa.gov/castnet.html
and for NADP,  see http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/.

For a description of EPA's Acid Rain program, see
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/arp/index.html/ and in the electronic Code of Federal Regulations
at http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-C.html (40 CFR parts 72-78.)

For TIME and LTM data quality and QA/QC procedures, see
Newell, A. D., C. F. Powers, and S. J. Christie. 1987. Analysis of Data from Long-term   monitoring of
Lakes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Peck, D. V. 1992. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Integrated Quality Assurance
Project Plan for the Surface Waters Resource Group. EPA/600/X-91/080, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

-------
Stoddard, J. L., J. S. Kahl, F. A. Deviney, D. R. DeWalle, C. T. Driscoll, A. T. Herlihy, J. H. Kellogg, P.
S. Murdoch, J. R. Webb, and K. E. Webster. 2003. Response of surface water chemistry to the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.  EPA/620/R-03/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Oregon.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •  Reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine particulate matter
      (PM 2.5) in all monitored counties (PART measure)

    •  Reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of  ozone in monitored
      counties (PART measure)

Performance Databases:

AQS —The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS)  stores ambient air quality data used to evaluate an
area's air quality levels relative to the NAAQS.

FREDS—The Findings and Required Elements Data System is used to track progress of states
and Regions in reviewing and approving the required data elements of the State Implementation
Plans (SIP).  SIPs are clean air plans and define what actions a state will take to improve the air
quality in areas that do not meet national ambient air quality standards

Data Sources:
AQS: State & local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS).

Population: Data from Census-Bureau/Department of Commerce

FREDS:    Data are provided by EPA's Regional offices.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  Design values are calculated for every county with
adequate monitoring data (for more information on and a definition for design values, see
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tl/memoranda/cdv.pdi).  Air quality levels are evaluated relative to the
baseline level and the design value. The change in air quality concentrations is then multiplied
by the number of people living in the county. This analysis assumes that the populations of the
areas are held constant at 2000 Census levels. Data comparisons over several years allow
assessment of the air program's success.

QA/QC Procedures: AQS: The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has several
major components: the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, reference and equivalent methods
program, EPA's National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), system audits, and network
reviews  (Available on the Internet:  www.epa. gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.html).  To ensure quality
data, the SLAMS are required to meet the following: 1) each site must meet network design and
site criteria; 2) each site must provide adequate QA assessment, control, and corrective action
functions according to minimum program requirements; 3) all sampling methods and equipment
must meet EPA reference or equivalent requirements; 4) acceptable data validation and record
keeping procedures must be followed; and 5) data from SLAMS must be  summarized and

-------
reported annually to EPA. Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the overall air
quality data collection activity for any needed changes or corrections. Further information
available on the Internet:  http://www.epa.gov/cludvgxb/programs/namslam.html and through
United States EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)

Populations:  No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department of
Commerce.

FREDS:      No formal QA/QC procedures.

Data Quality Review:
AQS:        No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal audits
             are regularly conducted.

Populations:  No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department of
             Commerce.

FREDS:      None

Data Limitations:
AQS:        None known

Populations:  Not known

FREDS:      None known

Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. There is still too
much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to meteorological
conditions for example) exist.

New/Improved Data or Systems:
AQS:  In January 2002, EPA completed the reengineering of AQS to make it a more user
friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data are more easily accessible via the
Internet. AQS has also been enhanced to comply with the Agency's data standards  (e.g.,
latitude/longitude, chemical nomenclature). Beginning in July 2003, agencies submitted air
quality data to AQS thru the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX). CDX is intended to be
the portal through which all environmental data coming to or leaving the Agency will pass.

Population:   None

FREDS:      None

References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and
other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

-------
   •  Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of
      receiving a complete permit application. (PART measure)
   •  Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a
      complete permit application. (PART measure)

Performance Databases:  TOPS (Title V Operating Permit System).

Data Sources: Permitting Agencies (State and Local) via EPA Regional Offices

Methods, Assumptions,  and  Suitability:    The  performance  measure  is  calculated  by
comparing the number of new permits or significant permit modifications issued during past 18
months to the total number of new permits or significant permit modifications received during
the same period. Data are collected every 6 months. There are no underlying assumptions in the
development of this measure.

QA/QC Procedures:  Some data quality checks include:  1) making sure the number of permits
issued in  18 months is equal to or less than the total number of permits received.  2) ensuring the
percentages seem reasonable compared to previous reporting periods, and 3) making sure clock
does not restart when additional information is submitted after the application is received.

Data Quality Review: Same as QA procedures

Data Limitations: None

Error Estimate:   There  is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been made
during data entry.

New/Improved  Data or Systems:  TOPS has been revised and improved for 2006 to ensure
better consistency between states and to specifically track PART measures.

References:  For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and
other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •  Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit
      application. (PART measure)

Performance Databases:  RBLC (RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technotogy) BACT
(Best   Available  Control  Technology)  LAER  (Lowest  Achievable  Emissions  Rate)
Clearinghouse)

Data Sources: Permitting Agencies (State and Local)

Methods, Assumptions,  and  Suitability:   The performance measure  is  calculated  by
determining  the time  period between  the date of complete permit application and permit

-------
issuance. The percentage represents the number of major NSR  permits issued within one year
of complete application to the total number of permits issued within that same period. There are
no underlying assumptions in the development of this performance measure.

QA/QC Procedures:  Some data quality checks include: 1) making sure the permit issuance
dates are after  the complete permit  application dates and appear reasonable, 2) t ensuring the
permit processing times are similar for comparable permits in previous reporting periods and 3)
making sure the time period does not restart when additional information is submitted after the
application is received.

Data Quality Review: Same as QA procedures

Data Limitations: None

Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been made during
data entry.

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and
other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •  Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index (AQI)
      values  over  100  since 2003, weighted  by  population and  AQI value.   (PART
      measure)

Performance Databases:

AQS —The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) stores ambient air quality data used to evaluate  an
area's air quality levels relative to the NAAQS.

AIRNow PMC -The AIRNow Data Management System (DMC) stores real-time ambient  air
quality data used for the sole purpose of reporting real-time AQI and air quality forecasting.

Data Sources:

AQS/DMC:   State & local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)
and National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:

Data are gathered from monitors  using EPA-approved federal  reference  and/or equivalent
methods, all of which are published via  the Federal Register.   EPA  assumes the collecting
agency has properly maintained each monitor and that the data sent to EPA have passed at least

-------
an automated QA/QC check.  The monitoring networks have been providing data for decades
and the data are considered highly reliable.    In addition these data form the basis of EPA's
attainment decisions, trend analysis, and health impact assessments.

QA/QC Procedures:

AQS: The QA/QC of the national air  monitoring program has several major components: the
Data Quality Objective (DQO) process,  reference and equivalent  methods program, EPA's
National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), system audits, and network reviews (Available on
the Internet:  www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.htmlX  To ensure quality data, the SLAMS are
required to meet the following: 1) each site must meet network design and site criteria; 2) each
site must provide adequate QA assessment, control, and corrective action functions according to
minimum program  requirements;  3)  all sampling methods and equipment must  meet  EPA
reference  or equivalent  requirements; 4)  acceptable  data  validation  and  record keeping
procedures must be followed; and 5)  data  from SLAMS must be  summarized and reported
annually to EPA. Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the overall air quality data
collection activity for any needed changes or corrections.  Further information available on the
Internet:  http://www.epa.gov/cludvgxb/programs/namslam.html and through United States
EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)

PMC:  The QA/QC  procedures at each State, local, Tribal, or Federal agency are the same as
documented above.  Because the DMC handles real-time data, additional QA/QC data checks are
built into the data flow process to further guard against erroneous values being passed through
the system.  Data in the DMC are not considered final and are not used for any regulatory
purpose. Data in the AQS system are the official values used for regulatory analyses.

Data Quality Review:

AQS:        No external audits have  been done in the last 3 years.  However, internal audits
             are regularly conducted.

DMC:        No external audits have  been done in the last 3 years.  However, internal audits
             are regularly conducted and data are routinely processed by external users where
             applicable.

Data Limitations:

AQS:        None known

DMC:        None known

Error Estimate:  At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate.  There is still too
much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to meteorological
conditions for example) exist.

New/Improved Data or Systems:

-------
AQS:  In January 2002, EPA completed the reengineering of AQS to make it a more user
friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data are more easily accessible via the
Internet. AQS has also been enhanced to comply with the Agency's  data standards (e.g.,
latitude/longitude, chemical nomenclature).  Beginning in July 2003, agencies submitted air
quality data to AQS thru the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX). CDX is intended to be
the portal through which all environmental data coming to or leaving the Agency will pass.

PMC:  AIRNow Data Management Center was redesigned in 2004 to more efficiently handle
additional pollutants and provide for easier access to real-time data.  In addition, automated
QA/QC procedures were  updated and increased flexibility for  state/local agencies to update
information was included.
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and
other related information, see:  http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.  For more information on the
monitoring network, as well as reference and equivalent methods, see the Ambient Monitoring
Technology Information Center (AMTIC) at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic .  For information on
the AIRNow real-time program, see: http://www.airnow.gov/.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  VOC reduced from mobile sources (PART measure)
•  NOx reduced from mobile sources (PART measure)
•  PM 10 reduced from mobile sources (PART measure)
•  PM 2.5 reduced from mobile sources (PART measure)
•  Limit the increase of CO Emissions (in tons) from mobile sources (PART measure)

Performance Database: National Emissions Inventory Database. See:
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/chief/trends/

Data Source: Mobile source emissions inventories and Regulatory Impact Analyses

Estimates for on-road, off-road mobile source emissions are built from inventories fed into the
relevant models, which in turn provide input to the National Emissions Inventory Database.

The MOBILE vehicle emission factor model is a software tool for predicting gram per mile
emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, paniculate
matter, and toxics from cars, trucks, and motorcycles under various conditions. Inputs to the
model include fleet composition, activity, temporal information, and control program
characteristics.

The NONROAD emission inventory model is a software tool for predicting emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, paniculate matter, and sulfur dioxides from
small and large off road vehicles, equipment, and engines. Inputs to the model include fleet
composition, activity and temporal information.
                                          10

-------
Certain mobile source information is updated annually.  Inputs are updated annually only if there
is a rationale and readily available source of annual data. Generally, Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT), the mix of VMT by type of vehicle (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-types),
temperature, gasoline properties, and the designs of Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs are
updated each year. Emission factors for all mobile sources and activity estimates for non-road
sources are changed only when the Office of Transportation and Air Quality requests that this be
done and is able to provide the new information in a timely manner. The most recent models for
mobile sources are Mobile 6 and Nonroad 2002. (Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm.)

EPA regulatory packages always include  detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis which estimates
the costs industry is projected to accrue in meeting EPA regulations. These cost estimates will
form the basis of the numbers in the EPA performance measures. Also, costs for the EPA
mobile source program (including personnel costs) will be included also. Estimates will be made
for various years for tons/dollar for pollutants (the total of HC, CO, NOx, and PM) removed.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: EPA issues emissions standards that set limits on how
much pollution can be emitted from a given mobile source. Mobile sources include vehicles that
operate on roads and highways ("on road" or "highway" vehicles), as well as nonroad vehicles,
engines, and equipment. Examples of mobile sources are cars, trucks, buses, earthmoving
equipment, lawn and garden power tools, ships, railroad locomotives, and airplanes. Vehicle and
equipment manufacturers have responded to many mobile source emission standards by
redesigning vehicles and engines to reduce pollution.

EPA uses  models to estimate mobile source emissions, for both past and future years.  The
estimates are used in a variety of different settings.  The estimates are used for rulemaking.

The most complete and systematic process for making and recording such mobile source
emissions is the "Trends" inventory process executed each year by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards' (OAQPS) Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division (EMAD). The
Assessment and Standards Division, within the Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
provides EMAD information and methods for making the mobile source estimates. In addition,
EMAD's contractors obtain necessary information directly from other sources; for example,
weather data and the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) estimates by state. EMAD creates and publishes the emission inventory estimate for the
most recent historical year, detailed down to the county level  and with over 30 line items
representing mobile sources. At irregular intervals as required for regulatory analysis projects,
EMAD creates estimates of emissions for future years. When the method for estimating
emissions changes significantly, EMAD usually revises  its older estimates  of emissions in years
prior to the most recent year, to avoid a sudden discontinuity in the apparent emissions trend.
EMAD publishes the national emission estimates in hardcopy; county-level estimates are
available electronically.  Additional information about transportation and air quality related to
estimating, testing for, and measuring emissions, as well as research being  conducted on
technologies for reducing emissions is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/research.htm
                                           11

-------
When major changes are made in the emission models or resulting inventories (and even the cost
estimates), the performance measures will be reviewed to determine if they should be updated.

QA/QC Procedures: The emissions inventories are continuously improved.

Data Quality Review: The emissions inventories are reviewed by both internal and external
parties, including the states, locals and industries.

Data Limitations: The limitations of the inventory estimates for mobile sources come from
limitations in the modeled emission factors (based on emission factor testing and models
predicting overall fleet emission factors in g/mile) and also in the estimated vehicle miles
traveled for each vehicle class (derived from Department of Transportation
data).http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm.  For nonroad emissions, the estimates come from a
model using equipment populations, emission factors per hour or unit of work, and an estimate
of usage. This nonroad emissions model accounts for over 200 types of nonroad equipment. Any
limitations in the input data will carry over into limitations  in the emission inventory estimates.

Error Estimate: Additional information about data integrity is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm.

New/Improved Data or Systems: To keep pace with new analysis needs, new modeling
approaches, and new data, EPA is currently working on a new modeling system termed the
Multi-scale Motor Vehicles and Equipment Emission System (MOVES). This new system will
estimate emissions for on road and off road sources, cover a broad range of pollutants, and allow
multiple scale analysis, from fine scale analysis to national  inventory estimation. When fully
implemented, MOVES will serve as  the replacement for MOBILE6 and NONROAD. The new
system will not necessarily be a single piece of software, but instead will encompass the
necessary tools, algorithms, underlying data and guidance necessary for use in all official
analyses associated with regulatory development, compliance with statutory requirements, and
national/regional inventory projections.  Additional information is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ngm.htm

References: For additional information about mobile source programs see:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Combined Stationary and Mobile Source Reductions in Air Toxics Emissions
•   Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
•   Stationary Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
•   All Other Air Toxics Emissions Reduced

Performance Database: National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs)
                                          12

-------
Data Source: To calculate performance measures, the data source used is the NEI for HAPs
which includes emissions from large and small industrial sources inventoried as point sources,
smaller stationary area and other sources, such as fires inventoried as non-point sources, and
mobile sources.

Prior to the 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was the National Toxics Inventory (NTI).  The baseline
NTI (for base years 1990 -1993) includes emissions information for 188 hazardous air pollutants
from more than 900 stationary sources and from mobile sources. It is based on data collected
during the development of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, state
and local data, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, and emissions estimates using accepted
emission inventory methodologies.  The baseline NTI contains county level emissions data , not
facility-specific data.

The  1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs contain estimates of facility-specific HAP emissions and
their source specific parameters such as location (latitude and longitude) and facility
characteristics (stack height, exit velocity, temperature, etc.)

The primary source of data in the 1996 and 1999 NTI is state and local air pollution control
agencies and Tribes. These data vary in completeness, format, and quality.  EPA evaluates these
data and supplements them with data gathered while developing MACT and residual risk
standards, industry data,  and TRI data.  To produce a complete national inventory, EPA
estimates emissions for approximately 30 non-point source categories such  as wildfires and
residential heating sources not included in the state, local and Tribal data. Mobile source data
are developed using data provided by state and local agencies and Tribes and the most current
onroad and nonroad models developed by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. The
draft 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPS underwent extensive review by state and local agencies,
Tribes, industry, EPA, and the public.

For more information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please go to the
following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/index.htmWnti.  For more information and
references on the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs,  please go to the following web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.htmM1999.

Methods, Assumptions  and Suitability: To produce a complete model-ready national
inventory, EPA estimates emissions for approximately 30 non-point source  categories such as
wildfires and residential heating sources not included in the state, local and  Tribal data.  Mobile
source data are developed using data provided by state and local agencies and Tribes and the
most current onroad and nonroad models developed by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air
Quality.

Upon development of the inventory, the EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous
Air Pollutants) is used to estimate annual emissions of air toxics for the 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI
for HAPS (and for all years in-between). The EMS-HAP can project future emissions, by
adjusting stationary source emission data to account for growth and emission reductions resulting
from emission reduction scenarios such as the implementation of the Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standards.
                                           13

-------
For more information and references on EMS-HAP, please go to the following web sites:
http://www.epa.gov/scramOO l/tt22.htm#aspen and
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html.
The growth and reduction information used for the projections are further described on the
following website: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html

QA/QC Procedures: The NTI and the NEI for HAPs are databases designed to house
information from other primary sources.  The EPA performs extensive quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) activities, including checking data provided by other organizations, to improve
the quality of the emission inventory. Some of these activities include: (1) the use of an
automated format QC tool to identify potential errors of data integrity, code values, and range
checks; (2) use of geographical information system (GIS) tools to verify facility locations; and
(3) automated content analysis by pollutant, source category and facility to identify potential
problems with emission estimates such as outliers, duplicate sites, duplicate emissions, coverage
of a source category, etc. The content analysis includes a variety of comparative and statistical
analyses. The comparative analyses help reviewers prioritize which source categories  and
pollutants to review in more detail based on comparisons using current inventory data and prior
inventories. The statistical analyses help reviewers identify potential outliers by providing the
minimum, maximum, average, standard deviation, and selected percentile values based on
current data. The EPA is currently developing an automated QC content tool for data providers
to use prior to submitting their data to EPA.  After investigating errors identified using the
automated QC format and GIS tools, the EPA follows specific guidance on augmenting data for
missing data fields.  This guidance is available at the following web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/invent/qaaugmementationmemo_99nei_60603.pdf

The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and identifies
the augmentation method. After performing the content analysis, the EPA contacts data
providers to reconcile potential errors. The draft NTI is posted for external review and includes
a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission of revisions, state-by-state
modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files to assist in the review of the data.
One of the summary files includes a comparison of point source data submitted by different
organizations. During the external review of the data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and
industry provide external QA of the inventory. The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from
external reviewers and prepares memos for individual reviewers  documenting incorporation of
revisions and explanations if revisions were not incorporated.  All revisions are tracked in the
database with the source of original data and sources of subsequent revision.

The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes in the
initial emission estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI for HAPs and its final
version. For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs,  please refer to the following
web site for a paper presented at the 2002 Emission Inventory Conference in Atlanta.  "QA/QC -
An Integral Step in the Development of the 1999 National Emission Inventory  for HAPs," Anne
Pope, et al. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/eill/qa/pope.pdf

EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or
elements, which provide "meta" information on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF)  fields.
                                           14

-------
These standards were developed by teams representing states, Tribes, EPA and other Federal
agencies. The use of common data standards among partners fosters consistently defined and
formatted data elements and sets of data values, and provides public access to more meaningful
data. The standards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are the: SIC/NAICS, Latitude/Longitude,
Chemical Identification, Facility Identification, Date, Tribal and Contact Data Standards. The
1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all new data standards except the Facility Identification
Standard because OEI has not completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI for
HAPs facilities.

For more information on compliance of the NEI for HAPs with new OMB Information Quality
Guidelines and new EPA data standards, please refer to the following web site for a paper
presented at the 2003 Emission Inventory Conference in San Diego: "The Challenge  of Meeting
New EPA Data Standards and Information Quality Guidelines in the Development of the 2002
NEI Point Source Data for HAPs," Anne Pope, et al.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/eil2/dm/pope.pdf

The 2002 NEI for HAPs will undergo scientific peer review in early 2005.

Data Quality Review: EPA staff, state and local agencies, Tribes, industry and the public
review the NTI and the NEI for HAPs. To assist in the review of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, the
EPA provided a comparison of data from the three data sources (MACT/residual risk data, TRI,
and state, local and Tribal inventories) for each facility. For the 1999 NEI for HAPs,  two periods
were available for external review - October 2001 - February 2002 and October 2002 - March
2003. . The final 1999 NEI was completed and posted on the Agency website in the fall of 2003.
Beginning in 2005, the NTI will undergo an external scientific peer review.

In 2001, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the EMS-HAP model as part of the
1996 national-scale assessment. The review was generally supportive of the assessment purpose,
methods, and presentation; the committee considers this an important step toward a better
understanding of air toxics. Additional information is available on the Internet:
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer.html.

Data Limitations:  While emissions estimating techniques have improved over the years, broad
assumptions about the behavior of sources and serious data limitations still exist. The NTI and
the NEI for HAPs contain data from other primary references. Because of the different data
sources, not all information in the NTI and the NEI for HAPs has been developed using identical
methods. Also, for the same reason, there are likely some geographic areas with more detail and
accuracy than others. Because of the lesser level of detail in the baseline NTI, it is currently not
suitable for input to dispersion models. For further discussion of the data limitations  and the
error estimates in the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please refer to the discussion of Information Quality
Guidelines in the documentation at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.htmMhaps99 .

In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a final evaluation report on "EPA's
Method for Calculating Air Toxics Emissions for Reporting Results Needs Improvement" (report
can be found at www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/2004033 l-2004-p-00012.pdf) The report stated
                                          15

-------
that although the methods used have improved substantially, unvalidated assumptions and other
limitations underlying the NTI continue to impact its use as a GPRA performance measure. As a
result of this evaluation and the OIG recommendations for improvement, EPA prepared an action
plan and is looking at way to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data. EPA will meet bi-
annually with OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined in the action
plan.

Error Estimate: Error estimate cannot be tabulated on account of data limitations as described
above.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The  1996 NTI and 1999 NEI forHAPs are a significant
improvement over the baseline 1993 NTI because of the added facility-level detail (e.g., stack
heights, latitude/longitude locations), making it more useful for dispersion model input. Future
inventories (2002 and later years) are expected to improve significantly because of increased
interest in the NEI for HAPs by regulatory agencies, environmental interests, and industry, and
the greater potential for modeling and trend analysis. During the development of the 1999 NEI
for HAPs, all primary data submitters and reviewers were required to submit their data and
revisions to EPA in a standardized format using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX).
For more information on CDX, please go the following web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html

References: The NTI and NEI data and documentation are available at the following sites:
ftp site:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:

NEON:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:

CHIEF:
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/
1996 NTI, 1999 NEI for HAPs
Modeling data files for each state
Summary data files for nation
Documentation
README file
individuals who want full access to NTI files

http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Summary data files
EPA staff

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief
1999 NEI for HAPs data development materials
1999 Data Incorporation Plan - describes how EPA compiled the
    1999 NEI for HAPs
QC tool for data submitters
Data Augmentation Memo describes procedures EPA will use to
    augment data
99  NTI Q's and A's  provides  answers  to  frequently asked
    questions
NIF (Input Format) files and descriptions
                                          16

-------
                           CDX Data Submittal Procedures - instructions on how to submit
                              data using CDX
                           Training materials on development of HAP emission inventories
                           Emission factor documents, databases, and models
Audience:                  State and local agencies, Tribes, industry, EPA, and the public

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Cumulative  percentage reduction  in tons  of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk)
    emissions of air toxics (PART measure)
•   Cumulative percentage reduction in  tons  of toxicity-weighted  (for noncancer risk)
    emissions of air toxics (PART measure)

Performance Databases:
    •   National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
    •   EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization

Data Source:
To better measure the percentage change in cancer and noncancer risk to the public, a toxicity-
weighted emission inventory performance measure has been developed. This measure utilizes
data from the NEI for air toxics along with data from EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk
Characterization (found at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summarv.html), which is a
compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria used to develop a risk metric. This
compendium includes tabulated values for long-term (chronic) inhalation for many of the 188
hazardous air pollutants.  These health risk data were obtained from various data sources
including EPA, the U.S. Agency for Toxic  Substances and Disease Registry, California
Environmental Protection Agency, and the  International Agency for Research on Cancer.  The
numbers from the  health risk database are used for estimating the risk of contracting cancer and
the  level of hazard associated with adverse  health effects other than cancer.

The NEI for HAPs includes emissions from large and small industrial sources inventoried as
point sources, smaller stationary area and other sources,  such as fires inventoried as non-point
sources, and mobile  sources. Prior to 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was the National Toxics
Inventory (NTI). The baseline NTI (for base years 1990 -1993) includes emissions information
for  188 hazardous air pollutants from more than 900 stationary sources and from mobile sources.
It is based on data collected during the development of Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards, state and local data, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, and
emissions estimates using accepted emission inventory methodologies.  The baseline NTI
contains county level emissions data and cannot be used for modeling because it does not contain
facility specific data.

The 1996 NTI and the 1999 NEI for HAPs  contain stationary and mobile source estimates.
These inventories  also contain estimates of facility-specific HAP emissions and their source
specific parameters such as location (latitude and longitude) and facility characteristics (stack
height, exit velocity, temperature, etc.
                                           17

-------
The primary source of data in the 1996 and 1999 inventories are state and local air pollution
control agencies and Tribes. These data vary in completeness, format, and quality.  EPA
evaluates these data and supplements them with data gathered while developing MACT and
residual risk standards, industry data, and TRI data.

For more information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please go to the
following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/cMef/nti/index.htnuWnti. For more information and
references on the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please go to the following web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/cMef/net/index.htmM1999.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: As the NEI is only developed every three years, EPA
utilizes an emissions modeling system to project inventories for "off-years" and to project the
inventory into the future. This model, the EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for
Hazardous Air Pollutants), can project future emissions, by adjusting stationary source emission
data to account for growth and emission reductions resulting from emission reduction scenarios
such as the implementation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards.

Once the EMS-HAP process has been performed, the EPA would tox-weight the inventory by
"weighting" the emissions for each pollutant with the appropriate health risk criteria.  This would
be accomplished through a multi-step process. Initially, pollutant by pollutant values would be
obtained from the NEI for the current year and the baseline year (1990/93). Conversion of actual
tons for each pollutant for the current year and the baseline year to "toxicity-weighted" tons
would be accomplished by multiplying the appropriate values from the health criteria database
such as the unit risk estimate (URE) or lifetime cancer risk (defined at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/gloss.htnrfrfc) to get the noncancer tons. These toxicity-weighted
values act as a surrogate for risk and allow EPA to compare the toxicity-weighted values against
a 1990/1993 baseline of toxicity-weighted values to determine the percentage reduction in risk
on an annual basis

Complete documentation on development of the NEI for HAPs can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html. For more information and references on EMS-
HAP, go to the following web sites: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htm#aspen and
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html. The growth and reduction
information used for the projections are further described at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/cWef/emch/projection/emshap.htmL

QA/QC Procedures: The NTI and the NEI for HAPs are databases designed to house
information from other primary sources. The EPA performs extensive quality  assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) activities, including checking data provided by other organizations, to  improve
the quality of the emission inventory. Some of these activities include: (1) the use of an
automated format QC tool to identify potential errors of data integrity, code values, and range
checks; (2) use of geographical information system (GIS) tools to verify facility locations; and
(3) automated content analysis by pollutant,  source category and facility to identify potential
problems with emission estimates such as outliers, duplicate sites, duplicate emissions, coverage
of a source category, etc.  The content analysis includes a variety of comparative and statistical
                                          18

-------
analyses. The comparative analyses help reviewers prioritize which source categories and
pollutants to review in more detail based on comparisons using current inventory data and prior
inventories.  The statistical analyses help reviewers identify potential outliers by providing the
minimum, maximum, average, standard deviation, and selected percentile values based on
current data. The EPA has developed an automated QC content tool for data providers to use
prior to submitting their data to EPA. After investigating errors identified using the automated
QC format and GIS tools, the EPA follows specific guidance on augmenting data for missing
data fields. This guidance is available at the following web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/invent/qaaugmementationmemo  99nei 60603.pdf

The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and identifies
the augmentation method. After performing the content analysis, the EPA contacts data
providers to reconcile potential errors.  The draft NTI is posted for external review and includes
a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission of revisions, state-by-state
modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files to assist in the review of the data.
One of the summary files includes a comparison of point source data submitted by different
organizations. During the external review of the data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and
industry provide external QA of the inventory.  The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from
external reviewers and prepares memos for individual reviewers documenting incorporation of
revisions and explanations if revisions were not incorporated. All revisions are tracked in the
database with the source of original data and sources of subsequent revision.

The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes in the
initial emission estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI for HAPs and its final
version.  For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs, please refer to the following
web site for a paper presented at the 2002 Emission Inventory Conference in Atlanta. "QA/QC -
An Integral Step in the Development of the 1999 National Emission Inventory for HAPs", Anne
Pope, et al. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei 11/qa/pope.pdf

EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or
elements, which provide "meta" information on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF) fields.
These standards were developed by teams representing states, Tribes, EPA and other Federal
agencies. The use of common data standards among partners fosters consistently defined and
formatted data elements and sets of data values, and provides public  access to more meaningful
data.  The standards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are the: SIC/NAICS, Latitude/Longitude,
Chemical Identification,  Facility Identification, Date, Tribal and Contact Data Standards. The
1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all new data standards except the Facility Identification
Standard because OEI has not completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI for
HAPs facilities.

For more information on compliance of the NEI for HAPs with new  OMB Information Quality
Guidelines and new EPA data standards, please refer to the following web site for a paper
presented at the 2003 Emission Inventory Conference in San Diego.  "The Challenge of Meeting
New EPA Data  Standards and Information Quality Guidelines in the Development of the 2002
NEI Point Source Data for HAPs", Anne Pope, et al.
                                           19

-------
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei 12/dm/pope.pdf The 2002 NEI for HAPs will undergo
scientific peer review in early 2005.

The tables used in the EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summarv.html') are compiled assessments from various sources
for many of the 188 substances listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act of
1990. Because different sources developed these assessments at different times for purposes that
were similar but not identical, results are not totally consistent.  To resolve these discrepancies
and ensure the validity of the data, EPA applied a consistent priority scheme consistent with EPA
risk assessment guidelines and various levels of scientific peer review.  These risk assessment
guidelines can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/car2sab/preamble.pdf.

Data Quality Review:  EPA staff, state and local agencies, Tribes, industry and the public
review the NTI and the  NEI for HAPs.  To assist in the review of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, the
EPA provided a comparison of data from the three data sources (MACT/residual risk data, TRI,
and state, local and Tribal inventories) for each facility. For the 1999 NEI for HAPs, two periods
were available for external review - October 2001 - February 2002 and October 2002 - March
2003. The final 1999 NEI was  completed and posted on the Agency website in the fall of 2003.
Beginning in 2005, the NTI will undergo an external scientific peer review.

The EMS-HAP has been subjected to the scrutiny of leading scientists throughout the country in
a process called "scientific peer review". This  ensures that EPA uses the best available scientific
methods and information. In 2001, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the EMS-
HAP model as part of the 1996 national-scale assessment. The review was generally supportive
of the assessment purpose, methods, and presentation; the committee considers this an important
step toward a better understanding of air toxics. Additional information is available on the
Internet: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer.html.

The data compiled in the Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are reviewed to make sure they support hazard
identification and dose-response assessment for chronic exposures as defined in the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) risk assessment paradigm
(www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/paradigm.html). Because the health criteria data were obtained
from various  sources they are prioritized for use (in developing the performance measure, for
example) according to 1) conceptual consistency with EPA risk assessment guidelines and 2)
various levels of scientific peer review.  The prioritization process is aimed at incorporating the
best available scientific data.

Data Limitations and Error Estimates: While emissions estimating techniques have improved
over the years, broad assumptions about the behavior of sources and serious data limitations still
exist. The NTI and the  NEI for HAPs contain data from other primary references. Because of
the different data sources, not all information in the NTI and the NEI for HAPs has been
developed using identical methods. Also, for the same reason, there are likely some geographic
areas with more detail and accuracy than others. Because of the lesser level of detail in the
baseline NTI, it is currently not suitable for input to dispersion models. For further discussion of
                                           20

-------
the data limitations and the error estimates in the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please refer to the
discussion of Information Quality Guidelines in the documentation at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.htmMhaps99 .

In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a final evaluation report on "EPA's
Method for Calculating Air Toxics Emissions for Reporting Results Needs Improvement" (report
can be found atwww.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040331-2004-p-00012.pdf). The report stated
that although the methods used have improved substantially, unvalidated assumptions and other
limitations underlying the NTI continue to impact its use as a GPRA performance measure. As a
result of this evaluation and the OIG recommendations for improvement, EPA prepared an action
plan and is looking at ways to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data. EPA will meet
bi-annually with OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined in the
action plan.

While the Agency has made every effort to utilize the best available science in selecting
appropriate health criteria data for toxicity-weighting calculations there are inherent limitations
and errors (uncertainties) associated with this type of data. While it is not practical to expose
humans to chemicals at target doses and observe subsequent health implications over long
periods of time, most of the agencies health criteria is derived from response models and
laboratory experiments involving animals. The parameter used to convert from exposure to
cancer risk (i.e. the Unit Risk Estimate or URE) is based on default science policy processes used
routinely in EPA assessments. First, some air toxics are known to be carcinogens in animals but
lack  data in humans. These have been assumed to be human carcinogens. Second, all the air
toxics in this assessment were assumed to have linear relationships between exposure and the
probability of cancer (i.e.  effects at low exposures were extrapolated from higher, measurable,
exposures by a straight line). Third, the URE used for some air toxics compounds represents a
maximum likelihood estimate, which might be taken to mean the best scientific estimate. For
other air toxics compounds, however,  the URE used was an "upper bound" estimate, meaning
that it probably leads to an overestimation of risk if it is incorrect. For these upper bound
estimates, it is  assumed that the URE continues to apply even at low exposures. It is likely,
therefore, that  this linear model over-predicts the risk at exposures encountered in the
environment. The cancer weighting-values for this approach should be considered "upper bound"
in the science policy sense.

All of the noncancer risk estimates have a built-in margin of safety. All of the Reference
Concentrations (RfCs) used in toxicity-weighting of noncancer are conservative, meaning that
they  represent  exposures which probably do not result in any health effects, with a margin of
safety built into the RfC to account for sources of uncertainty and variability. Like the URE used
in cancer weighting the values are, therefore, considered "upper bound" in the science policy
sense. Further details on limitations and uncertainties associated with the agencies health data
can be found at:  www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page9.htmM.10

New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs are a significant
improvement over the baseline NTI because of the added facility-level detail (e.g., stack heights,
latitude/longitude locations), making it more useful for dispersion model input. Future
inventories (2002 and later years) are expected to improve significantly because of increased
                                           21

-------
interest in the NEI for HAPs by regulatory agencies, environmental interests, and industry, and
the greater potential for modeling and trend analysis. During the development of the 1999 NEI
for HAPs, all primary data submitters and reviewers were required to submit their data and
revisions to EPA in a standardized format using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX).
For more information on CDX, please go the following web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html

Beginning in 2006, the toxicity-weighted emission inventory data will also be used as a
measurement to predict exposure and risk to the public. This measure will utilize ambient
monitoring of air toxics as a surrogate for population exposure and compare these values with
health benchmarks to predict risks.

References:

The NTI and NEI data and documentation are available at the following sites:
Emissions Inventory Data:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:

NEON:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:

CHIEF:
Audience:
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/
1996 NTI, 1999 NEI for HAPs
Modeling data files for each state
Summary data files for nation
Documentation
README file
individuals who want full access to NTI files

http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Summary data files
EPA staff

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief
1999 NEI for HAPs data development materials
1999 Data Incorporation Plan - describes how EPA compiled the
    1999 NEI for HAPs
QC tool for data submitters
Data Augmentation Memo describes procedures EPA will use to
    augment data
99  NTI  Q's and A's  provides  answers to  frequently asked
    questions
NIF (Input Format) files and descriptions
CDX Data Submittal Procedures - instructions on how to submit
    data using CDX
Training materials on development of HAP emission inventories
Emission factor documents, databases, and models
State/local/Tribal agencies, industry, EPA, and the public
Information on the Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
                                          22

-------
EMS-HAP:                http://epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htnrfaspen
                          http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/chief/emch/proj ection/emshap. html
Contents:                  1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Audience:                 public

Information on EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization:
Health Criteria Data:        http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html
Contents:                  Tabulated dose response values for long-term (chronic)
                          inhalation and oral exposures; and values for short-term
                          (acute) inhalation exposure
Audience:                 public

                               GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2007 Overarching Performance Measure:

    •   People Living in Healthier Indoor Air

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   People Living in Radon Resistant Homes
    •   Annual additional homes with radon reducing features (PART measure)

Performance Database: Annual industry survey data of home builders provided by the
National Association of Home Builders.

Data Source: The survey is an  annual sample of home builders in the United States most of
whom  are members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). NAHB members
construct 80% of the  homes built in the United States each year. Using a survey methodology
reviewed by EPA, NAHB Research Center estimates the percentage of these homes that are built
radon resistant.  The percentage  built radon resistant from the sample  is then used to estimate
what percent  of all homes built nationwide  are radon resistant  To calculate the  number of
people living in radon resistant homes, EPA assumes an average of 2.67 people per household.
NAHB Research Center has been conducting this annual builder practices survey  for over a
decade, and has developed substantial expertise in the survey's design,  implementation, and
analysis. The statistical estimates are typically reported with a 95 percent confidence interval.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  NAHB Research Center conducts an annual survey of
home builders in the United States to assess a wide range of builder practices. NAHB Research
Center voluntarily conducts this  survey to maintain an awareness of industry trends  in order to
improve American housing and to be responsive to the needs of the home building industry.  The
annual survey gathers information such as types of houses built, lot sizes, foundation designs,
types  of lumber used, types of  doors and windows  used, etc.  The NAHB Research Center
Builder Survey also gathers information on  the use of radon-resistant design features in new
houses, and these questions comprise about two percent of the survey questionnaire.
                                         23

-------
In January of each year, the survey of building practices for the preceding calendar year is
typically mailed out to home builders.  For the most-recently completed survey, for building
practices during calendar year 2003, NAHB Research Center reported mailing the  survey  to
about 45,000 active United States home building companies, and received about 2,300 responses,
which translates to a response rate of about 5 percent.  The survey responses are analyzed, with
respect to State market areas and Census Divisions in the United States, to assess the percentage
and number of homes built each year that incorporate radon-reducing features. The data are also
used to  assess the percentage and number of homes built with radon-reducing features in high
radon potential areas in the United States (high  risk areas).  Other analyses  include radon-
reducing features as a function of housing type, foundation type, and different techniques for
radon-resistant new home construction. The data are suitable for year-to-year comparisons.

QA/QC  Procedures:  Because  data are obtained from an  external organization, QA/QC
procedures are  not entirely known. According  to NAHB Research Center, QA/QC procedures
have been established, which includes QA/QC by the vendor that is utilized for key entry of data.

Data Quality Review: Because data are obtained from an external organization, Data Quality
Review procedures are not entirely known. NAHB Research Center indicates that each survey is
manually reviewed, a process that requires several months to complete.   The review includes
data quality checks to ensure that the respondents understood the survey questions and answered
the questions  appropriately.   NAHB Research  Center also applies  checks  for  open-ended
questions  to verify the appropriateness of the answers.   In some  cases, where  open-ended
questions request numerical information, the data are capped between the upper and lower three
percent  of the values provided in the survey responses.  Also, a quality review of each year's
draft report from NAHB Research Center is conducted by the EPA project officer.

Data Limitations:  The majority of home builders surveyed are NAHB members.  The NAHB
Research Center survey also attempts to capture the activities of builders that are not members of
NAHB. Home  builders that are not  members of NAHB are typically smaller, sporadic builders
that  in some cases build homes as a secondary profession.  To augment  the list of NAHB
members in the survey sample, NAHB Research Center sends the survey to home builders
identified from  mailing lists of builder trade publications, such as Professional Builder magazine.
There is some  uncertainty as to whether the survey adequately characterizes the practices  of
builders who are not members of NAHB. The effects on the findings are not known.

Although an overall response rate of 5 percent could be  considered low, it is the response rate for
the entire survey, of which the radon-resistant new construction questions are only a very small
portion. Builders responding to the survey would not be doing so principally due to their radon
activities.  Thus, a low response rate does not necessarily indicate a strong potential for a positive
bias under the speculation that builders using radon-resistant construction would be more likely
to respond to the survey.  NAHB Research Center  also makes efforts to reduce the potential for
positive bias in  the way the radon-related survey questions are presented.

Error Estimate:  See Data Limitations
                                           24

-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: None

References:  The  results are published by the NAHB Research Center in annual reports of
radon-resistant home building practices. See http://www.nahbrc.org/ last accessed 12/21/2005 for
more information about NAHB.  The most recent report, "Builder Practices Report: Radon
Reducing Features in New Construction 2003,"Annual Builder and Consumer Practices Surveys
by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., November, 2004.  Similar report titles exist for prior years.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   People Living in Radon Mitigated Homes

Performance Database: External

Data Source: Radon fan manufacturers report fan sales to the Agency. EPA assumes one fan per
radon mitigated home, assumes a fan life of 10 years, and then multiplies the assumed number of
working fans by the assumed average of 2.67 people per household.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A.

QA/QC Procedures: Because data are obtained from an external organization, EPA relies on the
business practices for reporting data of the radon fan manufacturers.

Data Quality Review: Data are obtained from an external organization.  EPA reviews the data
to ascertain their reliability and discusses any irregularities with the relevant manufacturer.

Data Limitations: Reporting by  radon fan manufacturers  is voluntary and may underestimate
the  number of radon fans sold. Nevertheless, these are the best available data to determine the
number of homes mitigated.   There are  other methods to  mitigate radon including:  passive
mitigation techniques of sealing holes and cracks in floors and foundation walls, installing sealed
covers over sump pits, installing one-way  drain valves in untrapped drains, and installing static
venting and ground  covers in areas like crawl  spaces.  Because  there are no  data on the
occurrence of these methods,  there is again the possibility that the number of radon mitigated
homes has been underestimated.
No  radon vent fan manufacturer, vent fan motor maker or distributor is required to report to
EPA; they provide data/information voluntarily to EPA.  There are only four (4) radon vent fan
manufacturers  of  any significance; one of these accounts for an estimated 70% of the  market.
Radon vent fans are unlikely to be used for non-radon applications.  However, vent fans typically
used for non-radon applications are perhaps being installed as substitutes for radon vent fans in
some instances; estimated to be less than 1% of the total market.  Ascertaining the actual number
of radon vent fans  used  for other  applications, and the number of non-radon fans being
substituted in radon applications, would be  difficult and expensive at this time relative to the
benefit of having such data.

Error  Estimate: N/A.
                                          25

-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: None

References: See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html last accessed 12/21/2005 for
National performance/progress reporting (National Radon Results: 1985 to 2003*) on radon,
measurement, mitigation and radon-resistant new construction.  Data through 2004 are available
from the Indoor Environments Division of the Office of Air and Radiation.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Number of people with asthma who have taken steps to reduce their  exposure to
       indoor environmental asthma triggers (PART measure)

Performance Database:  The national telephone survey (National Survey on Environmental
Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS) seeks information about the measures
taken by people with asthma, and parents of children with asthma to minimize exposure to
indoor environmental asthma triggers.  Additional information about  asthma morbidity and
mortality in the US is obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Annual expenditures for  health and lost  productivity due to asthma are obtained from the
National     Heart    Lung     and     Blood     Institute      (NHLBI)     Chartbook
www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/02_chtbk.pdf last accessed 12/21/2005.

EPA also collects data on children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in the home.  This
information is used in supporting the asthma goals of the program. EPA focuses its work on ETS
on children in low income and minority populations, and on children with asthma. The National
Survey on  Environmental Management  of Asthma and  Children's  Exposure to  ETS, which
includes a series of questions about whether respondents allow smoking in their home, whether
young children are  in the home, what resident family members smoke and how often, and how
much visitors contribute to exposure, is used to track progress toward reducing childhood ETS
exposure.  Information about ETS is obtained periodically from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) including  the National Health  Interview, the  National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (for cotinine data), and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
Survey (for state tobacco/ETS exposure data).

Data  Source: The  National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and  Children's
Exposure to ETS (OMB control number 2060-0490) source is EPA. Data on asthma morbidity
and mortality  is available from  the National  Center for Health  Statistics  at  the  CDC
(www.cdc.gov/nchs last accessed 12/21/2005).  Data on annual expenditures for health and lost
productivity due to  asthma are obtained from the NHLBI Chartbook.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: End-of-year performance for the asthma  program is a
best professional estimate using  all data sources  (including annual  measures on partner
performance and advertising awareness outlined below). The survey provides statistically sound
results every three  years for one period  of time;  Scheduled surveys will provide  performance
results for years 2006 and 2009. The estimate of the number of people with asthma who  have
taken steps to reduce their exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers as of  2007 will be
                                         26

-------
based on a projection from previous surveys, and this estimate will be verified using the 2009
survey data.  Data on annual measures is also used to support progress towards the long term
performance measure.

National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS
(OMB control number 2060-0490): This survey is the most robust data set for this performance
measure, but it  is not administered  annually.  The first  survey, administered in 2003,  was
designed in consultation with staff from EPA and the CDC National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS) to ensure that respondents will understand the questions asked and will provide the type
of data necessary to measure the Agency's objectives. In addition, care has been taken to ensure
that the survey questions target the population with asthma by using the same qualifier question
that appears on other national surveys on asthma collected by the CDC.

From an initial sampling frame of 124,994 phone numbers, 14,685 households were contacted
successfully and agreed to  participate in the screening survey.   Of the  14,685  individuals
screened,  approximately 18 percent,  or 2,637 individuals,  either have asthma or live with
someone who does.  Only those individuals who have asthma  or live with someone who does
were considered to be  eligible respondents.
Respondents were asked to provide primarily yes/no responses.  In some cases, respondents were
given a range of responses in the form of multiple choice questions and were asked to indicate
the one which best defined their response.  The survey seeks information on those environmental
management measures that the Agency considers important in reducing an individual's exposure
to known indoor environmental asthma triggers.  By using yes/no and multiple choice questions,
the Agency has substantially reduced the  amount of time necessary for  the  respondent to
complete the survey and has ensured consistency in data response and interpretation.

The information collected has been used to establish a baseline to reflect the characteristics of
our nation's  asthma population and future iterations of this  survey will measure  additional
progress toward achieving performance goals.  The next survey will take place in 2006.

QA/QC Procedures: The National Survey is designed in accordance with approved Agency
procedures.     Additional     information     is     available     on     the     Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/icr/plavers.html last accessed 12/21/2005. The computer assisted telephone
interview methodology used for this survey helps to limit errors in data collection.  In addition,
the QA/QC procedures associated with conducting the survey include pilot testing of interview
questions, interviewer training to ensure consistent gathering of information, and random data
review to reduce the possibility of data entry error.

Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources to ascertain reliability.

Data  Limitations: Asthma:   Random digit dialing methodology is used to  ensure  that  a
representative sample of households  has been contacted; however, the  survey is  subject to
inherent limitations of voluntary telephone surveys of representative samples.  For example, 1)
survey is limited to those households with current telephone service; 2) interviewers may follow
survey directions  inconsistently.  An  interviewer  might ask the questions  incorrectly  or
inadvertently  lead the  interviewee to a response;  or  3)  the  interviewer  may  call at an
                                           27

-------
inconvenient time (i.e., the respondent might not want to be interrupted at the time of the call and
may resent the intrusion of the phone call; the answers will reflect this attitude.).

ETS: Currently available cotinine (a chemical in environmental tobacco smoke) survey data do
not address 50% of the age specific portion of EPA's target population.  It does not include birth
to three years old, the portion of children most susceptible to the effects of ETS.

Error Estimate:  In its first data collection with this  instrument, the Agency achieved results
within the following  percentage points of the true value at the  95 percent confidence level
(survey instrument):
       Adult Asthmatics                plus or minus   2.4%
       Child Asthmatics               plus or minus   3.7%
       Low Income Adult Asthmatics    plus or minus   6.1%

These precision rates  are sufficient to characterize the extent to which the  results measured by
the survey accurately reflect the characteristics of our nation's asthmatic population.

New/Improved  Data or   Systems:   Data from the  National  Survey  on  Environmental
Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to  ETS (OMB control  number 2060-0490)
were collected from August 4-September 17, 2003 and represent the first  data collection with
this instrument.

References:

Asthma
National  Center  for Health  Statistics,   Centers  for Disease  Control   and  Prevention
(www.cdc.gov/nchs/ last accessed 7/27/2005)

EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iaq/ last accessed 12/21/2005)

ETS
National Health Interview Survey and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are
part of the National Center  for Health  Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs last accessed 12/21/2005)

Behavioral Risk Factor  Surveillance  Survey,  Centers  for  Disease Control  and Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm last accessed  12/21/2005),

US  Surgeon  General's  report  on tobacco (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/index.htm/  last
accessed 7/27/2005),
National      Cancer      Institute's      (NCI)     Tobacco       Monograph      Series
(http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/ last accessed 12/21/2005),

NCI funded Tobacco  Use Supplement portion of  the US  Census Bureau's  Current Population
Survey (http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/studies/tus-cps/ last accessed 12/21/2005),
                                           28

-------
Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/ last accessed 12/21/2005).


FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Additional health care professionals trained annually by EPA and its partners on
       the environmental management of asthma triggers (PART measure)

Performance Database: The performance database consists of quarterly Partner status reports
used to document the outcomes of individual projects.

Data Source: Partner status reports are generated by those organizations receiving funding from
EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: On an annual basis, EPA requires (programmatic terms
and conditions of the award) all funded organizations to provide reports identifying how many
health care professionals are educated about indoor asthma triggers.

QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that organizations report data as accurately and completely
as possible; site-visits are conducted by EPA project officers.

Data Quality Review: Project officers review data quality.

Data Limitations: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is exploring the development of a centralized data base.

References: N/A

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Percent of public that is aware of the asthma program's media campaign (PART
       measure)
Performance Database: A media tracking study used to assess behavior change within that
sector of the public viewing the public service announcements.

Data Source: An independent initiative of the Advertising Council provides  media tracking of
outcomes of all their public service campaigns and this is publicly available information.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not
controlled by EPA.

QA/QC Procedures: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled by EPA.
                                         29

-------
Data  Quality Review:  Methods are those of the Advertising  Council, and not controlled by
EPA.

Data Limitations: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled by EPA.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  Methods  are those of the Advertising Council, and not
controlled by EPA.

References: Advertising Council Reporting.  EPA Assistance Agreement number X-82820301.
For additional information see the Ad Council web site http://www.adcouncil.org/ last accessed
12/21/05.
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Students, faculty and staff experiencing improved indoor air quality in their schools
    •   Estimated annual number of schools establishing Indoor Air Quality programs
       based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance (PART measure)

Performance Database:

EPA collects national data by conducting a survey of indoor air quality management practices in
schools approximately every three years. The first survey was administered in 2002. EPA is
partnering with CDC to incorporate IAQ management practice indicators, consistent with the
benchmark survey, into the School Health Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS) to be
administered in 2006. EPA will implement this IAQ module as a smaller survey in 2009, as the
SHPSS survey is only conducted at 6 year intervals.

To measure annual progress, EPA estimates the number of schools who establish IAQ Tools for
Schools (TfS) programs each year from reports from partner organizations and regional
recruiters, supplemented by tracking the volume of guidances distributed and number of people
trained by EPA and its partners. EPA also collects information on program benefits such as
reduced school nurse visits, improved workplace satisfaction among staff, reduced absenteeism,
and cost savings experienced by schools.

Data Source:  The sources of the data include cooperative partners, USEPA and the statistical
sample of all the public and private schools in the nation during the 1999 - 2000 school year
(118,000); data are from the United  States  Department of Education National  Center  for
Education Statistics.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Calculations for the number of people experiencing
improved IAQ are based upon an average 525 students, staff and faculty per school (data are
from the United States Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics). That
number, along with the number of schools that are adopting/implementing TfS, are used to
estimate the performance result.
                                         30

-------
End-of-year performance is a best professional estimate using all data sources.  The survey
provides more statistically sound results for one period of time; the next scheduled survey will
provide performance results for year 2006.  EPA's 2006 survey will be included as part of
CDC's 2006 School Health Policies and Programs Study, which is conducted every six years.

QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately and
completely as possible; site visits and regular communication with grantees are conducted by
EPA projects officers.

Data Quality Review:  EPA reviews the data from all sources in the performance database to
ascertain reliability and to resolve any discrepancies.

Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Cooperative Agreement Partner status
reporting is the error introduced as a result of self-reporting.

Error Estimate: Not relevant for this year.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Prior to the 2002 survey, EPA tracked the number of schools
receiving the TfS guidance and estimated the population of the school to determine the number
of students/staff experiencing improved  indoor air quality. The survey was administered to
establish  a baseline for schools  implementing IAQ management practices. EPA queried a
statistically representative sample of schools to estimate the number of schools that have actually
adopted and implemented good IAQ management practices consistent with the TfS guidance.
EPA plans to re-administer the survey as a component of CDC's School Health Policies and
Programs Study, which will show progress from the baseline.

References:   See  the United States Department of Education National Center for Education
Statistics,  http://nces.ed.gov/ last accessed 12/21/2005. See also Indoor Air Quality Tools for
Schools Kit  (402-K-95-001) at  http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools last accessed  12/21/2005 and
see www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/shpps/ For additional  information  about the School Health
Policies and  Programs Study (SHPPS), a national survey periodically conducted to assess school
health policies and programs at the state, district, school, and classroom levels.
                               GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 3

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Remaining US consumption  of HCFCs,  measured in tons  of ozone  depleting
       potential (OOP) (PART measure)
    •   Restrict Domestic Exempted Production and Import of Newly  Produced Class I
       CFCs and Halons

Performance Database: The Allowance Tracking System (ATS) database is  maintained by the
Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD). ATS is used to compile and analyze  quarterly
                                          31

-------
information on U.S. production, imports, exports, transformations, and allowance trades of
ozone-depleting substances (ODS).

Data Source: Progress on restricting domestic exempted consumption of Class II HCFCs is
tracked by monitoring industry reports of compliance with EPA's phase-out regulations. Data are
provided by U.S. companies producing, importing, and exporting ODS. Corporate data are
typically submitted as quarterly reports. Specific requirements as outlined in the Clean Air Act
are available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caa603.txt. Monthly information on
domestic production, imports, and exports from the International Trade Commission is
maintained in the ATS.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Data are aggregated across all U.S. companies for
each individual ODS to  analyze U.S. total consumption and production.

QA/QC Procedures: Reporting and record-keeping requirements are published in 40 CFR Part
82, Subpart A, Sections 82.9 through 82.13.  These sections of the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Rule specify  the required data and accompanying documentation that companies must
submit or maintain on-site to demonstrate their compliance with the regulation.

The ATS data are subject to a Quality Assurance Plan (Quality  Assurance Plan, USEPA Office
of Atmospheric Programs, July  2002).  In addition,  the data are subject to an annual quality
assurance review, coordinated by Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) staff separate from those
on the team normally responsible for data collection and maintenance. The ATS is programmed
to ensure consistency of the data elements  reported by  companies.  The tracking system flags
inconsistent data for review and resolution by  the tracking system  manager.  This information is
then cross-checked with compliance data submitted by reporting companies.  SPD maintains a
user's manual for the ATS that  specifies the  standard operating procedures for data entry and
data analysis.  Regional inspectors perform  inspections and audits  on-site at the  producers',
importers', and  exporters'  facilities.  These  audits verify  the accuracy of  compliance data
submitted to EPA through examination of company records.

Data Quality Reviews: The Government Accounting Office (GAO) completed a review of U.S.
participation in five international environmental agreements, and analyzed data submissions
from the U.S. under the  Montreal Protocol on Substances the Deplete the Ozone Layer. No
deficiencies were identified in their January 2003 report.

Data Limitations: None, since companies are required by the Clean Air Act to report data.
EPA's regulations specify a quarterly reporting system.

Error Estimate: None.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The Stratospheric Protection Division is developing a system
to allow direct electronic reporting.

References: See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/desc.html for additional information on ODSs.  See
http://www.unep.ch/ozone/montreal.shtml for additional information about the Montreal
                                          32

-------
Protocol. See http://www.unmfs.org/ for more information about the Multilateral Fund. Quality
Assurance Plan, USEPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, July 2002
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Cumulative federal dollars spent per cumulative number of schools joining the
       SunWise program

Performance Database: Not applicable

Data Source:  Cumulative federal dollars spent is estimated from annual program budget
tracking documents. The number of schools joining the SunWise program is measured by
counting the number of schools that register to join the SunWise program in each year, which is
collected at http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html. Schools also have the option of
sending in a paper registration, which EPA then enters at this website. EPA tracks the data at
http://intranet.epa.gov/sunwise/track/trac_teacher.html.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  The cumulative number of schools joining the
SunWise program is measured by counting the number of schools that register to join the
SunWise program in each year, which is collected at
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html., and adding the incremental number of schools
joining the program to the prior year's cumulative total. The efficiency measure is calculated by
dividing the cumulative number of dollars EPA has spent on the SunWise program by the
cumulative number of schools that have joined the program.

QA/QC Procedures:  All registrations by schools are reviewed by EPA staff for completeness
and to assure there is no double counting of entries.  EPA updates the  registration information
during the course of program implementation.

Data Quality Reviews: Each year researchers at an independent contractor contact a statistical
sample of schools in the program database in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
EPA updates the website based on the contractor's findings as appropriate.

Data Limitations: The number of participating schools is probably underestimated since
schools that fail to provide full registration information are not entered into the database, even if
they participate in the program. Note that additional organizations besides schools may also
register and provide the SunWise curriculum.   These organizations include scout troupes,
camps, and 4-H groups, for example.  Therefore, counting only schools underestimates the
program's reach and efficiency.

Error Estimate: None

New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A

References:
For more information about the SunWise School program, see:


                                          33

-------
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/ and
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html Data collection regarding schools that participate in
SunWise is authorized by OMB Control No. 2060-0439.

                                GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 4

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Purchase and Deploy State-of-Art Monitoring Units

Performance Data: Data from the near real-time gamma component of the RadNet, formerly
known as the Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS), will be stored in
an internal EPA database at the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL)
in Montgomery, Alabama. Data from filters are housed in the Laboratory Information
Management System (LDVIS) which are physically located in Montgomery, Alabama.

Data Source: RadNet

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Assuming that funding is continued in future years
and the project receives all necessary approvals, the existing air sampling equipment will be
supplemented with state-of-the art air monitors that include near real-time gamma radiation
detection capability. Addition of detectors and communication systems will provide information
about significant radioactive contamination events to decision- makers within hours

QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow the
Agency guidelines and be consistent with a specific initial operational Quality Assurance Plan
that will be completed. All monitoring equipment will be periodically calibrated with reliable
standards and routinely checked for accuracy with onsite testing devices.  Laboratory analyses
of air filters and other environmental media are closely controlled in compliance with the
NAREL Quality Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating Procedures.

Data Quality Reviews:  The database will screen all incoming data from the monitoring systems
for abnormalities as an indicator of either a contamination event or an instrument malfunction.
Data will be held in a secure portion of the database until verified by trained personnel. Copies
of quality assurance and quality control testing will also be maintained to assure the quality of
the data.

Data Limitations: Data are limited in near-real-time to gamma emitting radionuclide
identification and quantification. Radiation levels from gamma-emitting nuclides that will be so
low as  to be "undetectable" will be significantly below health concerns that require immediate
action.  Lower levels of radioactive materials in the samples will be measured through
laboratory-based analyses and data.

Error Estimate:  The overall error in detection capability is estimated to be within 50% of the
actual concentration based on previous experience with similar measurement systems.  An error
analysis will be performed on the prototype systems during the process of detector selection.
                                          34

-------
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: New air samplers will maintain steady flow
rates that are measured during operation and corrected for varying environmental conditions.
Addition of gamma spectrometric detectors and computer-based multi-channel analyzers to the
air samplers provide near real-time analyses of radioactive content in particles captured by the
filter. In addition to data collection, the onboard computer systems can communicate results of
analyses back to a central database and even identify abnormal conditions that might require
action.  These improvements not only include higher quality data, but also will provide
information regarding contamination events to decision-makers within hours instead of days.
The number and location of monitoring sites will be improved to provide greater coverage of
more of the nation's population.

The plan for upgrading and expanding the RadNet air monitoring network was reviewed in FY05
by an EPA Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) and will be reviewed in FY06  by the Radiation
Advisory Committee (RAC) of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB)  .   The TEP review
provided a number  of comments that were incorporated in the  RadNet plan, especially those
addressing the refinement  of the overall  system objectives.   The SAB review is expected to
provide discussion and guidance from a team of national experts that will address key aspects of
the  science and technology of the new network,  including fundamental  concerns such as the
appropriateness and potential effectiveness of the plan for siting near-real-time air monitors
across the nation.

References: For additional information about the continuous monitoring system, ERAMS see:
http://www.epa.gov/narel/radnet last accessed 7/27/2005.

NAREL Quality Management Plan, Revision 1, March 15, 2001.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Percentage of EPA RERT members that meet criteria

Performance Data: To determine the effectiveness of RERT performance, an output measure
has been developed that scores RERT members on a scale of one (1) to 100 against criteria
developed based on the RERT's responsibilities under the National Response Plan's
Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex (formerly the Federal Radiological Emergency Response
Plan) and the National Oil and Hazardous  Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (the NCP). A
baseline evaluation was performed in FY03, based on the effectiveness of the RERT in responses
to actual incidents and a major national exercise (TOPOFF2). RERT members were evaluated in
their ability to: (1) provide effective field response, (2) support coordination centers, and (3)
provide analytical capabilities and to support a single small-to-medium scale incident, as needed.
Overall RERT effectiveness in this baseline analysis was measured at approximately 13 percent.
In FY 2004, RERT members were re-evaluated, through a major exercise, in the ability factors
listed above. In FY 2005, the evaluation criteria have been reevaluated and revised in response
to the results of the FY 2004 exercise  as well as changes necessitated by the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 and DHS'  issuance of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the
National Response Plan.
                                          35

-------
Data Source: Based on the requirements of EPA set forth in the NRP's Nuclear/Radiological
Incident Annex and the NCP, EPA has developed criteria against which the capabilities of the
RERT are judged.  This evaluation has been performed by members of the Radiation Protection
Division, including representatives both within and outside the RERT itself.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures:  N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: The evaluation criteria were modified between FY2003 and FY2005 to
reflect the changing requirements of the RERT, based on DHS' issuance of both NDVIS and the
NRP during this time period. While the broad outline of the RERT's role has remained the
same, additional requirements have been imposed by the issuance of these documents, which are
now reflected in the RERT evaluation criteria.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  None

References:  The Homeland Security Act of 2002, the National Incident Management
System, and the National Response Plan

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Drums of Radioactive Waste Disposed of according to EPA Standards

Performance Data:  The Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
database contains the number of drums shipped by DOE waste generator facilities and placed in
the DOE WIPP. The WIPP is a DOE facility located in southeastern New  Mexico, 26 miles from
Carlsbad, New Mexico. The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act was passed by Congress in October
1992 and amended in September 1996. The act transferred the land occupied by the WIPP to
DOE and gave EPA, regulatory responsibility for determining whether the facility complies with
radioactive waste disposal standards. Through July 2005, EPA has completed over 97 on-site
inspections to evaluate waste prior to shipment to the WIPP facility.

Data Source: Department of Energy

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures:  The performance data used by EPA are collected and maintained by DOE.
Under EPA's WIPP regulations (available on  the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/background.htm (last accessed 7/18/200), all DOE WIPP-
related data must be collected and maintained under a comprehensive quality assurance program
                                         36

-------
meeting consensus standards developed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) (available on the Internet: http://www.asme.org/codes  (last accessed 7/18/2005)).
EPA conducts regular inspections to ensure that these quality assurance systems are in place and
functioning properly; no additional QA/QC of the DOE data is conducted by EPA.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: The DOE WIPP database contains the number of drums shipped by DOE
waste generator facilities and placed in the DOE WIPP. Currently, there are five DOE waste
generator facilities that are approved to generate and ship waste: Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Hanford Site, Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Savannah River Site.

Before DOE waste generator facilities can ship waste to the WIPP, EPA must approve the waste
characterization controls and quality assurance procedures for waste identification at these sites.
EPA conducts frequent independent inspections and audits at these sites to verify continued
compliance with radioactive waste disposal standards and to determine if DOE is properly
tracking the waste and adhering to specific waste component limits. Once EPA gives its
approval, the number of drums shipped to the WIPP facility on an annual basis is dependent on
DOE priorities and funding. EPA volume estimates are based on projecting the average  shipment
volumes over 40 years with an initial start up.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: None

References: The Department of Energy National TRU Waste Management Plan
Quarterly Supplement http://www.wipp.ws/library/caolib.htm#Controlled_ (last accessed
7/18/2005) contains information on the monthly volumes of waste that are received at the
DOE WIPP.

                            GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 5


FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •  Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions overall and by Sector
    •  Million metric  tons  of  carbon equivalent  (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions
      reduced in the building sector (PART measure)
    •  Million metric  tons  of  carbon equivalent  (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions
      reduced in the industry sector (PART measure)
    •  Million metric  tons  of  carbon equivalent  (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions
      reduced in the transportation sector (PART measure)
Performance  Database:  Climate Protection  Partnerships  Division  Tracking  System.  The
tracking system's primary purpose is to maintain a record  of the  annual  greenhouse  gas
                                         37

-------
emissions reduction goals and  accomplishments for the voluntary climate program using
information  from partners and other sources.  It also measures the  electricity savings  and
contribution towards the President's greenhouse gas intensity goal.

Data Source:  EPA develops carbon and non-CCh  emissions  baselines. A baseline  is the
"business-as-usual"  case" without the impact of EPA's voluntary climate programs.  Baseline
data for carbon emissions related to energy use comes from the Energy Information Agency
(EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM) of the U.S. electric power sector. These
data are used for  both  historical  and projected  greenhouse  gas emissions and electricity
generation, independent of partners' information  to compute emissions reductions  from the
baseline  and progress toward annual goals.  The projections use  a "Reference Case" for
assumptions about growth, the economy, and regulatory conditions. Baseline data for non-carbon
dioxide (CCh) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases,
are maintained by EPA.   The non-CO2 data are compiled with  input from industry and also
independently from partners' information.

Data  collected  by  EPA's  voluntary  programs include  partner  reports  on  facility- specific
improvements (e.g.  space  upgraded, kilowatt-hours (kWh) reduced),  national market data on
shipments of efficient products, and engineering measurements of equipment  power levels and
usage patterns

Baseline information is discussed at  length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. The report
includes a complete  chapter dedicated to the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory (sources, industries,
emissions, volumes, changes, trends, etc.).  A second  chapter addresses  projected greenhouse
gases in the future (model assumptions, growth, sources, gases, sectors, etc.)

U.S.  Department of State.  2002.  "U.S. Climate  Action Report—2002.    Third  National
    Communication  of the United States of America under the United Nations  Framework
    Convention on Climate Change."

Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific improvements
but these emissions data are not used in tracking the  performance measure.  EPA,  however,
validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based on the actual emissions data received.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Most of the  voluntary climate programs' focus is on
energy efficiency. For these programs, EPA  estimates the expected  reduction in electricity
consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Emissions prevented are calculated as the product of the
kWh  of electricity saved  and an annual  emission factor  (e.g., metric tons carbon equivalent
(MMTCE) prevented per  kWh). Other programs  focus on directly  lowering greenhouse gas
emissions (e.g.,  Natural  Gas  STAR, Landfill  Methane Outreach,  and  Coalbed  Methane
Outreach); for these, greenhouse gas emission reductions are estimated on a project-by-project
basis. EPA maintains a Attacking systemฎ for emissions reductions.

The Integrated  Planning  Model, used to develop baseline data  for carbon  emissions, is an
important analytical tool for evaluating emission scenarios affecting the U.S. power sector.  The
IPM has an approved quality assurance project plan that is available from EPA's program office.
                                          38

-------
QA/QC Procedures: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information
on which to evaluate emissions reductions from voluntary programs.  Peer-reviewed carbon-
conversion factors  are  used to ensure  consistency with  generally  accepted  measures of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and peer-reviewed methodologies are used to calculate GHG
reductions from these programs.

Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific improvements
but these  emissions data are not used in tracking the performance measure.  EPA, however,
validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based on the actual emissions data received.

Data Quality  Review:  The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate
programs  through interagency evaluations. The second such interagency evaluation, led by the
White House Council on Environmental Quality, examined the status of U.S.  climate change
programs. The review included participants from EPA and the Departments of State, Energy,
Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. The results were  published in the  U.S. Climate
Action Report-2002 as part of the United States' submission to the Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC).  The previous evaluation was published in the  U.S.  Climate Action
Report-1997. A 1997 audit by EPA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that the climate
programs  examined "used good management practices" and "effectively estimated the impact
their activities  had on reducing risks to health and the environment..."

Data Limitations: These are indirect measures of GHG emissions (carbon conversion factors
and methods to convert material-specific  reductions  to GHG emissions reductions). Also, the
voluntary  nature of the  programs may affect  reporting.  Further research  will be necessary in
order to fully  understand  the links  between GHG concentrations and  specific environmental
impacts, such as impacts on health, ecosystems, crops, weather events, and so forth.

Error Estimate: These are indirect  measures of GHG  emissions. Although EPA devotes
considerable effort to obtaining the  best possible information on which to evaluate  emissions
reductions from its voluntary programs,  errors in the performance data  could be introduced
through uncertainties in carbon conversion factors, engineering analyses, and econometric
analyses.  The  only programs at this time aimed at avoiding GHG emissions are voluntary.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of
its climate programs through interagency evaluations. EPA continues to update  inventories and
methodologies as new information becomes available.

References:       The    U.S.   Climate   Action   Report   2002    is    available    at:
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html.  The  accomplishments of many of
EPA's voluntary programs are  documented in the  Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Annual Report. The most recent version is Protecting the Environment Together:  ENERGY
STAR and other Voluntary Programs, Climate Protection Partnerships Division 2003 Annual
Report.
                                          39

-------
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Annual Energy Savings

Performance Database: Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System

Data Source: Data collected by EPA's voluntary programs include partner reports on facility
specific improvements (e.g. space upgraded, kilowatt-hours (kWh) reduced), national market
data on shipments of efficient products, and engineering measurements of equipment power
levels and usage patterns.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  Most of the voluntary climate programs' focus is on
energy efficiency. For these programs, EPA estimates the expected reduction in electricity
consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Emissions prevented are calculated as the product of the
kWh of electricity saved and an annual emission factor (e.g., MMTCE prevented per kWh).
Other programs focus on directly lowering greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Natural Gas STAR,
Landfill Methane Outreach, and Coalbed Methane Outreach); for these, greenhouse gas emission
reductions are estimated on a project-by-project basis. EPA maintains a Attacking systemฎ for
energy reductions.

Energy bill savings are calculated as the product of the kWh of energy saved and the cost of
electricity for the affected market segment (residential, commercial, or industrial) taken from the
Energy Information Administration's (ElA) Annual Energy Outlook and Annual Energy Review
for each year in the analysis (1993-2013). Energy bill savings also include revenue from the sale
of methane and/or the sale of electricity made from captured methane. The net present value
(NPV) of these savings was calculated using a 4-percent discount rate and a 2001 perspective.

QA/QC Procedures: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible
information on which to evaluate energy savings from its voluntary programs.

Data Quality Review: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate
programs through interagency evaluations. The second such interagency evaluation, led by the
White House Council on Environmental Quality, examined the status of U.S. climate change
programs. The review included participants from EPA and the Departments  of State, Energy,
Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. The results were published in the U.S. Climate
Action Report-2002 as part of the United States'  submission to the Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC). The previous evaluation was published in the U.S. Climate Action
Report-1997. A 1997 audit by EPA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that the climate
programs examined "used good management practices" and "effectively estimated the impact
their activities had on reducing risks to health and the environment...ฎ

Data Limitations: The voluntary nature of programs may affect reporting. In addition, errors in
the performance data could be introduced through uncertainties in engineering analyses and
econometric analyses.
                                          40

-------
Error Estimate: Although EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible
information on which to evaluate emissions reductions from voluntary programs, errors in the
performance data could be introduced through uncertainties in engineering analyses and
econometric analyses.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of
its climate programs through interagency evaluations. EPA continues to update inventories and
methodologies as new information becomes available.

References:    The    U.S.    Climate    Action   Report    2002    is    available    at:
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html.   The accomplishments  of many of
EPA=s voluntary  programs are documented in the Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Annual Report.  The most recent version is Protecting the Environment Together:  Energy Star
and Other Voluntary Programs, Climate Protection Partnerships Division 2003 Annual Report.

                               GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 6

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •  Measure Fuel  Economy of  specific  test vehicles  with EPA-Developed  Hybrid
      Technology Tested over EPA Driving Cycles

   •  Fuel Economy  of EPA-developed hybrid package delivery vehicle  over EPA city
      cycle
Performance Database: Fuel economy test data for both urban and highway test cycles under
the EPA Federal Test Procedure for passenger cars. The Clean Automotive Technology program
commits EPA to develop technology by the end of the decade to satisfy stringent criteria
emissions requirements and up to a doubling of fuel efficiency in personal vehicles such as
SUVs, pickups, and urban delivery vehicles ~ while simultaneously meeting the more
demanding size, performance, durability, and power requirements of these vehicles.

Data Source: EPA fuel economy tests performed at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions
Laboratory (NVFEL), Ann Arbor, Michigan

QA/QC Procedures: EPA fuel economy tests are performed in accordance with the EPA
Federal Test Procedure and all applicable QA/QC procedures.  Available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  N/A

Data Quality Reviews: EPA's NVFEL laboratory is recognized as a national and international
facility for fuel economy and emissions testing. NVFEL is also the reference point for private
industry.
                                         41

-------
Data Limitations: Primarily due to EPA regulations, vehicle fuel economy testing is a well
established and precise exercise with extremely low test to test variability (well less than 5%).
Additional information is available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/testdata.html  One
challenge relates to fuel economy testing of hybrid vehicles (i.e., more than one source of
onboard power), which is more complex than testing of conventional vehicles. EPA has not yet
published formal regulations to cover hybrid vehicles. Relevant information is available on the
Internet: http://www.ctts.nrel.gov/analysis/hev test/procedures.shtml

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is using solid engineering judgment and consultations
with other expert organizations (including major auto companies) to develop internal procedures
for testing hybrid vehicles.

References: See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/testproc.htm for additional information about testing
and measuring emissions at the NVFEL.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Percentage of NAAQS research program publications rated as highly cited papers
       (PART Measure)

Performance Database: No internal tracking system

Data Source: The source of data will be a contractor-produced bibliometric analysis of NAAQS
program publications.

Methods,  Assumptions and Suitability:   The  analysis will  be  completed using Thomson's
Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI are a
comprehensive compilation of essential science performance statistics and  science trends data
derived from Thomson's databases.  The chief indicator of output, or productivity,  is journal
article publication counts. For influence and impact measures, ESI employs both total citation
counts  and cites per paper scores. The  former reveals gross influence while the  latter shows
weighted influence, also called impact. JCR presents quantifiable statistical data, which provide
a systematic,  objective way to evaluate the world's leading journals and their impact and
influence in the global research community.

QA/QC Procedures: Source data will be used in comparing program  publications to field
benchmarks, Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Report (JCR).

Data Quality  Reviews:  Additional benchmarks  will  be used to determine the number of self-
citations of articles by the same author in order to  reduce the self-citation rate.

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A
                                          42

-------
New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A

References:

Essential Science Indicatorsฎ- Thomson Scientific. 2003.

Journal Citation Reportsฎ. Thomson Scientific. 2003.

Citation Analysis. EPA's Endocrine Disrupters Chemicals (EDCs) Research Program,
publication list. BOSC Program Review. December 2004.



FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •  Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant sources based on
      the risk they pose to human health  (PART Measure)

   •  Percent planned actions accomplished toward the long-term goal of reducing
      uncertainty in the science that supports the standard-setting and air quality
      management decisions  (PART Measure)

Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system.

Data Source: N/A

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures: N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A

                              GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 1

FY 2007 Performance Measures:
                                       43

-------
•  The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive
   drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through
   effective treatment and source water protection
•  The percentage of population served by community water systems in Indian country that
   receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards
   (PART measure)
•  The percentage of community water systems in compliance with drinking water
   standards (PART measure)
•  Dollars per community water system in compliance with health-based drinking water
   standards (PART measure)

Performance Database:  Safe Drinking Water Information System - Federal Version (SDWIS or
SDWIS/FED).  SDWIS contains basic water system information, population served, and detailed
records of violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the statute's implementing regulations.
The performance measure is based on the  population served by community water systems that
were active during any part of the performance year and did not have any violations designated as
"health based." Exceedances of a maximum contaminant level (MCL) and violations of a
treatment technique are health-based violations. SDWIS has provided annual results for ten years
and reports on a fiscal year basis.

Data Source: Data are provided by agencies with primacy (primary enforcement authority) for
the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program. These agencies are either: States, EPA for
non-delegated states or territories, and the Navajo Nation Indian tribe, the only tribe with primacy.
Primacy agencies collect the data from the regulated water systems, determine compliance, and
report a subset of the data to EPA (primarily inventory and summary violations).

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Under the drinking water regulations, water systems
must use approved analytical methods for testing for contaminants.  State certified laboratories
report contaminant occurrence to states that, in turn, determine exceedances of maximum
contaminant levels or non-compliance with treatment techniques and report these  violations to
EPA. These results are subject to periodic performance audits and compared to results that states
report to SDWIS.  Primacy agencies' information systems and compliance determinations are
audited on an average schedule of once every 3 years, according to a protocol. To measure
program performance, EPA aggregates the SDWIS data into national statistics on overall
compliance with health-based drinking water standards using the measures identified above.

QA/QC Procedures: EPA conducts a number of Quality Assurance/Quality Control steps to
provide high quality data for program use, including:
   (1) SDWIS/FED edit checks built into the software to reject erroneous data.
   (2) Quality assurance manuals for states and Regions, which provide standard operating
       procedures for conducting routine assessments of the quality of the data, including timely
       corrective action(s).
   (3) Training to states on reporting requirements,  data entry, data retrieval, and error
       correction.
   (4) User and system documentation produced with each software release and maintained on
       EPA's web site. System, user, and reporting requirements documents can be found on the
                                          44

-------
       EPA web site, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/.  System and user documents are accessed
       via the database link http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html, and specific rule
       reporting requirements documents are accessed via the regulations, guidance, and policy
       documents link http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html.
    (5) Specific error correction and reconciliation support through a trouble shooter's guide, a
       system-generated summary with detailed reports documenting the results of each data
       submission, and an error code database for states to use when they have questions on how
       to enter or correct data.
    (6) User support hotline available 5 days a week.
The SDWIS/FED equivalent of a quality assurance plan is the data reliability action plan1
(DRAP).  The DRAP contains the processes and procedures and major activities to be employed
and undertaken for assuring the data in SDWIS meet required data quality standards. This plan
has three major components: assurance, assessment, and control.

Data Quality Review:  SDWIS data quality was identified as an Agency weakness in 1999 and
has a corrective action completion target date that extends to 2007. SDWIS' weaknesses centered
around five major issues: 1) completeness of the data (e.g., the inventory of public water systems,
violations of maximum contaminant levels, enforcement actions) submitted by the states, 2)
timeliness of the data sent by the states, i.e., if states do not report at specified times, then
enforcement and oversight actions suffer, 3) difficulty receiving data from the states, 4) both cost
and difficulty processing and storing data in SDWIS after it has been received, and 5) difficulty
getting SDWIS data for reporting  and analysis.

The first two issues are being addressed over a three-year period (2004-2007) through two (2000
and 2003) Data Reliability  Action Plans. An information strategic plan2 (ISP) was developed and
implemented to address the last three issues, which deal primarily with technology (hardware and
software) concerns. Implementation of the ISP, which ended in 2005, documents ways to improve
tools  and processes  for  creating  and transferring data to   EPA and  incorporates newer
technologies  and adapts the Agency's Enterprise Architecture Plan to integrate data and allow
the flow of data from reporting entities to EPA via the Agency's secure central  data exchange
(CDX) environment.

Routine data quality assurance  and quality control (QA/QC) analyses of the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) by the Office Water (OW) have revealed a degree of non-
reporting of violations of health-based drinking water standards, and of violations of regulatory
monitoring and reporting requirements (discussed further under Data Limitations). As a result of
these data quality problems, the baseline statistic of national compliance  with health-based
drinking water standards likely is lower than previously reported. The Agency is engaged in
discussions with states to more accurately quantify the impact of these data quality problems on
 Data Reliability Action Plan. U.S. EPA, October 2002. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water internal work plan
document. Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan (2003) For State Reported Public Water System Data In
the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version (SDWIS/FED)

 U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Information Strategy (under revision). See Options for
OGWDWInformation Strategy (WorkingDraft), EPA 816-P-01-001.  Washington, DC, February 2001.  Available on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/informations trategy.html
                                            45

-------
the estimate of national compliance with health-based drinking water standards. Even as
improvements are made, SDWIS serves as the best source of national information on compliance
with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements for program management, the development of
drinking water regulations, trends analyses, and public information.

Data Limitations:  Recent state data verification and other quality assurance analyses indicate
that the most significant data quality problem is under-reporting by the states of monitoring and
health-based standards violations and inventory characteristics. The most significant under-
reporting occurs in monitoring violations.  Even though those are not covered in the health based
violation category, which is covered by the performance measure, failures to monitor could mask
treatment technique and MCL violations.  Such under-reporting of violations limits EPA's ability
to: 1) accurately portray the amount of people affected by health-based violations, 2) undertake
geo-spatial analysis, 3) integrate and share data with other data systems, and 4) precisely
quantify the population served by systems, which are meeting the health-based standards.
Therefore, the estimates of population-served could be high or low.  As described in the Data
Quality Review section above, EPA is currently changing the protocol to enhance the results of
data audits as the best near-term option to improve these estimates, while continuing to explore
other approaches, including use of contaminant occurrence data.

Error Estimate: EPA will be analyzing data, derived from the improved data audit protocol, with
a robust statistical basis from which to extrapolate national results, and better aligned with
requirements of the Data Quality Act. The long-term value of the improved audit process is that
each year's results will be statistically representative and provide information closer in time to
the needed performance reporting; for example, 2006 results, the first year of the improved audit
process will be reported in 2007.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  Several approaches are underway.

First, EPA will continue to work with states to implement the DRAP  and ISP, which have already
improved the completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency of the data in SDWIS/FED
through: 1) training courses for specific compliance determination and reporting requirements, 2)
state-specific technical assistance, 3) increased number of data audits conducted each year, and 4)
assistance to regions and states in the identification and reconciliation of missing, incomplete, or
conflicting data.

Second, more states (from 30 to 40 by year-end 2005) will use SDWIS/STATE,3 a software
information system jointly designed by states and EPA, to support states as they implement the
drinking water program.

Third, EPA has modified SDWIS/FED to (1) simplify the database, (2) minimize data entry
options resulting in complex software, (3) enforce Agency data standards, and (4) ease the flow
of data to EPA through a secure data exchange environment incorporating modern technologies,
 SDWIS/STATE (Version 8.1) is an optional Oracle data base application available for use by states and EPA regions to support
implementation of their drinking water programs.
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Data and Databases. Drinking Water Data & Databases -
SDWIS/STATE, July 2002. Information available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwis_st/current.html
                                            46

-------
all of which will improve the accuracy of the data.  In 2006, full use of SDWIS/FED for
receiving state reports will be implemented.  Data will be stored in a data warehouse system that
is optimized for analysis, data retrieval, and data integration from other data sources. It will
improve the program's ability to more efficiently use information to support decision-making
and effectively manage the program.

Finally, EPA, in partnership with the states, is developing information modules on other drinking
water programs: the Source Water Protection Program, the Underground Injection Control
Program (UIC), and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. These modules will be
integrated with SDWIS to provide a more comprehensive data set with which to assess the
nation's drinking water supplies, a key component of the goal. In 2006, agreement is expected to
be reached on the data elements for reporting source water and UIC data. Plans have now been
developed for design of systems to address these data flows. Developing the systems to receive
the data is scheduled for 2007.

References:
Plans*

   •   SDWIS/FED does not have a Quality Assurance Project Plan - it is a legacy system which
       has "evolved" since the early 80s prior to the requirement for a Plan.  The SDWIS/FED
       equivalent is the Data Reliability Action Plan
   •   Information Strategy Plan - SDWIS/FED (see footnote 2)
   •   Office of Water Quality Management Plan, available at
       http://www.epa.gov/water/info.html
   •   Enterprise Architecture Plan
    •   1999 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability
    •   2003 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability Report - contains the Data Reliability Action Plan and
       status report

Guidance Manuals, and Tools

    •   PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance Manual
    •   Various SDWIS/FED User and System Guidance Manuals (includes data entry
       instructions, data On-line Data Element Dictionary-a database application, Error Code
       Data Base (ECDB) - a database application, users guide, release notes, etc.) Available on
       the Internet at 
    •   Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet at
       
* These are internal documents maintained by EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Please call 202-564-3751 for
further information.
                                           47

-------
Web site addresses

   •   OGWDW Internet Site  and contains
       access to the information systems and various guidance, manuals, tools, and reports.
   •   Sites of particular interest are:
        contains information for users to
       better analyze the data, and
 contains reporting guidance, system and
user documentation and reporting tools for the SDWIS/FED system.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

       •  Fund Utilization Rate for the DWSRF.
       •  Number of additional projects initiating operations

Performance  Database:  Drinking  Water  State  Revolving  Fund National  Information
Management System (DWNIMS.)

Data Sources: Data are entered by state regulatory  agency personnel and by EPA's Regional
staff; they are collected and reported once yearly.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into DWNIMS directly represent the
units of performance for the performance measure. These data are suitable for year-to-year
comparison and trend indication.

QA/QC Procedures: EPA's  headquarters and Regional offices are responsible for compiling the
data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance with expected trends.
States receive  data entry guidance  from EPA headquarters in the form of annual memoranda
(e.g., "2005 DWNIMS Data Collection.")

Data  Quality Reviews: EPA's headquarters  and Regional offices annually review the data
submitted    by     the    states.     State     data     are     publicly     available    at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html in  individual state reports.  Headquarters
addresses  significant data variability issues directly with states or through the appropriate EPA
Regional office. Additionally, EPA's contractor tests the data for logical consistency.  An annual
EPA headquarters' "DWNIMS Analysis" provides detailed data categorization and comparison.
This analysis is used during:

1.  Annual EPA Regional office and state reviews to identify potential problems with the
program's pace which might affect the performance measure.
2. Reviews by EPA's headquarters of regional oversight of state revolving funds.
3. Annual reviews by EPA's Regional offices of their states'  revolving funds operations.
                                          48

-------
State data quality is also evaluated during annual reviews performed by EPA Regions. Any
inconsistencies that are found in need of correction are incorporated into future  DWNIMS
reports. These adjustments are historically rare and very minor.

Data Limitations: There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states submit
voluntarily. Erroneous data  can be introduced into the DWNIMS database by typographic or
definitional error.  Typographic  errors  are  controlled  and corrected through  data testing
performed by EPA's contractor. Definitional errors due to varying interpretations of information
requested for  specific data  fields have been largely reduced.  These definitions are publicly
available at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf7nims/dwdatadefs.pdf . There is typically a lag
of approximately two months from the date EPA asks  states to enter their data into the DWNIMS
database, and when the data are quality-checked and available for public use.

New/Improved  Data or Systems: This system has been operative since DWSRF inception. It is
updated annually, and data fields are changed or added as needed.

References:
State performance data as shown in NIMS are  available by state at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NEVIS is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/nims/dwdatadefs.pdf
2005 DWNIMS  Data Collection - memo from Jeff Bryan, 7/12/05
DWNIMS analysis

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •  Percent of states conducting sanitary surveys at community water systems once
       every three years.

Performance  Database: Primary  enforcement responsibility (e.g. primacy) for the Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) program is authorized under ง1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). States and Indian Tribes are given primacy for public water systems in their
jurisdiction if they meet certain requirements.  A critical component of primacy is the
requirement that a state must have a program to conduct sanitary  surveys of the systems in its
jurisdiction. A sanitary survey is an on-site review of the water sources, facilities, equipment,
operation, and maintenance of a public water system for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy
of the facilities for producing and distributing safe drinking water. Inspectors conducting
sanitary surveys  must apply basic scientific information and have a working knowledge of the
operation, maintenance, management, and technology  of a water system to identify sanitary risks
that may interrupt the multiple barriers of protection at a water system. There are eight essential
elements of a sanitary survey as defined by the EPA/State Joint Guidance on Sanitary Surveys4
and the interim enhanced surface water treatment rule: water source; treatment; distribution
 Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the
Direct         Influence        (GWUDI),         (EPA         815-R-99-016,         April        1999)
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/pdf/sansurv/sansurv.pdf
                                           49

-------
system; finished water storage; pumps, pump facilities and controls; monitoring, reporting and
data verification; water system management and operations; and operator compliance with state
requirements.

Performance data for this measure will be complied from information collected during file audits
of randomly selected community water systems (data verification or DV).  The purpose of a DV
is two-fold: (1) to detect discrepancies between the PWS data in the state files or database and
the data reported to SDWIS/FED and (2) to ensure that the State is determining compliance in
accordance with EPA approved state regulations.  After the conduct of each DV, a report is
generated which includes the  findings for compliance with sanitary survey requirements.  DVs
are conducted on a cycle in order to visit each state at a frequency of every three years.  Final
reports for each state serve as the  official data source for  this measure until a new DV is
conducted.  Information derived for the DV reports will be calculated annually for this measure.

Data Source:  State specific Final Data Verification Reports provide information on compliance
with sanitary survey requirements. Information from DV reports for states will be calculated to
measure performance.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:   To assure that data collected  during  a DV is
consistently captured and analyzed, the DV team follows the "EPA Protocol for Participation in
a PWSS Program  Data Verification" which includes revisions through April  4, 2005.   The
protocol  provides guidance on statistical methodology for defining  variables, calculating the
statistical proportion (P), determining the appropriate sample  size and selecting the  systems for
file review. Before  selecting a sample of systems, the DV team must decide whether it wishes to
stratify  (or  sort)  the  sample by some characteristic.  Stratifying the  sample permits  more
precision, allowing the team to make observations about subsets of systems. A sample may be
stratified by system type, size, source, or a combination of these factors. For DV purposes, the
sample  is always  stratified by system type  (i.e.,  CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs)  since
different regulations apply to different types of systems. Once the  DV team determines the
subset of systems from which the  sample will be drawn, along with the number of systems which
must be  reviewed  from that  subset  of systems, the  SDWIS/FED random  number generator
selects the systems for review. Statistical principles dictate that samples must be selected  in a
truly random fashion  in order to obtain unbiased estimates and achieve the  desired  precision
level. For states whose files are kept in one central office, sample selection is straightforward.
The SDWIS/FED random number generator pulls a random sample of systems from the entire
subset of systems within the state. Hence, all systems have an equal chance of being chosen.

QA/QC Procedures:  To assure the  data collected during a DV is complete and accurate, the
DV team follows the "EPA Protocol for Participation in a PWSS Program Data Verification."
This protocol is intended as a "handbook" for people performing a DV. The protocol contains
detailed instructions for reviewing and analyzing data for sanitary surveys. Since neither time
nor resources  allow a complete review of all sanitary  survey  data, the DV  team  must use  a
random sample of  systems that is drawn from the total number of systems in each state.  This
random sample is  statistically representative of systems in  the state. The team then uses the
statistical sampling results to  draw reasonably accurate assumptions about  all of the systems in
the state, based on just a few systems.
                                          50

-------
Data Quality Reviews: Information derived from DVs is captured in a draft report and
submitted to EPA (HQ and Regions) as well as the state where the DV was conducted for
review. States and EPA conduct data quality reviews and provide additional information or data
as necessary to assure accuracy and completeness. EPA works with states to resolve data issues.
Reports are finalized and thus used to measure performance.

Data Limitations: OGWDW has an existing database for PWSS program information, the Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Violations of sanitary survey requirements are
captured in SDWIS.  However, the data field to record sanitary survey frequency is not a
mandatory field. Due to resource limitations, sanitary survey data cannot be verified for every
system in every state each year.  OGWDW employs a methodology to analyze a representative
sample of systems during an audit.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Percentage of source water areas (both surface and ground water) for community water
    systems will achieve minimized risk to public health

Performance Database: The source water assessment and protection programs are authorized
under Sections 1453, 1428, and relevant subsections of 1452  of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA).5 EPA issued guidance to implement these programs in 1997, State Source Water
Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance6 In March  2005, EPA issued supplemental
reporting guidance, "State and Federal  Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
Measures: Final Reporting Guidance."  Starting in FY 2005, and updated annually thereafter,
states report to EPA on the results of their source water assessment programs (SWAPs) and
progress in implementing source water protection (SWP) strategies, and whether such strategy
implementation is affecting public health protection.  To assess the results of the SWAPs, state
reporting includes three elements: (1) the delineated source water areas around each well and
intake, (2) whether the assessments are complete, and (3) most prevalent and most threatening
sources of contamination. To assess progress in implementing the SWP strategies, state reporting
includes two elements: (1) whether a prevention strategy for Community Water System source
water areas has been adopted, and is being implemented and  (2) whether such strategy
implementation has reached a substantial level. To assess whether the program is affecting
public health protection, states report change in the number of Community Water System source
water areas with substantially implemented source water protection strategies. The Agency will
develop a national summary of data on the progress of states' source water protection programs
using these data elements in early 2006.

In FY 2003, EPA maintained pilot state-level summary data for each of these elements in a
spreadsheet format and this format will be used for reporting  for FY 2005. Beginning in FY
2005, states may, at their option, make  available to EPA public water system-level data for each
 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. P.L. 104-182. (Washington: 6 August 1996). Available on the Internet at

6 U. S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009
(Washington: US EPA, August 1997). Available on the Internet at 
                                           51

-------
of these elements to be maintained in a set of data tables in the drinking water warehouse (for
tabular data) and in event tables in the Office of Water's Reach Address Database (RAD)7 (GIS
data).  These data will be compatible with the inventory data States are currently reporting to the
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).8  Three states piloted this approach in 2003.

 [Not publicly available.  Contact the Drinking Water Protection Division at 202-564-3797.]

Data Source:  Up to the end of FY 2004, states reported to the EPA Regional Offices the
percentage of community water systems implementing source water protection programs.  As
noted above, states can report to EPA's Regional Offices using a spreadsheet approach.  EPA has
also developed a new source water data module to collect, store, and use public water system-
level data received from states, but it may be refined as more states voluntarily use it over the
next three years  of the Strategic Plan. - See section "New/Improved Data or Systems."

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For this measure, the states' reporting of progress in
implementing their source water assessment and protection programs will be based on EPA's
2005 guidance, "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures:
Final Reporting  Guidance. " States will only report state-level summary information directly
related to specific community water systems in a state-level database. While state reporting will
be based on definitions and procedures found in the "State and Federal Source Water
Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance, " and even with the
state flexibilities built into the definitions for substantial implementation strategies, EPA believes
that the data will be reliable for use in making management decisions.

QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures are included in the 2005 "State and Federal Source
Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance."
Additionally, a series of data checks are built into the spreadsheet data collection procedures
given to each Region for their work with states.  States will be required to identify whether their
reported summary-level data are based on a system-level database. EPA Regional offices also
will work with individual states to obtain a description of their methods of collecting and
verifying information.

Data Quality  Reviews: EPA Regions will conduct data quality reviews of state data using the
QA/QC procedures included with the spreadsheet-based data system, and work with states to
resolve data issues.  As a result, EPA expects the  quality of data on the results of the assessments
and source water protection activities to improve over time.

Data Limitations: Because the initial reporting provides  only state-level summary information,
there is no standard protocol for EPA to verify and validate the data against system-level
information contained in state databases. In addition, much of the data reported by states is
voluntary and  based on working agreements with EPA because SDWA only requires states to
complete source water assessments.  That is, the only source water information that states are
 Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS). Available only on the Internet at

8 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Information available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
                                           52

-------
required to report to EPA under SDWA is whether the assessments are completed. Although
EPA's 2005 "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures:
Final Reporting Guidance " set standard data definitions and procedures, it also provides for
considerable flexibility in states' definition for substantial implementation of strategies, data
collection protocols and analytical methods to evaluate their data. For example, some states may
require each public water system to report data, while others may institute a voluntary process.
Because much of the data reporting is voluntary and the individual state protocols may vary,
state data may be incomplete and inconsistent across states.

Error Estimate: There is no basis for making an error estimate for this performance measure
given the data limitations of state-level summary reporting described above.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The source water reporting module has been developed as a
joint initiative between EPA, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
(ASDWA), and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC).  It will give EPA the ability to
access the data directly from states through a data exchange agreement using an electronic data
transfer capability.  A state may choose, at its option, to provide EPA more detailed data in lieu
of state-level  summary reporting. The new source water data module will be integrated into the
drinking water data warehouse and be compatible with Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) data already reported by states.  Geospatial data (i.e., the intake and well point
locations and the source water area polygons) will be maintained in EPA's Office of Water's
Reach Access Database (RAD).  The source water assessment and protection indicator data and
other attribute data will be maintained in data tables in the drinking water warehouse. The
source water data module is operational for states to pilot from FY 2005 through FY 2008.
Three states used the module in the first pilot year  2003. A number of other states may report
using the data module for the 2005 reporting period based on EPA/ASDWA/GWPC pilot
process.

References:
Guidance Manuals

    •   U.S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs
       Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009 (Washington: US EPA,  August 1997). Available on the
       Internet at 
    •   Source Water Assessment and Protection Measures: Initial Guidance, August, 2003.
    •   "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final
       Reporting Guidance, " March 2005.

Web site addresses

    •   US EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,  
    •   For more detailed information on Source Water topics, US EPA Office of Ground Water
       and Drinking Water, Source Water site,  
    •   US EPA Office of Water (OW) Reach Access Database (RAD). Watershed Assessment,
       Tracking  & Environmental Results (WATERS), 

-------
       Safe        Drinking        Water       Information       System       (SDWIS).
       http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Number of households on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water

Performance Database: Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS), the Indian
Health Service (IHS), Office of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE), Division of
Sanitation Facilities Construction (DSFC).

Data Sources: The STARS includes data on sanitation deficiencies, Indian homes and
construction projects. STARS is currently comprised of two  sub data systems, the Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS) and the Project Data System (PDS).

The SDS is an inventory of sanitation deficiencies for existing Indian homes and communities.
The IHS is required to prioritize SDS deficiencies and annually report to Congress. The
identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the most common of which
follow:
          •  Consultation with Tribal members and other Agencies
          •  Field visits by engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives (CHRs)
             nurses, or by other IHS or tribal heath staff
          •  Sanitary Surveys
          •  Community Environmental Health Profiles
          •  Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Inventory
          •  Census Bureau Reports (for comparison purposes only)
          •  Tribal Master Plans for Development
          •  Telephone Surveys
          •  Feasibility Studies

The most reliable and preferred method is a field visit to each community to identify and obtain
accurate numbers of homes with sanitation deficiencies. The number of Indian homes within the
communities must be consistent among the various  methods cited above.  If a field visit cannot
be made, it is highly recommended that more than one method be used to determine sanitation
deficiencies to increase the accuracy and establish greater credibility for the data.

The PDS is a listing of funded construction projects and is used as a management and reporting
tool.

QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance for the Indian country water quality performance
measure depends on the quality of the data in the STARS. The STARS data undergoes a series
of quality control reviews at various levels within the IHS DSFC. The DSFC is required to
annually report deficiencies in SDS to Congress in terms of total and feasible project costs for
proposed sanitation projects and sanitation deficiency levels for existing homes.
                                          54

-------
Data Quality Reviews: The SDS data initially undergoes a series of highly organized reviews
by experienced tribal, IHS field, IHS district and IHS area personnel. The data are then sent to
the DSFC headquarters office for review before final results are reported.  The DSFC
headquarters reviews the SDS data for each of the 12 IHS area offices. The data quality review
consists of performing a number of established data queries and reports which check for errors
and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top 25 SDS projects and corresponding community
deficiency profiles for each area are reviewed and scrutinized thoroughly.  Detailed cost
estimates are highly encouraged and are usually available for review.

Data Limitations:  The data are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS.

Error Estimate: The IHS DSFC requires that higher-level projects (those with the possibility of
funding prior to the next update) must be developed to allow for program implementation in an
organized, effective, efficient manner. Those SDS projects (top 20%) must have cost estimates
within 10% of the actual costs.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The STARS is a web based application and therefore allows
data to be continuously updated by personnel at various levels and modified as program
requirements are identified.

References:
1.     Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC).  Criteria for the
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program, June 1999, Version 1.02, 3/13/2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/Criteria_March_2003.cfm

2.     Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC).  Sanitation
Deficiency  System (SDS),  Working Draft,  "Guide for Reporting  Sanitation Deficiencies for
Indian         Homes          and         Communities",          May          2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Percentage of the water miles/acres identified by  States or Tribes as having fish
       consumption advisories in 2002 where increased consumption of safe fish is allowed.
       (485,205 river miles, 11,277,276 lake acres)

    •   Percentage of water miles/acres with fish consumption advisory removed. (PART
       Measure)

Performance Database:   National Listing of Fish Advisories.1  The database  includes fields
identifying the waters for which fish consumption advisories  have been issued.  The fields also
identify the date upon which the advisory was  issued, thus allowing an assessment of trends.
The National Hydrographic Data  (NHD)  are used to calculate the spatial  extent of the fish
advisory.  This information is updated continually as states  and tribes issue or revise advisories.
The National Listing of Fish Advisories database includes records showing that 24% of river
                                          55

-------
miles and 35% of lake acres were identified by states or tribes in calendar year 2003 as having
fish with chemical contamination levels resulting in an advisory of potential human health risk
from consumption.  States and tribes report data on a calendar year basis.  The calendar year data
are then used to support the fiscal year (FY) commitments (e.g., calendar year 2005 data support
the FY 2007 commitments).  Metadata are also available describing methodologies  used by
states and tribes for establishing advisories. Fish advisory data have been collected since 1993.

Data  Source: State and Tribal  Governments.  These entities collect the information and enter it
directly into the National Listing of Fish Advisories database.  EPA reviews advisory entries,
including  the states'  or  tribes'  responses to an on-line survey,  which  support the  advisory
decision.

Methods, Assumptions  and Suitability:  The performance measure  is  calculated as  the
aggregate  surface area covered by one or more individual advisories divided by the total waters
of each state or territory.  If a waterbody is covered by more than one advisory it is only counted
once,  and  until all advisories are removed the waterbody is counted as having an advisory.  The
states and  tribes submit the area data to the National Listing of Fish Advisories database.

QA/QC Procedures:  A  standard survey, which has  been approved by OMB, is available on the
Internet for electronic submission.  A password is issued to ensure  the appropriate party is
completing the survey.  EPA has national guidance2'3 for states and tribes  on developing and
implementing quality assurance practices for the collection of environmental information related
to fish advisories.  This  guidance helps assure data quality of the information  that states and
tribes use  to decide whether to issue an advisory.  The Office of Water's "Quality Management
Plan," approved in September 2001 and published in July 20024, is general guidance that applies
to information collection.

Data  Quality Reviews: EPA reviews advisory entries and responses to the survey to ensure the
information is complete, then follows-up with the state or local government to obtain additional
information where needed.  However, the  Agency cannot verify the accuracy of the voluntary
information that state and local governments provide. There have been no external party reviews
of this information.

Data  Limitations: There are two primary data limitations.  First, participation in this survey and
collection of data is voluntary.  While the voluntary response rate  has been high, it  does  not
capture the complete universe of advisories.  Puerto  Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam do not
report in the survey. Second, states have not assessed all waters for the need for advisories, so
the information reported reflects a subset of water bodies in the state.

Error Estimate:  We are unable to provide an error estimate. Submitting data to the  National
Listing of Fish Advisories database is voluntary and the  Agency  cannot be certain that  the
database contains information on 100% of the assessed waters in the United States. Therefore,
we may be understating  the  total amount of waters assessed, the magnitude of which is  not
known.
                                           56

-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA will use small grants to encourage states to investigate
additional water bodies to determine if there is a need for fish consumption advisories. This will
lead to a more complete characterization of the nation's fish safety. EPA has also begun tracking
recommended "meal frequencies" in the state and tribal advisories to account for the instances
where advisories are modified to allow greater consumption.

References:
    1.  U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories." Washington,
       DC:       EPA-823-F-05-004.       September       2005.       Available       at
       http://epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/fs2004.pdf
    2.  U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Fish Sampling and Analysis." Volume  1 of "Guidance for
       Assessing Chemical  Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories." 3rd ed. EPA-823-B-
       00-007.      Washington      DC:      EPA,     2000.           Available      at
       http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volumel/.
    3.  U.S. EPA.  Office of Water. "Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits." Volume 2
       of "Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories." 3rd
       ed.@       EPA-823-B-00-008.      Washington      DC:       EPA,       2000.
       http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volume2/.
    4.  U.S.  EPA. Office  of Water.  "Quality Management Plan."  EPA 821-X-02-001.
       Washington,      DC:      EPA,      July      2002.           Available      at
       http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Percentage of the shellfish-growing acres monitored by  states that  are approved  or
    conditionally approved for use

Performance  Database:  There is no  database currently available, although one is  under
development (see below). In the past, data to support this measure came from surveys of States
that are members  of the  Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), conducted at 5-year
intervals and periodic updates requested from the  Interstate  Shellfish Sanitation  Conference
(most recent, 2003 data released in 2004).

Data Source:  The ISSC requests the data on approved acreages from shellfish producing states
and prepares reports.  Survey responses are voluntary.

Methods, Assumptions  and Suitability:  The methods used by the  state programs to produce
the data used  by  the ISSC  are based on the National Shellfish Sanitation Plan  and Model
Ordinance; the operation of those state programs is overseen by  the FDA.

QA/QC Procedures:  States are responsible for the internal QA/QC of their data.

Data  Quality  Reviews:  The ISSC reviews the state data during report preparation to ensure
completeness and accuracy, and follows up with states where necessary.
                                          57

-------
Data Limitations:   Based on NOAA's previous surveys  and the voluntary  nature of the
information collected, potential data limitations may include incomplete coverage of shellfish
growing areas.

Error Estimate: No estimates are available.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The ISSC initiated development of the Shellfish Information
Management System (SIMS) in July 2002. The database is being developed and implemented by
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on behalf of the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), a Cooperative Program chartered by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).  The database will include relevant information that is collected by State
Shellfish Control Authorities.   Historically,  NOAA collected shellfish-growing area data in 5-
year intervals,  1985, 1990, and  1995.   These  data were not stored in  a  database.   Once
operational, SIMS will be the first national shellfish growing area  database and will include
NOAA's 1995 and  2003 data.  State  summary information can then be used to track trends
relevant to  the performance measure, with the 1995 data as the baseline. The SIMS database is
designed as a real time database.  The ISSC plans to request data updates annually, but  states
may update their data any time. These  data may be accessed at any time so timely status reports
can be generated.

Currently, no long-term database management plan exists.

References:  None at this time.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•  Percentage of days of the beach season  that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored
   by state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming

Performance Database:  The data are stored in PRAWN (Program tracking, beach Advisories,
Water quality standards, and Nutrients), a database that includes fields identifying the beaches
for which monitoring and notification information are available  and the date the advisory or
closure was issued,  thus enabling trend assessments to be made.  The database  also identifies
those states that have received a BEACH  (Beaches Environmental Assessment and  Coastal
Health) Act [P.L. 106-284] grant.  EPA reports the information annually, on a calendar year
basis, each  May. The calendar year data are then used to support fiscal year commitments (e.g.,
2006 calendar year data are used to report against  FY 2007 commitments). As of 2004, States
and Territories monitor for pathogens at 3,574 coastal and Great Lakes beaches, up from  2,823
beaches in 20021.

Data Source:  Since 1997 EPA  has surveyed state and local governments for information on
their monitoring programs and on their  advisories or closures. The Agency created the PRAWN
database  to store this information. State and local governmental response to the survey was
voluntary up through calendar year 2002. Starting in calendar year 2003, data for many beaches
along the coast and Great Lakes had to be  reported to EPA as a condition of grants awarded
under the BEACH Act2.  Since 2005,  states have used an on-line process called eBeaches to
                                          58

-------
electronically transmit beach water quality and swimming advisory information to EPA instead
of using the paper survey.   The latest information reported by a state or local government is
accessible to the public through the BEACON (Beach Advisory Closing On-line Notification)
system.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  The data are  an enumeration of the days of beach-
specific advisories or closures issued by the reporting state or local governments during the year.
Performance against the target is tracked using a simple count of the number of beaches
responding to the survey and the days over which the advisory or closure actions were taken.
This is compared to the total number of days that every beach could be open. Thus the data are
suitable for the performance measure.

QA/QC Procedures:  Since 1997, EPA has  distributed a standard survey form, approved by
OMB, to  coastal and Great Lake state  and county  environmental and public health beach
program officials in hard copy by mail. The form is also  available on the Internet for web-entry
electronic submission. When a state or local  official enters data using the web-entry format, a
password  is issued to ensure  the appropriate party  is  completing the survey.  Currently the
Agency has procedures for information collection (see Office of Water's "Quality Management
Plan," approved September 2001  and published July 20023).   In addition,  coastal and Great
Lakes states receiving BEACH  Act grants are subject to the Agency's grant regulations under 40
CFR  31.45.  These regulations require  states and tribes to develop and implement quality
assurance practices for the collection of environmental information.

Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the survey responses to ensure the information is complete,
following up with the state or local government to obtain additional information where needed.
The Agency also reviews the QA/QC reports submitted by States and Territories as part of their
grant reporting. There have been no external party reviews of this information.

Data Limitations:  From calendar year 1997  to calendar year 2002, participation in the survey
and submission of data has been voluntary. While the voluntary response rate has been high, it
has not captured the complete  universe of beaches.  The voluntary response rate was 92% in
calendar year 2002 (240 out of 261 contacted agencies responded). The number of beaches for
which information was collected increased from 1,021 in calendar year 1997 to 2,823 in calendar
year 2002.  Participation in the survey is now a mandatory condition for implementation grants
awarded under the  BEACH Act program to coastal and Great Lakes states.  Except for Alaska,
all coastal and Great Lakes states and territories have annually applied for implementation grants
since they have been available.

Error Estimate:  As  of 2004, States and Territories  report that they monitor at 3,574 of the
6,099 coastal and Great Lakes  beaches. This monitoring varies between States.  For example,
North Carolina monitors all its 228 beaches whereas South Carolina monitors 24 of 229 beaches.
Where monitoring is done, there is some chance that the monitoring may miss some instances of
high pathogen concentrations. EPA's 2002 National Health Protection Survey of Beaches found
that  90% of the nation's beaches are monitored once a week or less4.   Studies in southern
California found that weekly sampling missed 75% of the pathogen exceedances5, and that 70%
of the exceedances lasted for only one day6.  An EPA  Office  of Research and Development
                                          59

-------
(ORD) beach monitoring study found a positive correlation between pathogen indicator densities
one day as compared to densities the next day, but that the correlation was negligible when
compared to densities after four days7. These studies indicate that weekly sampling most likely
misses many pathogen events that can affect public health. This information is not sufficient to
calculate the potential error in the reporting, but it is sufficient to indicate that the reporting may
understate the number of days that beaches should be closed or under advisory.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Participation in the survey is now a mandatory condition for
grants awarded under the BEACH Act program.  As the Agency awards these implementation
grants, it will require standard program procedures, sampling and assessment methods, and data
elements for reporting.  To the extent that state governments  apply for and receive these grants,
the amount, quality, and consistency of available data will improve.  In FY 2007, EPA expects
the 35  coastal and Great Lakes states  to  apply  for  grants to implement monitoring  and
notification programs.

References

   1.  U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's Beach Program: 2004 Swimming Season Update."
       EPA-823-F-05-006.       Washington,   DC,   July    2005.      Available   at
       http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches2004fs.pdf
   2.  U.S.  EPA.  Office of Water.  "National Beach  Guidance and  Required Performance
       Criteria for Grants." EPA-823-B-02-004. Washington DC: EPA, June 2002. Available at
       http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/guidance/all.pdf
   3.  U.S.  EPA.  Office of Water.   "A Quality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001.
       Washington,     DC:      EPA,      July     2002.            Available      at
       http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
   4.  U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 2002 Swimming Season."
       EPA-823-F-03-007.       Washington,   DC,    May    2003.      Available   at
       http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/beachwatch2003-newformat.pdf
   5.  Leecaster.  M.K.  and S.B. Weisberg,  Effect of Sampling Frequency  on  Shoreline
       Microbiology Assessments, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(11), 2001.
   6.  Boehm, A.B., et. al., Decadal and Shorter Period  Variability of Surf Zone  Water Quality
       at Huntington Beach, California, Environmental Science and Technology, 36(18), 2002.
   7.  U.S. EPA.  Office  of Research and  Development.   "The EMPACT Beaches Project,
       Results  and Recommendations  from  a Study on Microbiological Monitoring  In
       Recreational Waters." EPA 600/9-02/xxx.  Washington, DC, Sept. 2002.(Draft Report).

                               GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Percentage of waters assessed: assess and identify trends for 100% of the Nation's
       waters  by 2018 using statistically valid surveys  to evaluate the extent that waters
       support fishable and swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act.
                                         60

-------
Performance Database: Data generated from the national assessment will be housed in the
EPA Office of Water's STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) data warehouse. Prior to entering the
STORET warehouse, all datasets are housed in a temporary facility, such as ORD's SWIM
database, where they are examined for QA purposes and undergo statistical analysis. Finalized
datasets transferred to  the STORET warehouse will include all water quality, physical and
biological data and associated metadata for each survey. The STORET warehouse is available on
the web at http://www.epa.gov/STORET/index.html.

Data Source:
Samples will be collected over one sampling season, during a specified index period for each
resource. Sites are sampled one time, with additional repeat samples collected at 10 percent of
the sites to determine precision of methods. Surveys collect a suite of indicators relating to the
biological, physical habitat and water quality of the resource  in order to assess both the resource
condition and determine the percentage meeting the goals of the CWA. Surveys will collect
information on biological and abiotic factors at 30-50 sites on an ecoregion level II scale for each
resource. These data are collected through EPA-State collaboration. Prior to  sampling, field
crews will undergo intensive training by EPA personnel on field sampling and collection
techniques. Laboratory analysis will be conducted at either a state lab or contract lab following
specified protocols for the survey. Data collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP), with subsequent testing and auditing to ensure its application.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The  surveys are conducted using a probabilistic survey
design, which allows extrapolation of results to the target population (specified water resource,
e.g., wadeable streams, lakes, rivers, etc.). The collection design maximizes the spatial spread
between sites, located  by specific latitude and longitude combinations. The survey utilizes an
indexed sampling period to increase the probability of accurately assessing condition and
identifying any problems in water quality, physical or biological indices if they exist. Based on
the QAPP and field protocol documents, a site is located by the sampling crew via Global
Positioning System ( GPS). Data are collected for each parameter following the protocols
outlined in the field operations manual. Indices for the probabilistic surveys relate to the
condition of the resource and the extent that the waters are supporting the fishable and
swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act. Samples taken from the field are stored in accordance
with field manual instructions and shipped to the processing laboratory. Laboratories will follow
quality assurance (QA) plans and complete analysis and provide electronic information to the
state or EPA. EPA and the state exchange data to ensure that each has a complete set. EPA and
states analyze the data to assess regional and national condition of the water resource surveyed.
Results of the analyses on a national and regional basis will be published in a publicly accessible
peer reviewed report released within two years of sample collection. The overall change in
condition of the water body type will be assessed on a five year cycle.

       Assumptions: (1) The underlying target population (water resource sampled for the
       survey) has been correctly identified; (2) GPS is successful; (3) QAPP and field
       collection manuals are followed; (4) all samples are successfully collected; (5) all
       analyses are completed in accordance with the QAPP; and (6) a combination of data into
       indices is completed in a statistically rigorous manner.
                                           61

-------
       Suitability: By design, all data are suitable to be aggregated up to the regional and
       national level to characterize the ecological condition of the waterbody resource and the
       associated stressors. Samples provide site specific point-in-time data and excellent
       representation of the entire resource (extrapolation to the entire resource supportable).
       Data will be used to characterize populations and subpopulations of waterbody resources
       through time and space. Data analysis and interpretation will be peer reviewed prior to
       completion of final report. The data are suitable for individual reports and to establish a
       baseline for subsequent surveys to evaluate trends.
QA/QC Procedures:  Collection and processing of all samples are described in QAPP and Field
Protocols documents associated with each survey. In addition, the QAPP will contain specific
Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) and Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) associated with
each survey. To ensure that the survey is obtaining the DQOs and MQOs, there are several QA
steps built into each survey. Training for all crew members is required before sampling begins.
Field evaluations are conducted for all crews to ensure methods are being followed. Each
laboratory involved in the sample processing will adhere to the specified laboratory protocols
and undergo a thorough and documented quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process.
Submitted data will undergo a final QC check before analysis begins.

Data Quality Reviews:  A concurrent peer review and public comment period will be held for
each survey. During this time, the draft report will be posted on the web for interested parties to
review and submit comments. An independent group of experts will be selected to serve on a
peer review panel for the report. In house audits will also be conducted over the course of the
survey.

Data Limitations: Because the data are collected in a manner to permit calculations of
uncertainty and designed to meet specific Data Quality Objectives (DQOs), the results at the
regional level are within about 2-4% of true values dependent upon the specific sample type.
Detailed QA/QC checks throughout the survey reduce the data limitations and errors in
sampling. The scale of the  reporting units is limited by the number of samples taken in a specific
region. To make a statistically valid statement about the condition of the resource, sample size
should minimally include 30-50 sites per region.  Since samples are collected one time at each
site per survey, trends analysis will depend on future survey work. Lag time between sample
collection and reporting will be between 1-2 years.

Error Estimate:  The estimation of condition will vary for the national condition and the
regional condition for each survey. The condition estimates are determined from the survey data
using cumulative distribution functions and statistically-based uncertainty estimates.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Additional indicators, addressing regional specific needs can
be added to the survey over time.  QA requirements will be met by all laboratories participating
in the surveys. Probabilistic surveys repeated on the same water body type utilizing a similar
sample design will show condition trends for the  resource on a broad geographic scale.

References:
                                           62

-------
 Olsen, A. R. et al. 1999. Statistical Issues for Monitoring Ecological and Natural Resources in
       the United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54, 1-45

Stevens Jr., D. L. & Urqhart, N. S. 2000. Response Designs and Support Regions in Sampling
       Continuous Domains. Environmetrics 11, 11-41

 Stevens Jr., D. L. 1997. Variable Density Grid-based Sampling Designs for Continuous Spatial
       Populations. Environmetrics 8, 167-195

STORET database website. http://www.epa.gov/STORET/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-620/R-
01/005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition ReportII. EPA-
620/R-03/002

FY 2007 Performance Measures;

•   Annual percentage of water body segments identified by States in 2000 as not attaining
    standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained (PART measure)
•   Restore water quality to allow swimming in stream miles and lake acres identified by
    states
•   Cost per water segment restored (PART measure)

Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System
(WATERS- found at http://www.epa. gov/waters/) is EPA's approach for viewing water quality
information related to this measure. WATERS can be used to view "303(d) Information,"
compiled from, States' Listings of Impaired Waters as Required by Clean Water Act Section
303(d) (referred to here in brief as "303(d) lists"), which are recorded in the National Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking System. This information (found at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/status.html) is used to generate reports that identify waters that
are not meeting water quality standards ("impaired waters"). This information, combined with
information and comment from EPA Regions and states, yields the baseline data for this
measure: the number of impaired waters in 1998/2000. As TMDL and other watershed-related
activities are developed and implemented, water bodies which were once impaired will meet
water quality standards, and thus will be removed from the year 1998/2000 impaired totals.
Changes will be recorded in reports, scheduled every six years (e.g. reporting years 2006 and
2012), as percentage improvements to water body impairment.

Data Source: The underlying  data source for this measure is  State 303(d) lists of their impaired
water bodies. These lists are submitted with each biennial (calendar year) reporting cycle. The
baseline for this measure is the 1998 list (States were not required to submit lists in 2000;
however, if states did submit a  2000 list, then that more recent list was used as the baseline).
States prepare the lists using actual water quality monitoring data, probability-based monitoring
information, and other existing and readily available information and knowledge the state has, in
                                          63

-------
order to make comprehensive determinations addressing the total extent of the state's water body
impairments. Once EPA approves a state's 303(d) list, EPA enters the information into
WATERS, as described above.  Delays are often encountered in state submissions and in EPA's
approval of these biennial submissions. Establishing more certain procedures to keep on
schedule is being considered.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  States employ various analytical methods of data
collection, compilation, and reporting including: 1) Direct water samples of chemical, physical,
and biological parameters; 2) Predictive models of water quality standards attainment; 3)
Probabilistic models of pollutant sources; and 4) Compilation of data from volunteer groups,
academic interests and others. EPA-supported models include BASINS, QUAL2E, AQUATOX,
and CORMIX.  Descriptions of these models and instructions for their use can be found at
www.epa.gov/OST/wqm/.  The  standard operating procedures and deviations from standard
methods for data sampling and prediction processes are  stored by states in the STOrage and
RETrieval (STORET) database.  EPA aggregates state data to generate the national performance
measure.  State-provided data describe attainment of designated uses in accordance with state
water quality standards and thus represent a direct measure of performance. Delays are often
encountered in state 303d lists and 305b submissions, and in EPA's approval of the 303(d)
portion of these biennial submissions. Establishing more certain procedures to prevent these
delays is being considered.

QA/QC Procedures:  QA/QC of data provided by states pursuant to individual state 303(d) lists
(under CWA Section 303(d)) is  dependent on individual state procedures.  EPA regional staff
interacts with the states during the process of approval of the lists and before the information is
entered into the database to ensure the integrity of the data. The Office of Water Quality
Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was approved in July 20019.  EPA requires
that each organization prepare a document called a quality management plan (QMP) that:
documents the organization's quality policy; describes its quality system; and identifies the
environmental programs to which the quality system applies (e.g., those programs involved in
the collection or use of environmental data).

Data Quality Review:  Recent independent reports have cited that weaknesses in monitoring
and reporting of monitoring data undermine EPA's ability to depict the condition of the Nation's
waters and to support scientifically sound water program decisions.  The most recent reports
include the 1998 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Program10, the March  15, 2000 Government Accounting Office report Water Quality:
Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data , the 2001 National Academy of
9 National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum Daily Load Approach
to Water Pollution Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water
Quality Management (Washington, DC:  National Academy Press, 2001).


 USEPA, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on
the Total Maximum Daily Load Program. EPA 100-R-09-8006 (1998).
11 GAO. Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data (Washington, DC:  2000),
RCED-00-54 and Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters,
GAO-02-186 (Washington, DC: 2002)


                                            64

-------
Sciences Report Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management12 and EPA 's
Draft Report on the Environment. '3

In response to these evaluations, EPA has been working with states and other stakeholders to
improve:  1) data coverage, so that state reports reflect the condition of all waters of the state; 2)
data consistency to facilitate comparison and aggregation of state data to the national level; and
3) documentation so that data limitations and discrepancies are fully understood by data users.

First,  EPA  enhanced  two  existing  data management  tools (STORET and the  National
Assessment Database) so that they include documentation of data quality information.

Second, EPA  has developed  a  GIS  tool called WATERS  that  integrates many  databases
including  STORET,  the National Assessment  Database, and  a  new water  quality standards
database.   These  integrated databases facilitate comparison and understanding  of differences
among state standards, monitoring activities, and assessment results.

Third, EPA and states have developed guidance.  The 2006 Integrate Report Guidance (released
August 3, 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG)14 provides comprehensive direction
to states on fulfilling reporting requirements of Clean Water Act sections 305 (b) and 303(d).
Also, the ConsolidatedAssessment and Listing Methodology - Toward a Compendium of Best
Practices1^ (released on the Web July 31, 2002 at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html)
intended to facilitate increased consistency in monitoring program design and the data and
decision criteria used to  support water quality assessments.

Fourth, the Office of Water (OW) and EPA's Regional Offices have developed the Elements of a
State Water Monitoring  and Assessment Program, (August 2002).16 This guidance describes ten
elements that each state water quality monitoring program should contain and proposes time-
frames for implementing all ten elements.

In addition, a recent evaluation by the EPA Office of the Inspector General17 recommended that
EPA focus on improving its watershed approach by:
        •   Facilitating stakeholder involvement in this  approach
        •   Better integrating the watershed approach into EPA core programs,
12 Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. 2001.  Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total
Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research
Council
13 US EPA, Draft Report on the Environment 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006 (2003). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm (accessed 12 December 2005)
14 USEPA, Office of Water, 2006 Guidance for Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to
Sections, 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act (2005).  Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG (accessed 12 December 2005)
  U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology-  Toward a Compendium of Best Practices.
(Washington, DC: 2002) Available at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html (accessed 12 December 2005)
16 USEPA, Office of Water, Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program, EPA 841-B-03-003
(Washington, DC: 2003).  Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoirng/repguide.html (accessed 12
December 2005)
17 USEPA Office of the Inspector General, Sustained Commitment Needed to Further Advance the Watershed
Approach (2005). Available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-2005-P-00025.pdf



                                             65

-------
       •  Refining the Agency strategic plan to better evaluate key programs and activities, and
       •  Improving the measurement system by which watershed progress is assessed.

EPA  is engaged in  many activities to strengthen its footprint in above four foci.   Specific
examples, as noted in Assistant Administrator Grumbles' December 2005 reply to the Inspector
General's evaluation, follow:

First, examples of how the EPA Office of Water is  working to facilitate stakeholder involvement
in this approach are monthly Webcasts (topics have included strategies, tools, and techniques for
sustainable watersheds) and plans to release a Watershed Planning Handbook in 2006.

Second, EPA core program activities are focusing more heartily on watershed initiatives.  EPA is
preparing 2006 guidance on  watershed TMDLs  and guidance for using Clean Water  State
Revolving funds for state watershed activities.

Third, EPA is working to refine its strategic planning process with the April 2005 inception of
the Watershed Managers Forum, a channel of communication between EPA Regional offices and
Headquarters on issues, planning, and organizational steps to successfully implement watershed
initiatives of EPA's Strategic  Plan18.   The Office  of Water is also strengthening linkage of its
information technology capabilities and monitoring efforts to  meet goals of EPA's strategic
planning.

Fourth, EPA is working to improve measurement of its progress by conducting detailed analysis
of options for measuring performance.  Areas of general interest in this effort include tracking
improvements short of full restoration, and measures for the  extensive work the Office of Water
does to maintain water quality.

Data Limitations: Data may not precisely represent the extent of impaired waters because
states do not employ a monitoring design that monitors all their waters.  States, territories and
tribes collect data and information on only  a portion of their water bodies.  States do not use a
consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess attainment of water quality standards. For
example, indicators of aquatic  life use  support range from biological community assessments to
levels of dissolved oxygen to concentrations of toxic pollutants. These variations in state
practices limit how the CWA Sections 305(b) reports and the 303(d) lists provided by states can
be used to describe water quality at the national level. There are also differences among their
programs, sampling techniques, and standards.

State  assessments of water quality may include uncertainties associated with derived or modeled
data.  Differences in monitoring designs among and within states prevent the agency from
aggregating water quality assessments  at the national level with known statistical confidence.
States, territories, and authorized tribes monitor to identify problems and typically lag times
between data collection and reporting can vary by state.

Error Estimate: No error estimate is  available for this data.
18 USEPA, Office ofthe Chief Financial Officer, 2003-2008 Strategic Plan: Direction for the Future, (2003).
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf_(accessed 16 December 2005).
                                           66

-------
New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Water has been working with states to improve
the guidance under which 303(d) lists are prepared.  EPA issued new listing guidance entitled
Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections
303 (d) and 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act during summer 2005. The Guidance is a
comprehensive compilation of relevant guidance EPA has issued to date regarding  the Integrated
Report. There are a few specific changes from the 2004 guidance. For example, the 2006
Integrated Report Guidance provides greater clarity on the content and format of those
components of the Integrated Report that are recommended and required under Clean Water Act
sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314.  The guidance also gives additional clarity and flexibility on
reporting alternatives to TMDLs for attaining water quality standards (e.g., utilization of
reporting Category 4b).

References:

USEPA, Office of the Inspector General.  2005.  Sustained Commitment Needed to Further
Advance the Watershed Approach. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-
2005-P-00025.pdf.

USEPA, Office  of  Water.  2005.   Guidance for 2006 Assessment,  Listing, and Reporting
Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305 (b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG,

USEPA, Office of the  Chief Financial Officer.  2003.  2003-2008 Strategic Plan:  Direction for
the Future. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf.

USEPA.  2003.  Draft Report on the Environment 2003.   EPA 260-R-02-006.   Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htnx

USEPA, Office  of  Water.  2003.  Elements of a State  Water Monitoring  and Assessment
Program.         EPA    841-B-03-003.       Washington,   DC.        Available   at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/repguid.html.

USEPA, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology.  1998.  Report of
the Federal Advisory Committee  on the  Total Maximum Daily Load Program.  EPA 100-R9-
8006.

USEPA. 2002. Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - Toward a Compendium of
Best       Practices.              Washington,      DC.              Available      at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html.

Government Accountability Office.  2002.    Water Quality:  Inconsistent State Approaches
Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify its Most Polluted Waters.  GAO-02-186.  Washington,
DC.
                                          67

-------
Government Accountability Office.  2000.  Water Quality:  Key EPA and State Decisions
Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data.  GAO-RCED-00-54. Washington, DC.

National Research Council, Committee to  Assess the Scientific Basis  of the Total Maximum
Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction.  2001.  Assessing  the TMDL Approach to
Water Quality Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

FY 2007 Performance Measures;

•   Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA on schedule consistent
    with national policy (cumulative) (PART measure)
•   Number of TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA on a schedule
    consistent with national policy (cumulative) (PART measure)

Performance Database: The National Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking System
(NTTS) is a database which captures water quality information  related to  this measure.
Watershed  Assessment Tracking Environmental  Results System  (WATERS- found at
http://www.epa.gov/waters/) is EPA's approach for viewing water quality information related to
this measure.  TMDL information (found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/status.html) is used
to generate reports that identify waters  for which EPA has  approved state-established TMDLs
and for which EPA has established TMDLs. Annual TMDL totals, spanning 1996 to the present,
are available  from NTTS  on  a  fiscal  year basis.  As TMDLs and  other watershed-related
activities  are developed and implemented,  water bodies which were once impaired will meet
water quality standards. Thus these  TMDL  measures are closely tied to the PART measure,
"Percentage of water body segments identified by States in 2000 as  not attaining standards,
where water quality  standards are now fully attained;" restored water bodies will be removed
from the list of impaired water segments.

Data  Source:  State-submitted and EPA-approved TMDLs and EPA-established TMDLs are the
underlying  data for this measure.  Electronic  and hard copies are made available by states and
often  linked to EPA  Web sites.   More  specifically, WATERS allows  search for  TMDL
documents at http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/tmdl document search.html.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:   State and EPA TMDLs are thoroughly and publicly
reviewed during their development.  Upon approval by EPA, relevant information from each
TMDL is entered into the NTTS by EPA Regional staff.

QA/QC Procedures:  QA/QC of data  is provided by EPA Regional staff and through cross-
checks of WATERS  information regarding impaired water listings. The  Office of Water Quality
Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was approved in July 2001. EPA requires
that organizations prepare a document called a QMP that: documents the organization's quality
policy; describes its quality system;  and identifies the environmental  programs to which the
quality system applies (e.g., those programs involved in the collection or use of environmental
data).
                                         68

-------
Data Quality Review:  Internal reviews of data quality have revealed some errors in data and
issues associated with the definition of certain database fields. In 2005, EPA convened a
meeting of NTTS users to discuss how to improve the database.  As a result, data field
definitions were clarified, the users' group was reinstituted, and several training sessions were
scheduled.

In addition, the EPA Office of the Inspector General recently evaluated the Office of Water,
particularly the TMDL Program. The evaluation report, Sustained Commitment Needed to
Further Advance the Watershed Approach, recognized "EPA has integrated principles of the
watershed approach into the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program by encouraging
States to develop TMDLs on a watershed basis rather than by individual water segments.
Stakeholder involvement with TMDLs is critical for both the conventional and watershed
approaches, but the broader watershed approach may expand the number of stakeholders.
Expanding both the geographic scale and the number of stakeholders may result in additional
time and resources required to develop these TMDLs." This demand for resources is challenging
to overcome in the current budget environment. The EPA Office of Water has formed a
Sustainable Finance Team to increase the capacity of local watershed groups and increase
awareness of funding possibilities for watershed work, both from within EPA and outside of the
Agency. Finally, the evaluation report states, "regardless of the approach taken for development
of TMDLs, the regulatory requirements of the Clean Water Act must be met." Current
realization of targets shows the  TMDL Program continues to make sizable steps in meeting
Clean Water Act goals despite the challenges to taking a watershed approach. EPA plans to
evaluate the sufficiency of NTTS in handling watershed-based TMDLs given the increase in the
use of this approach.

Data Limitations:
There are  usually no  gaps in the fields required to  identify the TMDLs; however, a number of
the fields in NTTS are optional, and population of these fields is erratic.

Error Estimate:  No error estimate is currently available for this data.

New/Improved Data Systems: See above.

References:
USEPA, Office of the Inspector General.   2005.   Sustained Commitment  Needed to Further
Advance the Watershed Approach. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-
2005-P-00025.pdf

National Research Council, Committee to  Assess  the Scientific  Basis of the Total Maximum
Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction. 2001. Assessing the TMDL Approach to
Water Quality Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:
                                          69

-------
       •  Percentage of major NPDES permittees in Significant Noncompliance at any
          time during the fiscal year (PART measure)
       •  Percentage of all major POTWs that comply with their permitted wastewater
          discharge standards

Performance Databases: The Permit Compliance System, (PCS) tracks permit compliance and
enforcement data for sources permitted under the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination  System (NPDES).    Data in PCS include major  permittee  self reported data
contained in Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR), data on permittee compliance status, data on
state and EPA inspection and enforcement response.

Data Source: Permittee self reported DMR data are entered into PCS by either state or EPA
Regional offices. PCS automatically compares the entered DMR data with the pollutant limit
parameters specified in the facility NPDES permit.  This automated process identifies those
facilities which have emitted effluent in excess of permitted levels.  Facilities are designated as
being in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) when reported effluent exceedances are 20% or
more above permitted levels for toxic pollutants and/or 40% or more above permitted levels of
conventional pollutants.  PCS contains additional data obtained through reports and on-site
inspections, which are used to determine  SNC, including:  non-effluent limit violations such as
unauthorized bypasses, unpermitted discharges, and pass through of pollutants which cause
water quality or health problems; permit schedule violations; non-submission of DMRs;
submission of DMRs 30 or more  days late; and violation of state or federal enforcement orders.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are established computer algorithms to compare
DMR effluent data against permitted effluent levels.  The algorithms also calculate the degree of
permitted effluent exceedance to  determine whether toxic/conventional pollutant SNC thresholds
have been reached.

QA/QC Procedures:   Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures [See  references] are in
place for PCS data  entry.   State and regional PCS  data entry staff are required  to take PCS
training courses [See references].  Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are  prepared for each
Office  within The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). The  Office of
Compliance  (OC) has established extensive processes for ensuring timely  input, review and
certification  of PCS information. OC=s QMP, effective for 5 years, was approved July 29,  2003
by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) and is required to be re-approved in 2008.

Data Quality Review:  Information contained in PCS is required by policy  to be reviewed by
regional and headquarters= staff  for completeness and accuracy. SNC data in PCS  are reviewed
quarterly.

Data Limitations:  Legal  requirements for permittees to self report data on compliance with
effluent parameters in permits generally results  in consistent data quality and accuracy.   EPA
monitors and measures the timeliness of DMR submissions and  data entry  quality.  National
trends  over the  past several years show an average of 94% of DMRs are entered timely and
complete. Where data entry problems  are observed, OECA works directly with regions and
states to  improve performance, and in limited circumstances has  dedicated supplemental grant
                                          70

-------
resources to help regions and states correct problems. As part of ICIS-NPDES implementation
OECA is working to deploy an electronic DMR process to save resources on data entry workload
and reduce data input errors.

Error Estimate: Not available

New & Improved Data or Systems:  PCS was developed during the 1980's and has undergone
periodic revision and upgrade since then. OECA is currently developing a modernized data
system to replace PCS, utilizing modern data entry, storage, and analytical approaches. The first
phase of the new system, ICIS-NPDES, is scheduled to be operational March 30, 2006. Until
then, all SNC data will be obtained from PCS.  During phased implementation of ICIS-NPDES
across the states a combination of PCS and ICIS-NPDES will be used to generate SNC data.
Once fully implemented, ICIS-NPDES will be the sole source of NPDES SNC data.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Percentage of (a) State and Territorial, and (b) Tribal water quality standards
   submissions (received in the 12 month period ending April  30th of the fiscal year) that
   are approved by EPA. Partial approvals  receive fractional credit. (PART measure)

•  Number of (a) States and Territories, and (b) authorized Tribes, that within the
   preceding three year period submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable
   to EPA that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not
   considered in the previous standards. (PART measure)
Performance Database: The Water Quality Standards Action Tracking Application (WATA),
an internal tracking application managed by the Office of Science and Technology described at
http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf, is the performance database for these
measures. The information in this system yields the baseline and performance data for these
measures.

Data Source: The underlying data sources for this measure are the submissions from states,
territories, and authorized tribes of water quality standards to EPA pursuant to the Clean Water
Act and EPA's water quality standards regulation at 40 CFR part 131. States, territories, and
authorized tribes are required to review their water quality standards at least once every three
years, and submit any new or revised water quality standards to EPA for review and approval.
Each submission is accompanied by a letter from an appropriate official, and includes a
certification by the state or territorial attorney general, or equivalent tribal official, that the
standards were duly adopted pursuant to state, territorial, or tribal law.

EPA Regional Office staff members compile information from each submission and enter it into
the WATA system. The information includes identifying data (name of jurisdiction,  date of
submission), data concerning components of the submission, and data concerning EPA's action
on the submission. EPA has delegated approval and disapproval decisions to the Regional
Administrator; the Regional Administrator may re-delegate the decisions to the appropriate
                                          71

-------
Division Director, but no further. Approval decisions are judicially reviewable, and are
accompanied by an appropriate administrative record.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:

The Office of Science and Technology has established computation metrics in the Water Quality
Standards Action Tracking Application (WATA) system to produce the baselines and
performance data for both measures. These metrics are as follows:

   •  Percentage of State, Territorial, and Tribal water quality standards submissions (received
     in the 12 month period ending April 30th of the fiscal year) that are approved by EPA.
     Partial approvals receive fractional credit.

This metric considers all new or revised submissions from May 1 of the previous year through
April 30 of the current year.  This reporting period provides regions 150 days to reach and
document a valid approval decision. EPA management believes this is an adequate time for
processing submissions. A "submission" is determined by the submitting jurisdiction,  as
described above. The metric then searches for whether the Regional Office has made any
approval decision concerning the submission. If EPA approves the submission in full by the end
of the reporting period, it will be counted with an approval value of 1. If EPA disapproves all
provisions of the standards, it will be counted with an approval value of 0 (zero). In some cases
the Regional decision official may decide to approve some  portions of the standards provisions,
disapprove some portions, or defer actions on some portions. To accommodate these
possibilities, and to reflect the complex nature of some submissions, the WATA system allows
Regional staff to track portions of a submission as separate parts. When different decisions are
reached on different parts of a submission, the metric calculates a fractional approval value.  The
fractional approval value is a number between 0 and 1, equal to the number of submission parts
approved, divided by the total number of parts in the original submission. For example, if a
submission is divided up into 5 parts, and EPA approves 3 and disapproves 2, then the  metric
would count this as 0.6.  The final performance metric is the sum of full or fractional approval
values divided by the total number of submissions during the reporting period.

   •  Number of (a) States and Territories, and (b) authorized Tribes, that within the preceding
     three year period submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that
     reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not considered in the
     previous standards

This measure utilizes a Regional Office entry in the WATA system which indicates whether a
submission or submission part includes one or more new water quality criteria or revised criteria
that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not considered in the previous
criteria. Biological criteria that are reflected explicitly in designated uses would count under this
entry. If a State, territory, or tribe has not adopted any such criteria, the jurisdiction can
nevertheless be  counted under this measure if (a) EPA has issued new or revised water quality
criteria, including revisions to the published table of EPA recommended criteria at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html, but the state has determined through a
scientific assessment that such a change is not relevant for its waters, or (b) the jurisdiction could
                                           72

-------
certify to EPA that it has completed a defensible scientific review of the new scientific
information EPA has issued and has determined that no changes are needed to their existing
water quality criteria.  The metric searches for one or more qualifying submissions or submission
parts for each jurisdiction during the three-year  period ending 150 days before the end of the
reporting period, and that have been approved by EPA by the end of the reporting period.  For
example, for FY 2006 any qualifying  submissions from May 1, 2003, through April 30, 2006,
that were approved by September 30,  2006, would enable the jurisdiction to be counted. Note
the overlap from one reporting year to the next:  a state that made such a submittal, in, say,
February 2005, would be counted in FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007. Conversely, a state that
last adopted such criteria in, say, November 2002, would be counted in FY 2005 but not in FY
2006.

QA/QC Procedures: States, territories, and tribes conduct QA/QC of water quality standards
submissions pursuant to individual state procedures. Because such submissions are subject to
judicial review, the attorney general's certification described above provides assurance of the
content of each submission. EPA regional staffs provide support to and interact with the
jurisdictions as they develop, review,  and adopt water quality standards. Each Regional Office
provides data quality review of its entries in the WATA system. For example, Regional Offices
generally assure that each entry is reviewed by the water quality standards coordinator, usually a
senior scientist or environmental protection specialist with extensive experience in water quality
standards actions. Data validation algorithms built into each entry screen also help improve data
quality. In addition, a sample of entries is spot-checked by Headquarters' Office  of Science and
Technology staff. The Regions and Headquarters have been able to conduct the data quality
reviews fairly easily because the number of submissions has averaged about 50 submissions per
year in recent years, well within their  available resources to provide adequate review.

Data Quality Review:   No external reviews of the data have been conducted.

Data Limitations: Submissions may vary considerably in size and complexity. For example, a
submission may include statewide water quality standards revisions, use attainability analyses for
specific water bodies, site-specific criteria applicable to specific types of waters, general
statewide policies, antidegradation policies or procedures, and variances. Therefore, these
measures - the number of submissions approved, and the number of jurisdictions with updated
scientific information contained in adopted standards - do not provide an indicator of the scope,
geographic coverage, policy importance, or other qualitative aspects of water quality standards.
This information would need to be obtained in other ways, such as by  reviewing the content of
adopted and approved standards available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/states/,
or contacting the appropriate Regional Office or state/territorial/tribal personnel.

Error Estimate:  No error estimate is available for this data.

New/Improved Data Systems:  The Office of Science and Technology has no immediate plans
for developing a new data system or enhancing the existing WATA system, other than refining
metrics for assessing and interpreting  performance results, or for assessing data quality.

References:
                                           73

-------
USEPA.  September 8, 2005.  Water Quality Standards Acting Tracking Application: Users
Manual.  Available at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf.

USEPA.  2000.  Water Quality Standards Regulation. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR part
131. Available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/40cfrl3 l_05.html.

USEPA.  August 1994.  Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd edition.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Estimated annual reduction of nitrogen (reported in pounds), phosphorous (pounds),
    and sediment (tons) from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319 funded projects
    only).

Performance Database:  The  Section 319 Grant Reporting and Tracking System (CRTS) is
used by  grant recipients (State  agencies) to supply information about State nonpoint source
(NFS) Management and annual Section 319 funded work programs, which include watershed-
based / BMP implementation projects.  CRTS includes information on NPS load reductions to
water bodies of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments achieved as a result of implementation of
Best Management Practices (BMPs) under 319-funded watershed projects.

State reporting via CRTS in part fulfills requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections
319(h)(ll) and 319(m)(l);  however,  CRTS also provides EPA and other stakeholders  greater
and more efficient access to  data, information, and program accomplishments than traditional
reporting (i.e., hardcopy Annual Reports), as well as provides detailed, geo-referencing (i.e.,
watershed address, and, now on a much smaller scale,  water body  segment/reach address) of
319-funded projects and their BMPs, and NPS pollutant load reductions.

CRTS is also becoming part of the "WATERS" framework which is used to summarize water
quality information at the watershed (e.g., HUC8)  level.  The Watershed Assessment Tracking
and Environmental Results  System (WATERS) is  a  geographic  information  system that
integrates many existing databases including the STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database,
the National Assessment Database (NAD), the TMDL Tracking System (NTTS),  the  Water
Quality Standards Database (WQSDB), and CRTS.

Data Source:  Load reduction  data in CRTS are  reported by the States and their partners as
performance results of Nonpoint Source Management Programs,  and Section 319(h) -  funded
work programs, including individual project work plans.  Much of the implementation of ง319
work plans (often known as "Project Implementation Plans") involves coordination, funding and
installation of on-the-ground BMPs in priority watersheds to reduce pollutant loadings (often as
required  by established Total Maximum Daily Loads),  and to restore the designated uses of
impaired waters.

Various computer- and geographic-based models  are used in the States to estimate the load
reductions resulting from implementation of BMPs in "critical" or hydrologically sensitive areas
                                         74

-------
within watershed projects. Two models used by several states, and directly supported by EPA,
are the Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL) model, and the "Region 5"
model.  States, at their discretion, may use other models or methods (e.g., AGNPs, SWAT,
GWLF, etc) or may use actual water monitoring data to generate estimates of pollutant load
reduction resulting from BMP implementation.  The load reduction data generated by modeling
and/or monitoring efforts are entered by State CRTS coordinators directly into  the appropriate
CRTS data fields along with an explanation of the model / methods used to generate the data.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  States employ various methods to make pollutant load
calculations,  including: 1) Predictive models to estimate pollutant  loads before  and after
watershed projects' BMPs are implemented; 2) Direct sampling overtime of chemical, physical,
and biological parameters using targeted site selection (usually,  where impairments have been
determined thru 303(d) listing  methodology, and often where  TMDLs  are established);   3)
Statistical methods and sampling,  such as by paired watershed studies to determine whether or
not implemented BMPs in  watersheds are reducing NFS  pollutant  loads and resulting in
improved water quality; and, 4)  Compilation of data from outside sources such as volunteer
monitors, academic institutions, and others that are cited by the States as indirect evidence of
pollutant loads, reductions, and water quality.

EPA aggregates the load reduction data entered into CRTS to  generate the national performance
measure, and incremental (e.g., annual) reports on total load reductions of each parameter -
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment.  The purpose of the aggregation is to provide a very general
estimate of load reductions on a  nationwide scale.   It must be emphasized that  this national
estimate is not a surrogate for direct measurements of specific waterbody restoration / protection
projects in  meeting their water quality goals.  Such  projects' successes can only be assessed
through analysis of locally  applied  BMPs and  locally  derived monitoring data  and locally
applied modeling tools.

QA/QC Procedures:   QA/QC,  of  load  reduction  estimates  generated  by states  and their
watershed project cooperators, is dependent on individual state procedures, such as state Quality
Management Plans (QMPs) which are periodically reviewed and approved by EPA Regions.

EPA provides guidance and training to states in the use of the STEPL and "Region 5" models.
In the provision of guidance and training, EPA emphasizes that Quality  Assurance Project Plans
(QAPPs) be developed (in accordance with EPA approved  State QMPs) for local watershed
projects that generate locational information, and data using water quality models  and/or water
monitoring.  EPA also stresses that project- /site- specific parameters be used whenever possible
for input to water quality models, as opposed to default input values provided by  some modeling
tools.

Numerous system level checks are built into the data sources in  CRTS, based upon "mandated
data" associated with the system.  States have continual access  and opportunity to review the
information in CRTS to ensure it accurately reflects the data they entered (according to their QA
procedures).  EPA periodically reviews CRTS and reminds states  of the critical importance of
their completing mandated data elements in a timely, high-quality manner.
                                          75

-------
Data Quality Review: Data entered in CRTS are periodically reviewed by EPA Regions and
Headquarters.   Regional  personnel  also maintain hardcopies of the states work programs /
watershed project implementation plans and Annual Progress Reports.  Verification of data in
CRTS can be cross-checked with these documents to ensure quality, consistency, and reliability
in progress reporting on an incremental (such as, year-to-year) basis, or to note any problems in
data quality in CRTS.  EPA frequently reviews  various aggregations) of all the data in CRTS by
use of "ad-hoc" and standard reports available in the CRTS reporting system.

EPA is working to integrate  CRTS into the WATERS framework (and to enable   "Ask
WATERS") as another means to check states'  purported achievements in attaining loading
reductions and attaining water quality standards using Section 319(h) funding.

In the past, Nonpoint  Source Program reporting under Section  319 had been identified as an
Agency-Level weakness under the  Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act.  The Agency's
establishment and subsequent enhancements of CRTS has served to mitigate  this problem by
requiring states to rigorously identify the projects and activities funded with Section 319(h). In
response to the  FMFIA evaluation, EPA has been working with states and other stakeholders to
improve data input and quality.  EPA sponsors national CRTS users group meetings each year.
These meetings serve not only to  meet the training  needs  of  the user community, but also
provide a forum for discussing needed enhancements to CRTS. These enhancements range from
better capturing environmental results to improving consistency of data entry to facilitate state-
by-state comparisons, and aggregation of state data to the national level.

The CWA Sections 319(h)(ll) and 319(m)(l) require States to report their Nonpoint Source
Management  Program (NPSMP) milestones,  nonpoint source pollutant load reductions, and
water quality improvements, and these provide  the EPA Office of Water (OW) authority to
require water quality monitoring, and/or modeling, and reporting by states to demonstrate their
success in reducing NPS pollutant loads and improving water quality. OW has issued guidance
documents designed to improve  states'  NPSMP, watershed-based projects and consistency in
state progress reporting,  including their use  of CRTS.  These guidance documents include
Modifications to Nonpoint Source  Reporting  Requirements  for Section 319 Grants issued in
September 2001, which outlines  the process for reporting  in CRTS applicable Section 319(h)
funded projects, load  reductions for nutrients and sediment. These modifications remain in
effect.  Also, the current National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines were issued
in October, 2003, and  this guidance  includes sections on all NPS grant reporting requirements,
including CRTS reporting. Subsequent to issuing these guidelines, EPA, in consultation with the
States, established the specific nonpoint source program activity measures (PAMs), including
nonpoint load reductions, which are now part of EPA's Strategic Plan, the OMB Program
Assessment Rating Tool ("OMB PART"), and  the National Water Program Guidance. EPA has
also communicated (e.g., via email) to states further detailed explanations of the NPS program
activity measures, expected reporting sources and dates, and results of the Agency's reviews of
data input to CRTS by the states.

Data Limitations:   State NPSMP work to  model  (and  monitor) watersheds  is often not
coordinated with state water quality monitoring and  assessment strategies, and therefore the
integration of CRTS and other data systems' data may be rather limited  Load reduction data are
                                          76

-------
typically generated from the use of water quality models, and there is a great deal of uncertainty
in model inputs and outputs.  States generally do not apply model results / load reductions to
decision-making for implementing and/or revising their NFS Management Programs,  nor do
they apply it to other relevant decisions, such as  305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing.   The
results  generated  by computer models versus direct  monitoring are  generally not  very
comparable.

EPA is  working with states to provide a data structure in CRTS as well as in the web-Reach
Indexing Tool (web-RIT) that make it easier for project BMPs to be geographically located so
that resulting load  reductions and water quality changes can be more easily tracked over time.
WATERS would provide an integrating framework for watershed / water quality information at
the national level.  However, there are challenges in how BMPs are (or can be) tracked in CRTS.
For example, Section 319 funded projects result in the  implementation of many thousands of
BMPs as well as other 319 project activities; but it may not be feasible to track each of these
activities in CRTS. Most of the load reductions in CRTS are linked to the 319 award fiscal year
rather than an implementation data, which is not useful for reporting incremental load reductions.
Furthermore, it is  difficult to capture a  given year of load reductions for multi-year projects
funded under single (or multiple) grant fiscal year(s).

State assessments of load reductions and  water quality typically include uncertainties associated
with any  measuring or modeling tools. Variability in the environment, as  well as in  state
methods and application of tools limit the  accuracy of data for describing load  reductions and
water quality at the project level.  Aggregating the load reduction data up to the national measure
compounds the level of uncertainty, thereby preventing the Agency from assigning a reasonable
numerical confidence level to it.

Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for these data.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  CRTS is currently undergoing a transition from a Lotus
Notes-based system to an Oracle database.  Oracle is the  standard database used by  Federal
agencies.  Conversion to Oracle will allow  CRTS to seamlessly connect to other EPA OW data
systems, e.g., web-RIT,  STORET,  NTTS, WQSDB  -  all systems under  the  WATERS
framework,  as well as potential linkages to  a variety of other  Federal and  State databases,
models, and watershed planning and accountability tools.  In this framework, the Oracle-based
CRTS will greatly improve reporting capabilities for all end users, and  answer questions for
stakeholders, such  as, where are watershed projects being developed and implemented?   Are
projects coincident with  impaired waters  and  established  TMDLs?   Do they  pursue  actions
necessary to reduce pollutant loads and attain  water quality standards? Oracle provides users the
capability  of customizing data entry screens to facilitate various reporting needs of the States and
EPA. Customized screens can reflect the various programmatic needs of the  Regional  offices
and States, such as  to review/input only the mandated elements and program measures, a mix of
mandated elements, and/or other Regionally required data fields.

References:

AGNP - Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model
                                          77

-------
SWAT - Soil Water Assessment Tool Model

GWLF - Generalized Watershed Loading Functions Model

STEPL - Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load Model

Region  5 Model - A model which uses some long-used equations to help determine load
reductions (such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, the Gully Erosion Equation, and
the Channel Erosion Equation)

Modification to NFS Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants (September 2001)

National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines (October 2003)


FY 2007Performance Measures:

   •  Percentage of high priority EPA and State NPDES permits that are reissued as
      scheduled (PART Measure)

   •  Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits issued as scheduled (PART
      Measure)

Performance Database:
          U.S. EPA. Permit Compliance System (PCS), [database]. Washington, DC [Office of
          Enforcement and Compliance Assurance]
          Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (PIFT) [database]. Washington, DC [Office of
          Water]
          Priority Permits Data Base,  [web-based database]. Washington, DC [Office of
          Water]

The Permit Compliance  System (PCS) is used to determine which individual permits are current
through date fields for permit issuance and expiration.  EPA has carried out detailed permit
renewal backlog tracking with PCS data since November 1998. To supplement the individual
permit data from PCS, EPA uses the Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (PIFT) to track the
current or expired status of facilities covered under non-storm water general permits. The  PIFT
has been used to track non-storm water general permit facilities since January 2001.

EPA has undertaken a new "priority permits" issuance strategy that focuses permitting activities
on significant expired permits. The Priority Permits Database is a web-based system that tracks
the specific permits that  each State and Region has identified as priority. States and Regions
enter the permits, and EPA HQ uses PCS to track permit issuance status of these permits.
                                         78

-------
Data Source: EPA=s Regional offices and NPDES authorized states enter data into PCS.
EPA=s Regional offices are responsible for entering data to the PIFT.  EPA's Regional offices
and States enter permit identification information into the Priority Permits database.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  For individual permits, monthly reports are generated
from PCS that use permit issuance and expiration dates to aggregate, across each state, the
number of major and minor permits which have not exceeded expiration dates by more than 180
days. Permits that have not reached their expiration date, or are less than 180 days past that date,
are considered Acurrent.ฎ Permits that have not been renewed within 180 days of expiration are
considered Aexpiredฎ or Abacklogged.ฎ Although PCS tracks some data for facilities covered
by NPDES non-storm water general permits, States and Regions are not required to input these
data; thus, the data are incomplete and unreliable. To fill this data gap, EPA developed the PIFT
tracking system to gather basic counts of facilities covered by current and expired non-storm
water general permits.  Further, to complement tracking of all permits, the Priority Permits
Database was developed to track the status of high priority permits.  Together the PCS, PIFT and
Priority Permits data are intended to measure NPDES program coverage. The data are suitable
for year -to-year comparisons of officially tracked permit status.

QA/QC Procedures: The PCS database is managed by the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA); PIFT and Priority Permits Database are managed by the Office
of Water (OW). EPA Headquarters (HQ)  staff in OECA review data submitted by states as part
of the QA/QC process. In addition, OW continues to work with States and Regions to improve
the quality and completeness of the data. EPA generates state-by-state reports that list PCS Akey
dataฎ fields, including permit issuance and expiration dates, as well  as compliance and
enforcement data, and provides these lists to NPDES states and Regions for review and cleanup.
EPA also created a spread sheet comparing latitude/longitude (lat/long) data for municipal
treatment systems collected by the Clean Water Needs Survey to the lat/long data in PCS. This
spread sheet is provided to  States and Regions so that, where discrepancies exist between state
and PCS data, EPA and States can make corrections in PCS. EPA will continue to focus on
improving the lat/long data in PCS, especially at the pipe level.

Additionally, where States maintain Akey@ permit data in separate state-level systems, EPA is
providing support to upload these data to PCS.

Regions enter data into the PIFT and Priority Permits database, both of which are web-based
systems maintained by OW.

Data Quality Review: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued several findings
regarding poor PCS data quality, and PCS has been listed as an Agency-Level Weakness under
the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act since 1999. This weakness affects EPA=s ability to
obtain a true picture of the status of the NPDES program. Fortunately, the permit issuance and
expiration data needed for this performance measure are generally better populated than other
Akey@ data elements. As noted previously, OW is offering support to  States for data upload,
data entry, and, if necessary, data compilation to improve data quality. The replacement of PCS
with ICIS-NPDES, a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data system, is scheduled for the first
wave release to EPA and some direct user states in March 2006; other states will be migrated to
                                          79

-------
the new system in additional waves (the third phase to complete all direct users is scheduled for
August 2006; batch states will follow), and should greatly increase state participation and data
quality.

Data Limitations: EPA is aware of data gaps in PCS, particularly for minor facilities, and is
aware of discrepancies between state databases and PCS; however, EPA=s data clean-up over
the past five years has significantly improved data quality. The PIFT has enabled EPA to report
on non-storm water facilities covered by NPDES general permits, but the data are not as
comprehensive as those tracked in PCS.  In 2006, EPA is upgrading PIFT for EPA-issued
permits to improve inventory tracking. There  are no national-level data to track permit issuance
and expiration status of facilities covered by storm water general permits; thus, they are not
tracked under this performance measure. Priority Permits data are verified and reliable.

Error Estimate:  We believe that the permit renewal backlog data for major facilities is accurate
within 2 percent based on input from EPA=s Regional offices and states through a quarterly
independent verification.  For minor facilities, however, the confidence interval is less precise
and probably overestimates the permit renewal backlog for minor facilities by 5 percent based on
anecdotal information from EPA=s Regional offices and states.

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA headquarters is providing contractor assistance to
improve the data quality in PCS. The new modernized ICIS-NPDES will be rolled out starting
in March 2006. ICIS -NPDES will be easier to use and will improve the quality of data needed
to manage the NPDES program.

References:

PCS information is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.htm

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •   Loading (Pounds) of pollutants removed per program dollar expended  (PART
       efficiency measure)

Performance Database:  This measure is calculated using a variety of methods. For point
sources in industry sectors with effluent guidelines, a spread sheet is used. An average Aper
facilityฎ pollutant reduction value is  assigned  to each permitted effluent discharger according to
the effluent guideline developed in each industrial sector. Using both the average per facility
value and the number of permits issued as reported under PCS, the spreadsheet then generates
the values for the total pollutants reduced.

The above calculation is used in combination with another spread sheet19 to summarize pollutant
reductions achieved through controls at Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs), and controls for municipal storm water and construction storm
19 SWP Efficiency: Millions of Pounds Removed [unpublished Excel Spread Sheet].  (April, 2005). Washington,
D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Water].


                                           80

-------
water. Industrial storm water is not included nor are reductions from water quality based effluent
limits.

CSOs: CSO pollutant reductions are estimated in the J2_0_01 and 2003 CSO Reports to	
Congress20.

POTWs: Estimated reductions from POTWs were calculated using data from a detailed trend
       analysis for Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
       loadings in "Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in
       Municipal Wastewater Treatment21." The report provides flow estimates, loading
       estimates and a distribution of treatment class for every 2 to 4 years from 1968 through
       1996. In addition, the report uses data from the Clean Watershed Needs Survey
       (CWNS)22 to provide projections for 2016.  EPA has also prepared a 2004 update for
       Chapter Two23 of the 2000 "Progress in Water Quality."

Municipal Storm Water:  Estimates from municipal storm water were derived from EPA models
       of the volume of storm water discharged from municipal separate storm sewer systems
       (MS4s) developed as part of a 1997 EPA draft report. The methodology and results of
       the  1997 draft report are described in AEconomic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm
       Water Ruleฎ, EPA, October 1999.24

Construction Storm Water:   EPA developed estimates of the sediment load present in
       construction storm water using a model developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
       The model uses the construction site version of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
       (RUSLE). Uncontrolled (i.e. prior to implementation of Best Management Practices
       (BMPs)) and controlled (i.e. after the implementation of BMPs) sediment loadings were
       estimated for 15 climatic regions with three site sizes (one, three, and five acres), three
       soil credibility levels (low, medium, and high), three slopes (3%, 7%, and 12%), and
       various BMP combinations. The methodology and results are described in "Economic
       Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule."

The values derived from the above methods are  summed to  obtain the total pollutant load
reductions achieved under the  surface water program.
20 2003 CSO Report to Congress, August 2004, US EPA;
Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy_report2004.cfm
21 Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment (EPA-
832-R-00-008; June 2000). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/wquality/benefits.htm.

22 Clean Watershed Needs Survey 2000  [Electronic data basel.  (2000). Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management].

23 2004 update of Chapter 2, "Nationwide Trends in BOD Loading Based on Population and POTW Treatment
Design" of the report, Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in Municipal
Wastewater Treatment.

24 Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule, Oct. 1, 1999, US EPA. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes or http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/docs.cfm?program_id=6&view=allprog&sort=name
Comment [MSOfficel]: The CSO
database does not include information on
municipal or construction storm water.
                                            81

-------
To calculate the PART efficiency measure, the total cumulative pollutant reductions were
divided by the total number of dollars devoted to the EPA Surface Water Program (S WP), grants
to States under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 106, plus State 'match' dollars, annually. SWP
and CWA Section 106 budget is pulled from EPA's Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS). State 'match' dollars are reported to EPA by States.

Data Sources: For industrial sector permits, each EPA Regional office reports the actual
number of permits issued in the past year, typically drawn from EPA=s Permit Compliance
System. For direct dischargers subject to effluent guidelines, the average per facility value for
pollutant reduction is derived from the Technical Development Documents (TDDs) produced at
the time of the effluent guideline (ELG) rulemaking. TDDs are available for: Pulp &  Paper,
Pharmaceuticals, Landfills, Industrial Waste Combustors, Centralized Waste Treatment,
Transportation Equipment Cleaning, Pesticide Manufacturing,  Offshore Oil &  Gas, Coastal Oil
& Gas, Synthetic Based Drilling Fluid, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Meat and
Poultry, Metal Products and Machinery, Aquaculture. Regarding PCS, States and EPA=s
Regional offices enter data into the system.

CSO loadings are estimated based on data obtained from the Clean Watershed Needs  Survey and
from the "Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and
Sanitary Sewer Overflows." States and EPA=s Regional offices provide data for the CSO
Report to Congress and the Clean Watershed Needs Survey.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  EPA uses the spreadsheets described above to
estimate loadings. The data are aggregated across  different sources to determine loading
reductions at the national level. Loadings appear to be the best surrogate for determining the
environmental impacts of point sources. Pollutant load reductions, along with some of the water
quality improvement measures, tell the story about environmental outcomes. Pollutant
reductions per dollar spent provides a snapshot of the effectiveness and efficiency of the surface
water program, and comparing this over time helps to delineate a trend.

QA/QC Procedures: The loadings spreadsheets are based on  information from rulemakings and
policies that have undergone extensive review. The effluent guidelines follow  EPA quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. The PCS database is managed by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance  (OECA). EPA Headquarters (HQ) staff in OECA
review data submitted by states as part of the QA/QC process.  (See full description under
"current permits" measure).

Data Quality Reviews: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued several findings
regarding poor PCS data quality, and PCS has been listed as an Agency-Level Weakness  under
the Federal Managers Financial Integrity  Act since 1999. This weakness affects EPA=s ability to
obtain a true picture of the status of the NPDES program. Fortunately, the permit issuance and
expiration data needed for this performance measure are generally better populated than other
Akey@ data elements. As noted previously, OW is offering support to States for data upload,
data entry, and, if necessary, data compilation support to improve data quality.  The replacement
of PCS with ICIS-NPDES, a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data system, is scheduled for
                                          82

-------
the first wave release to EPA and some direct user states in March 2006; other states will be
migrated to the new system in additional waves (the third phase to complete all direct users is
scheduled for August 2006; batch states will follow), and should greatly increase state
participation and data quality.

Recently, the EPA IG issued a report on effluent guidelines.25  The IG recommendations pointed
to an inability to confirm our estimates of reductions.  As part of OW's response to the IG, we
point to the annual performance measures  as an effective way to describe the accomplishments
of the effluent guidelines program.

Data Limitations:  There is inconsistent and poor data quality in the PCS data base with respect
to flow and discharge monitoring, including missing data for minor facilities which has not been
required to be entered. Neither monitoring nor flow data are required for certain categories of
general permits.  The Agency, therefore, is not able to provide sufficient information to measure
loadings reductions for all of the approximately 550,000 facilities that fall under the NPDES
program.  The effluent guidelines loadings are estimates based the number of permits issued
across an industrial sector.

Error Estimate:  At this time we are unable to estimate error due to the lack of actual national
level data to compare to estimates based on models.

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA headquarters is providing contractor assistance to
improve the data quality of PCS.  PCS is scheduled to be replaced by ICIS-NPDES which will be
easier to use and will ensure that it includes needed data to manage the NPDES program. See
full write-up under the "current permits" measures.

EPA continues to evaluate  and explore methods for calculating loadings reductions nation-wide
from all sources.

References:
Clean Watershed Needs Survey 2000 [Electronic database]. (2000). Washington, D.C. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [Office  of Wastewater Management].

Effluent guidelines development documents are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide.

Modeling databases and software being used by the Office of Water are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/water/soft.html

PCS information is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.html

FY 2007 Performance Measure:
25 Effectiveness of Effluent Guidelines Program for Reducing Pollutant Discharges Uncertain Report No. 2004-P-
00025, August 24, 2004. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040824-2004-P-00025.pdf


                                           83

-------
       •  Clean  Water State  Revolving Fund  (CWSRF)  Long-Term  Revolving  Level
          ($billions/yr)
       •  Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.

Performance Database: Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management
System (NIMS.)

Data Sources:  Data are from reporting by municipal and other facility operators, state
regulatory agency personnel and by EPA's regional staff. Data are collected and reported once
yearly.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into NIMS are the units of performance.
These data are suitable for year-to-year comparison and trend indication.

QA/QC Procedures: EPA's headquarters and regional offices are responsible for compiling the
data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance with expected trends.
States receive data entry guidance from EPA headquarters  in the form of annual memoranda. A
generic memorandum would be titled: "Request for Annual Update of Data for the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund National Information Management System, July 1, 200X through June 30,
200X."

Data Quality Reviews: EPA's headquarters and regional offices annually review the data
submitted by the states. These state data are publicly  available at
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrfinindividual state reports. EPA's headquarters
addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through the appropriate EPA
regional office.  An annual EPA headquarters' "N IMS Analysis" provides detailed data
categorization and comparison. This analysis is used  during annual EPA regional office and state
reviews to identify potential problems which might affect the performance measure, biennial
reviews by EPA's headquarters of regional oversight of state revolving funds and, annual
reviews by EPA's regional offices of their states' revolving funds operations.

State data quality is also evaluated during annual audits performed by independent auditors or by
the appropriate regional office of the EPA Inspector General. These audits are incorporated into
EPA headquarters' financial management system.

Data Limitations: There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states submit
voluntarily. Erroneous data can be introduced into  the NIMS database by typographic or
definitional error.  Typographic errors are controlled and corrected through data testing
performed by EPA's contractor. Definitional errors due to varying interpretations of information
requested for specific data fields have been virtually eliminated in the past two years as a result
of EPA headquarters' clarification of definitions. These definitions are publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf. There is typically a lag of approximately two months
from the date EPA asks states to enter their data into  the NIMS database, and when the data are
quality-checked and available for public use.
                                          84

-------
Error Estimate: Due to the rapid growth of this program, past estimates of annual performance
(relative to a target), compared to actual performance data received two years later, have been
accurate to an average of approximately plus or minus2 percentage points.

New/Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since 1996. It is updated
annually, and data fields are changed or added as needed.

References:
State performance data as shown in NIMS are available by state at:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NIMS is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan, July 2001 (approved September 28, 2001)
addresses the quality of data in NIMS. Not publicly available.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Reduction in the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation

Performance Database:  Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS), the
Indian Health Service (IHS), Office of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE),
Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction (DSFC).

Data Sources: The STARS includes data on sanitation deficiencies, Indian homes and
construction projects. STARS is currently comprised of two sub data systems, the Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS) and the Project Data System (PDS).

The SDS is an inventory of sanitation deficiencies for existing Indian homes and communities.
The IHS is required to prioritize SDS  deficiencies and annually report to Congress. The
identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the most common of which
follow:
          •  Consultation with Tribal members and other Agencies
          •  Field visits by  engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives (CHRs),
             nurses, or by other IHS or tribal heath staff
          •  Sanitary Surveys
          •  Community Environmental Health Profiles
          •  Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Inventory
          •  Census Bureau Reports (for comparison purposes only)
          •  Tribal Master Plans for Development
          •  Telephone Surveys
          •  Feasibility Studies

The most reliable and preferred method is a field visit to each community to identify and obtain
accurate numbers of homes with sanitation deficiencies. The number of Indian homes within the
communities must be consistent among the various methods cited above. If a field visit cannot
                                          85

-------
be made, it is highly recommended that more than one method be used to determine sanitation
deficiencies to increase the accuracy and establish greater credibility for the data.

The PDS is a listing of funded construction projects and is used as a management and reporting
tool.

QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance for the Indian country water quality performance
measure depends on the quality of the data in the STARS. The STARS data undergoes a series
of quality control reviews at various levels within the IHS DSFC. The DSFC is required to
annually  report deficiencies in SDS to Congress in terms of total and feasible project costs for
proposed sanitation projects and sanitation deficiency levels for existing homes.

Data Quality Reviews:  The SDS data initially undergoes a series of highly organized reviews
by experienced tribal, IHS field, IHS district and IHS area personnel.  The data are then sent to
the DSFC headquarters office for review before final results are reported. The DSFC
headquarters reviews the SDS data for each of the 12 IHS area offices. The data quality review
consists of performing a number of established data queries and reports which check for errors
and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top 25 SDS projects and corresponding community
deficiency profiles for each area are reviewed and scrutinized thoroughly. Detailed cost
estimates are highly encouraged and are usually available for review.

Data Limitations: The data  are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS.

Error Estimate:  The IHS DSFC requires that higher-level projects (those with the possibility of
funding prior to the next update) must be developed to allow for program implementation in an
organized, effective, efficient manner. Those SDS projects (top 20%) must have cost estimates
within 10% of the actual costs.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The STARS is a web based application and therefore allows
data to be continuously updated by personnel at various levels and modified as program
requirements are identified. PDS has been modified to meet 40CFR31.40 reporting
requirements.  In 2006 STARS is being modified to include rural communities that are not
Alaska Native  Villages but has a substantial Alaska Native population.

References:

1. Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Criteria for the
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program, June 1999, Version 1.02, 3/13/2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/Criteria_March_2003.cfm

2. Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Sanitation
Deficiency  System  (SDS), Working Draft, "Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies for
Indian         Homes         and          Communities",           May           2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
                                          86

-------
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system
       health of coastal waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is improved on the
       "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report

Performance Database: EMAP/NCA [Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program/National Coastal Assessment] database (housed EPA/ORD/NHEERL/AED,
Narragansett, RI)(Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and
Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory/Gulf Ecology
Division); pre-database information housed in ORD/NHEERL facility in Gulf Breeze, FL (Gulf
Ecology Division) (pre-database refers to a temporary storage site for data where they are
examined for QA purposes, have appropriate metadata attached and undergo initial statistical
analyses); data upon QA acceptance and metadata completion are transferred to EMAP/NCA
database and are web available at www.epa.gov/emap/nca.

Data Source:  Probabilistic surveys of ecological condition completed throughout the Mid-
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) in 1991-
1994, in southern Florida in 1995, in the Southeast in 1995-1997, in the Mid-Atlantic in 1997-
1998, in each coastal state in 2000-2004 (except Alaska and Hawaii), in Alaska in 2002 and
2004, in Hawaii in 2002 and 2004, and in Puerto Rico in 2000 and 2004, and in other island
territories (Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands) in 2004. Surveys collect condition
information regarding water quality, sediment quality and biotic condition at 70-100 sites/region
(e.g., mid-Atlantic) each year of collection prior to  1999 and at 35-150 sites in each state or
territory/year (site number dependent upon state) after 1999. Additional sampling by the
National Estuary Program (NEP) included all individual national estuaries; the total number of
sites within NEP boundaries was 30 for the two-year period 2000-2003.

These data are  collected through a joint EPA-State cooperative agreement and the States follow a
rigid sampling and collection  protocol following intensive training by EPA personnel.
Laboratory processing is completed at either a state laboratory or through a national EPA
contract.  Data collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (either the National
Coastal QAPP or a variant of it) and QA testing and auditing by EPA.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  The surveys are conducted using a probabilistic
survey design which allows extrapolation of results to the target population (in this case - all
estuarine resources of the specific state.) The collection design maximizes the spatial spread
between sites, located by specific latitude-longitude combinations.  The survey utilizes an
indexed sampling period (generally late summer) to increase the probability of encountering
water quality, sediment quality and biotic condition problems, if they exist. Based on the QAPP
and field collection manual, a site in a specific state is located by sampling vessel via Global
Positioning System (GPS) and water quality is measured on board at multiple depths. Water
samples are taken for chemistry; sediment samples are taken for chemistry, toxicity testing and
benthic community assessment; and fish trawls are conducted to collect community fish data and
provide selected fish (target species) for analysis of whole body and/or fillet contaminant
concentrations. Samples are stored in accordance with field manual instructions and shipped to
                                          87

-------
the processing laboratory. Laboratories follow QA plans and complete analyses and provide
electronic information to the state or EPA. EPA and the state exchange data to ensure that each
has a complete set. EPA analyzes the data to assess regional conditions, whereas the states
analyze the data to assess conditions of state-specific waters. Results of analyses on a national
and regional basis are reported as chapters in the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR)
series.  The overall regional condition index is the simple mean of the five indicators' scores
used in the Coastal Condition Report (in the NCCR2 a recalculation method was provided for
direct comparison of the successive reports). An improvement for one  of the indicators by a full
category unit over the eight year period will be necessary for the regional estimate to meet the
performance measurement goal (+0.2 over an eight year period).

       Assumptions: (1) The underlying target population (estuarine resources of the United
States) has been correctly identified; (2) GPS is  successful; (3) QAPP and field collection
manuals are followed; (4) all samples are successfully collected; (5) all analyses are completed in
accordance with the QAPP; and (6) all combinations of data into indices are completed in a
statistically rigorous manner.

       Suitability:  By design all data are suitable  to be aggregated to the state and regional level
to characterize water quality, sediment quality, and biotic condition. Samples represent
"reasonable", site-specific point-in-time data (not primary intention of data use) and an excellent
representation of the entire resource (extrapolation to entire resource supportable).  The intended
use of the data is the characterization of populations and subpopulations of estuarine resources
through time. The data meet this expectation and the sampling, response, analysis and reporting
designs have been peer reviewed successfully multiple times.  The data are suitable for
individual calendar year characterization of condition, comparison of condition across years, and
assessment of long-term trends once sufficient data are collected (7-10 years). Data are suitable
for use in National Coastal Condition calculations for the United States and its regions to provide
performance measurement information. The first long-term trends analysis will appear in the
2006 NCCR representing trends between 1990-2004.

QA/QC Procedures:  The sampling collection and analysis of samples are controlled by a
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) [EPA 2001] and the National Coastal Assessment
Information Management Plan (IMP) [EPA 2001]. These plans are followed by all twenty-three
coastal states and 5 island territories. Adherence to the plans are determined by field training
(conducted by EPA ORD), field audits (conducted by EPA/ORD), round robin testing of
chemistry laboratories (conducted by EPA/ORD),  overall systems audits of state programs and
national laboratory practices (conducted by EPA), sample splits (sent to reference laboratories),
blind samples (using reference materials) and overall information systems audits (conducted by
EPA/ORD). Batch sample processing for laboratory analyses  requires the inclusion of QA
samples in each batch.  All states are subject to audits at least once every two years.  All
participants received training in year 2000 and retraining sessions are scheduled every two years.

Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews have been completed in-house by EPA ORD at the
regional and national level in 2000-2003 (National Coastal Assessment 2000-2003) and by the
Office  of Environmental Information (OEI) in 2003 (assessment completed in June, 2003 and
written report not yet available; oral debriefing revealed no deficiencies). No deficiencies were

-------
found in the program.  A national laboratory used in the program (University of Connecticut) for
nutrient chemistry, sediment chemistry and fish tissue chemistry is being evaluated by the
Inspector General' s Office for potential falsification of laboratory results in connection with
other programs not related to NCA. The NCA has conducted its own audit assessment and only
one incorrect use of a chemical digestion method for inorganic chemistry samples (metals) was
found. This error was corrected and all samples "digested" incorrectly were reanalyzed at no
cost.

Data Limitations: Data limitations are few. Because the data are collected in a manner to
permit calculation of uncertainty and designed to meet a specific Data Quality Objective (DQO)
(<10% error in spatial calculation for each annual state estimate), the results at the regional level
(appropriate for this performance measure) are within about 2- 4% of true values dependent upon
the specific sample type.  Other limitations as follows: (a) Even though methodology errors are
minimized by audits, in the first year of the NCA program (2000) some errors occurred resulting
in loss of some data. These problems were corrected in 2001 and no problems have been
observed since, (b) In some instances,  (<5%) of sample results, QA investigation found
irregularities regarding the precision of measurement (e.g., mortality toxicity testing of controls
exceeded detection limit, etc.). In these cases, the data were  "flagged" so that users are aware of
the potential limitations, (c) Because of the sampling/ analysis design, the loss of data at a small
scale (~ 10%) does not result in a significant increase in uncertainty in the estimate of condition.
Wholesale data losses  of multiple indicators throughout the U.S. coastal states and territories
would be necessary to invalidate the performance measure,  (d) The only major source of
external variability is year-to-year climatic variation (drought vs. wet, major climatic event, etc.)
and the only source of internal variation is modification of reporting indicators (e.g., new indices,
not a change in data collected and analyzed).  This internal reporting modification requires a re-
analysis of earlier information to permit direct comparison, (e) There is generally a 2-3 year lag
from the time of collection until reporting.  Sample analysis generally takes one year and data
analysis another.  Add another year for report production and peer review,  (f) Data collections
are completed annually; The EPA/ORD data collection collaboration will continue through 2004.
After 2004, ORD  will  assist OW, as requested, with expert advice, but will no longer support the
program financially.

Error Estimate:  The estimate of condition (upon which the performance measure is
determined) has an annual uncertainty rate of about 2-3% for national condition, about 5-7% for
individual regional indicators  (composite of all five states data into a regional estimate), and
about 9-10% for individual state indicators. These condition estimates are determined from the
survey data using cumulative distribution functions and the uncertainty estimates are calculated
using the Horvitz-Thompson estimator.

New/Improved Data or Systems:

 (1)    Changes have occurred in the data underlying the performance measure based on
       scientific review and development.  A change in some reporting indicators has occurred
       in order to more accurately represent the intended ecological process or function. For
       example, a new eutrophication index was determined for the 2000 data.  In order to
       compare this new index to the 1991-1994 data, the earlier data results must be
                                           89

-------
       recomputed using the new technique. This recalculation is possible because the
       underlying data collection procedures have not changed.

 (2)    New national contract laboratories have been added every year based on competition.
       QA requirements are met by the new facilities and rigorous testing at these facilities is
       completed before sample analysis is initiated. QA adherence and cross-laboratory sample
       analysis has minimized data variability resulting from new laboratories entering the
       program.

 (3)    The only reason for the discontinuation of the National performance goal would be the
       elimination of the surveys after 2004 or any other year thereafter.
       In order to continue to utilize the 2001 National Coastal Condition report as the baseline
for this performance measure, the original scores reported in 2001 have been re-calculated in the
2004 report using the index modifications described above (#1). These "new" results for the
baseline (re-calculated scores) are reported in Appendix C of the 2005 report.

References:
1.    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Database (1990-1998) and National Coastal
     Assessment Database (2000- 2004) websites: www.epa.gov/emap and
     www.epa.gov/emap/nca (NCA data for 2000 is only data available at present)
2.    National Coastal Assessment. 2000-2003. Various internal memoranda regarding results of
     QA audits. (Available through John Macauley, National QA Coordinator NCA, USEPA,
     ORD/NHEERL/GED, 1 Sabine Island, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561)
3.    National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA/620/R-
     01/002.(Available through John Macauley above)
4.    National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Information Management Plan. EPA/620/R-01/003
     (Available through Stephen Hale, NCA IM Coordinator, ORD/NHEERL/AED, 27
     Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI)
5.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-
     620/R-01/005.
6.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. In
     review Assigned Report Number EPA-620/R-03/002.

                               GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 3

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Report on the conditions  and seasonal trends of water quality in the Gulf of Mexico
       hypoxic zone

Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system

Data Source: N/A
                                         90

-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures:  N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate:  N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A

References:  N/A


FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Six Year Review decisions
      (PART Measure)

   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Contaminated Candidate List
      decisions  (PART Measure)

Performance Database: EPA will track these program outputs annually using an internal data
base.

Data Source:  The source  of data will be a contractor-produced client document analysis,
detailing client use of the Drinking Water Research Program's products by the EPA's Office of
Water.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The primary indicator of output, or productivity, is
calculation of the  percentage of ORD-developed products by research theme appearing in client
produced (or secondary client-produced) documents, website content, formal communications,
regulations, rules, decisions, recommendations, and other tangible evidence over a five year
period, as identified through content analysis.

QA/QC Procedures: N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate:  N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A
                                         91

-------
References:

Bibliography of EPA's Drinking Water Research Program, product publication list. Calendar
years 2000-2004.

                               GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 1

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•      Daily per capita generation
•      Millions of tons municipal solid waste diverted

Performance Database: Data are provided by the Department of Commerce. EPA does not
maintain a database for this information.

Data Source: The baseline numbers for municipal solid waste (MSW) source reduction and
recycling are developed using a materials flow methodology employing data largely from the
Department of Commerce and described in the EPA report titled "Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States." The Department of Commerce collects materials production
and consumption data from various industries.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on domestic production of materials and products
are compiled using published data series. U.S. Department of Commerce sources are used,
where available; but in several instances more detailed information on production of goods by
end-use is available from trade associations.  The goal is to obtain a consistent historical data
series for each product and/or material. Data on average product lifetimes are used to adjust the
data series.  These estimates and calculations result in material-by-material and product-by-
product estimates of MSW generation, recovery, and discards.  To strategically support
attainment of the 35% recycling goal, EPA has identified specific components of the MSW
stream on which to focus: paper and paperboard, organics (yard and food waste), and packaging
and containers. For these targeted efforts EPA will examine data on these waste components.

There are various assumptions factored into the analysis to develop estimates of MSW
generation,  recovery and  discards. Example assumptions (from pages 141-142 of year 2000
"Characterization Report") include: Textiles used as rags are assumed to enter the waste stream
the same year the textiles are discarded. Some products (e.g., newspapers and packaging)
normally have short lifetimes and products are assumed to be discarded in the year they  are
produced.

QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control are provided by the Department of
Commerce's internal procedures and systems.  The report prepared by the Agency,
"Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States," is reviewed by a number of
experts for accuracy and soundness.

Data Quality Review: The report, including the baseline numbers and annual rates of recycling
and per capita municipal solid waste generation, is widely accepted among experts.
                                          92

-------
Data Limitations:  Data limitations stem from the fact that the baseline statistics and annual
rates of recycling and per capita municipal solid waste generation are based on a series of
models, assumptions, and extrapolations and, as such, are not an empirical accounting of
municipal solid waste generated or recycled.

Error Estimate: N/A.  Currently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) does not collect data on
estimated error rates.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Because the statistics on MSW generation and recycling are
widely reported and accepted by experts, no new efforts to improve the data or the methodology
have been identified or are necessary.

References:  U.S.  EPA, Office of Solid  Waste and Emergency Response, "Municipal Solid
Waste in  the United States: 2003 Facts and Figures" Washington, DC: EPA, Accessed January
10, 2006.     Available  only  on  the  internet   at:    

FY 2007  Performance Measure:

    •   Annual increase in the  percentage  of facilities with permits or  other approved
       controls
    •   Update controls for preventing releases at facilities that are due for permit renewals
    •   Percentage of MSW produced that is recycled

Performance  Database:    The  Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.

Data Source: Data are entered by the states. Supporting documentation and reference materials
are maintained in Regional and state files.  EPA's Regional offices and authorized states enter
data on a rolling basis.

Methods,  Assumptions  and  Suitability:    The  Resource  Conservation Recovery  Act
Information System (RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
RCRAInfo  contains information on entities (genetically  referred to as "handlers") engaged in
hazardous waste generation and management activities regulated under the portion of RCRA that
provides for regulation of hazardous waste.  RCRAInfo has several different modules, including
status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA permitting universe.

QA/QC Procedures: States and EPA's Regional offices generate the data and manage data
quality related to timeliness and accuracy. Within RCRAInfo, the application software contains
structural controls that promote the correct entry of the high-priority national components (but
does not prevent all user errors). RCRAInfo documentation, which is available to all users on-
line at http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/. provides guidance to facilitate the generation and
interpretation of data. Training on use of RCRAInfo is provided at national meetings, usually
annually, depending on the nature of system changes and user needs. Even with the increasing
                                          93

-------
emphasis on data quality, with roughly 10,000 units in the baseline (e.g., a facility can have more
than one unit), we hear of data problems with some facilities every year, particularly with the
older inactive facilities. When we hear of these issues, we work with the EPA Regional offices
to see that they get resolved. It may be necessary to make a few adjustments to the permitting
baseline as data issues are identified. Determination of whether or not the GPRA annual goal #1
(listed above) is met is based on the  legal and operating status codes for each unit. Each year
since 1999, in discussions with Regional offices and states, EPA has highlighted the need to keep
the data that support the GPRA permitting goal current.  RCRAInfo is the sole repository for this
information and is a focal point for planning from the local to national level. Accomplishments
for goal # 2 (listed above) is based on the permit expiration date code. This is a new code for the
new goal and we have made changes to the database to make this code a high priority code. We
have discussed the need for correct entry with the Regions. Since tracking this information is
new, we anticipate that we will have to work out some reporting bugs,  review the accuracy of
tracking when it begins in October 1, 2005, and make  adjustments if necessary.

       Note: Access to RCRAInfo is open only to  EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized
state personnel. It is not available to the  general public because the system contains enforcement
sensitive data. The general public is referred to EPA's Envirofacts Data Warehouse to obtain
filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste sites.

Data Quality Review: The 1995 GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information
System Are Limited (AIMD-95-167, August 22, 1995,
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf) on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System
reviewed whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing
their hazardous waste programs. Recommendations coincide with ongoing internal efforts to
improve the definitions of data collected, ensure that data collected provide critical information
and minimize the burden on states. RCRAInfo, the current national database has evolved in part
as a response to this report.

Data Limitations: The authorized states have ownership of their data and EPA  has to rely on
them to make changes. The data that determine if a facility has met its permit requirements are
prioritized in update efforts. Basic site identification data may become out-of-date because
RCRA does not mandate annual or other periodic notification by the regulated entity when site
name, ownership and contact information changes. Nevertheless, EPA tracks the facilities by
their IDs and those should not change even during  ownership changes. The baselines are
composed of facilities that can have  multiple units. These units may consolidate, split or
undergo other activities that cause the number of units to change. We aim to have static
baselines, but there may be occasions where we would need to make minor baseline
modifications. The baseline of facilities  that are currently tracked for goal #2 are "due for permit
renewals," but we anticipate that there will be some facilities that cease to be "due for permit
renewals" due to a change in facility status.

Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSW  does not collect data on estimated error rates.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  EPA has successfully implemented new tools in RCRAInfo
for managing environmental information to support Federal and state programs, particularly for
                                          94

-------
permit renewals.  RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated universe  of
RCRA hazardous waste handlers,  such as facility status, regulated activities, and compliance
history. The system also captures  detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste by large
quantity generators and on waste management practices from treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. RCRAInfo is web accessible, providing a convenient user interface for Federal, state
and local managers, encouraging development  of in-house expertise  for controlled cost, and
using commercial off-the-shelf software to develop reports from database tables.

References:  RCRAInfo documentation and data (http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/).  U.S. GAO,
"Hazardous Waste:  Benefits of EPA's Information  System  Are Limited" (AIMD-95-167),
Washington, DC: GAO, August 22, 1995. Accessed January 18, 2006. Available on the Internet
at 
-------
Directors,   Regions  1-10,  dated  December  15,   2005.   Accessed  January   18,  2006.


                               GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage facilities required to have
   Facility Response Plans
•  Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA
•  Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters by facilities subject to the Facility Response
   Plan (FRP) regulations.
•  Compliance rate of all facilities subject to Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations.
•  Compliance  rate  of inspected facilities subject  to Facility  Response  Plan  (FRP)
   regulations.
•  Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to SPCC regulations.
•  Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters per million program dollars spent annually on
   prevention and preparedness at Facility Response Plan (FRP) facilities.


Performance Database: The Office of Emergency Management has recently gone through a
reorganization bringing together the chemical and oil emergency prevention, preparedness, and
response programs of the Agency.  Additionally, the Oil Program has just undergone a PART
review. Therefore, a new reporting system is under development to take into account the recent
reorganization as well as the resulting annual and long-term measures developed through the
PART review. This system will store oil spill prevention, emergency preparedness and response
information (e.g., compliance and oil spill information).

Data Source: a new system pending. This new system will have several components. "Gallons
of oil spilled" will be determined from the  National Response Center database complemented by
other sources of data on oil spills.  OEM is completing a national database of FRP facilities that
will serve as the basis for reporting on measures related to the FRP regulation. In addition, each
Region will gather and submit data through a common reporting mechanism available to HQ and
all Regions.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Pending new database.

QA/QC Procedures:  Pending new database.

Data Quality Reviews:  Pending new database.

Data Limitations:  Pending new database.

Error Estimate: Pending new database.

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
                                         96

-------
References: For additional information on the Oil program, see www.epa.gov/oilspill


FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Percentage of emergency response readiness improvement

Performance Database: No specific database has been developed. Data from evaluations from
each of the 10 Regions are tabulated and stored using standard software (WordPerfect,
spreadsheets, etc.).

Data Source:  Data  are  collected through detailed  surveys of all  Regional programs,  and
interviews  with  personnel and managers in each  program office.  The score represents a
composite based upon data from each unique Regional and headquarters organization. Annual
increments represent annual improvements.  The survey instrument was developed based upon
Core Emergency Response (ER) elements, and has been approved by EPA Headquarters and
Regional managers.  Core ER  elements cover all aspects of the Core ER program,  including
Regional Response Centers, transportation, coordination with backup Regions, health and safety,
delegation  and warrant authorities, response  readiness, response  equipment, identification
clothing, training and exercises, and outreach.

While EPA is currently prepared to respond to chemical, biological, and radiological  incidents,
improvement in the  emergency  response  and homeland  security  readiness  measure  will
demonstrate an increased ability to respond quickly and effectively to national-scale events. The
FY 2007 Core ER target is to improve  emergency response and homeland security readiness by
10% from the FY 2006 baseline performance.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Core ER elements were developed over the last
several years by the EPA Removal Program to identify and clarify what is needed to ensure an
excellent emergency response program.  The elements, definitions, and rationales were
developed by staff and managers and have been presented to the Administrator and other high
level Agency managers. Based  on the Core ER standards, evaluation forms and criteria were
established for EPA's Regional  programs, the Environmental Response Team (ERT), and
Headquarters.  These evaluation criteria identify what data need to be collected, and how that
data translate into an appropriate score for each Core ER element. The elements and evaluation
criteria will be reviewed each year for relevance to ensure that the programs have the highest
standards of excellence and that the measurement clearly reflects the level of readiness.  The  data
are collected from each Regional office, ERT, and Headquarters using a systematic, objective
process. Each evaluation team consists  of managers and staff, from Headquarters and from
another EPA Regional office, with some portion of the team involved in all reviews for
consistency and some portion varying to ensure independence and objectivity. For instance, a
team evaluating Region A might include some or all of the following: a staff person from
Headquarters who is participating in all  reviews, a staff person from Headquarters who  is very
familiar with Region A activities, a manager from Headquarters, and a staff person and/or
manager from Region B. One staff or group will be responsible for gathering and analyzing all
                                          97

-------
the data to determine the overall score for each Regional office, ERT, and Headquarters, and for
determining an overall National score.

QA/QC Procedures: See "Methods, Assumptions and Suitability"

Data Quality Review: The evaluation team will review the data (see Methods, Assumptions
and Suitability) during the data collection and analysis process. Additional data review will be
conducted after the data has been analyzed to ensure that the scores are consistent with the data
and program information. There currently is no specific database that has been developed to
collect, store, and manage the data.

Data Limitations: One key limitation of the data is the lack of a dedicated database system to
collect and manage the data.  Standard software packages (word processing, spreadsheets) are
used to develop the evaluation criteria, collect the data, and develop the accompanying readiness
scores. There is also the possibility of subjective interpretation of data.

Error Estimate: It is likely that the error estimate for this measure will be  small for the
following reasons: the standards and evaluation criteria have been developed and reviewed
extensively by Headquarters and EPA's Regional managers and staff; the data will be collected
by a combination of managers and staff to provide consistency across all reviews plus an
important element of objectivity in each review; the scores will be developed by  a team looking
across all ten Regions, ERT, and Headquarters; and only twelve sets of data will  be collected,
allowing for easier cross-checking and ensuring better consistency of data analysis and
identification of data quality gaps.

New/Improved Data or Systems: There are no current plans to develop a dedicated system to
manage the data.

References: FY 2004/2005 Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM),
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/pdfs/appdxb3p 1 .pdf.
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures controlled
•   Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with groundwater migration controlled
•   Federal Facility Superfund sites with human exposures controlled (PART measure)
•   Federal  Facility Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater controlled (PART
    measure)
•   Number of final remedies (cleanup targets) selected at Superfund sites (PART measure)
•   Number of Superfund final assessment decisions (PART measure)
•   Number of Superfund construction completions (PART measure)
•   Number of  Federal Facility  Superfund  sites  where  all  remedies have completed
    construction (PART measure)
•   Number of Federal  Facility  Superfund  sites where the final remedial decision  for
    contaminants at the site has been determined (PART measure)
                                         98

-------
•  Voluntary removal actions overseen by EPA and completed annually (PART measure)
•  Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually (PART measure)

Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability System (CERCLIS) is the database used by the Agency to track, store, and report
Superfund site information.

Data Source: CERCLIS is an automated EPA system; headquarters and EPA's Regional offices
enter data into CERCLIS on a rolling basis.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Each performance measure is a specific variable
within CERCLIS.

QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls
are in place:  1) Superfund Implementation Manual (SPIM), the program management manual
that details what data must be reported; 2) Report Specifications, which are published for each
report detailing how reported data are calculated; 3) Coding Guide,  which contains technical
instructions to such data users as  Regional  Information Management  Coordinators (IMCs),
program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality Assurance  (QA) Unit
Testing, an extensive QA check against report specifications; 5) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry
Internal Control Plan, which includes: (a) regional policies and procedures for entering data into
CERCLIS; (b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund accomplishments are  supported by
source documentation; (c) delegation of authorities for approval of data input into CERCLIS;
and (d) procedures to ensure that reported accomplishments meet accomplishment definitions;
and (6) a historical lockout feature has been added to CERCLIS  so that changes  in past fiscal
year data can be changed only by approved and designated personnel and are logged to a change-
log report.   Specific direction for these  controls are contained in the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual  (SPIM)  Fiscal Year  2006/2007  (SPIM.   U.S. EPA, Superfund.
"Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM Fiscal Year 2006/2007." Washington, DC:
EPA.      Accessed   January    10,    2006.       Available   on    the   Internet    at:
)

CERCLIS operation and further development is taking place under the following administrative
control quality assurance procedures:  1) Office of Environmental Information Interim Agency
Life  Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.4. U.S. EPA, Office of Technology
Operations and Planning. "OEI  Information Management and Information Technology
Policies." Washington, DC: EPA.  Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
;  U.S. EPA, Office of Technology
Operations and Planning. "OEI  Information Management and Information Technology Policies,
Interim Agency Systems Life Cycle Management Policy, Agency Directive 2100.4."
Washington, DC: EPA.  Accessed January  10,  2006. Available on the Intranet at:
;  2) the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) Quality Management Plan.  U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. "OSWER Quality Management Plan." Washington, DC: EPA.
August 2003.  Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
; 3) Agency platform, software and hardware
                                         99

-------
standards. U.S. EPA, Office of Technology Operations and Planning. "Information Technology
Roadmap." Washington, DC:  EPA. Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
; 4) Quality Assurance Requirements in all
contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being developed and maintained. U.S. EPA,
Environmental Protection Agency.  "EPA's Information Quality Guidelines  (IQG)."
Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed January 10, 2006.  Available on the Internet at:
; and 5) Agency security procedures. U.S.
EPA, Office of Technology Operations and Planning. "IT Security IT Roadmap." Washington,
DC:  EPA.  Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
 In addition, specific
controls are in place for system design, data conversion and data capture, and CERCLIS outputs.

Data Quality Reviews: Two audits, one by the Office Inspector General (OIG) and the other by
Government Accountability Office (GAO), were conducted to assess the validity of the data in
CERCLIS.    The  OIG  audit  report,  Superfund  Construction Completion  Reporting  (No.
E1SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030), dated December 30, 1997, was prepared to verify the accuracy of
the information that the Agency was providing to Congress and the public. The OIG report
concluded  that the  Agency  "has good  management  controls to  ensure  accuracy of the
information that is reported," and "Congress and the public can rely upon the information EPA
provides  regarding construction completions."  The GAO's report, Superfund: Information on
the Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241), dated August 28, 1998,  was prepared to verify the
accuracy  of the information in CERCLIS on sites' cleanup progress.  The report estimates that
the cleanup status of National Priority List (NPL) sites reported by CERCLIS as of September
30, 1997, is accurate for 95 percent of the sites. U.S. General Accounting Office. "Superfund
Information on the Status of Sites."   Washington, DC:  GAO.  August 1998.  Accessed January
10, 2006.   Available on  the Internet  at:  .
Another  OIG audit, Information  Technology -  Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-
00016), dated September  30,  2002,  evaluated the accuracy,  completeness,  timeliness,  and
consistency of the  data entered into CERCLIS.  The report provided 11 recommendations to
improve controls for CERCLIS data quality. EPA concurs with the  recommendations contained
in the audit, and many of the identified problems have been corrected or long-term actions that
would  address these recommendations continue to be  underway.  U.S.  Office of Inspector
General.  "Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and  Liability  Information  System (CERCLIS) Data  Quality."    Washington, DC:   OIG.
September  2002.    Accessed  January  10,  2006.   Available   on  the  Internet  at:


The IG reviews annually the end-of-year Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) data, in an informal process, to verify the data
supporting the performance measures.  Typically, there are no published results.

The Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) was signed  in  August 2003. U.S.  EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.  "OSWER Quality  Management  Plan."  Washington, DC:  EPA.  August 2003.
                                         100

-------
Accessed     January    10,    2006.         Available    on     the     Internet    at:


Data Limitations: Weaknesses were identified in the OIG audit, Information Technology -
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002.  The Agency
disagrees with the study design and report conclusions; however, the report provided 11
recommendations with which EPA concurs.  Many of the identified problems have been
corrected or long-term actions that would address these recommendations continue to be
underway, e.g., 1) FY 02/03  SPIM Chapter 2 update was made to better define the Headquarters'
and Regional roles and responsibilities for maintaining planning and accomplishment data in
CERCLIS; 2) FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix A, Section A.A.5 'Site Status Indicators' added
language to clarify the use of the non-NPL status code of "SX"; 3) FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix A,
Section A.A.6 'Data Quality' added a section on data quality which includes a list of relevant
reports; 4) FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix E, Section E.A.5 "Data Owners/Sponsorship' was revised
to reflect what data quality checks (focus data studies) will be done by designated Regional and
headquarters staff; 5) A data quality objectives supplement for GPRA measures was added in
Change 6 to this SPIM.  For changes regarding this OIG audit, see the Change Log for this
SPIM.  U.S. EPA. Superfund. "Change Log 7."  Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed January 10,
2006. Available on the Internet at:
; 6) Draft guidance from
OCA (Other Cleanup Activity) subgroup, which outlines the conditions under which sites are
taken back from states when states have the lead but are not performing; and 7) Pre-CERCLIS
Screening: A Data Entry Guide, which provides guidance to the regions for preventing entry of
duplicate sites in CERCLIS. The development and implementation of a quality assurance
process for CERCLIS data has begun.  This process includes delineating quality assurance
responsibilities in the program office and periodically selecting random samples of CERCLIS
data points to check against source documents in site files.

Error Estimate: The GAO's report, Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites
(GAO/RECD-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, estimates that the cleanup status of National
Priority List sites reported by CERCLIS is accurate for 95  percent of the sites. The OIG report,
Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No.  2002-P-00016), dated September 30,
2002, states that over 40 percent of CERCLIS data on site  actions reviewed was inaccurate or not
adequately supported. Although the 11 recommendations  were helpful and will improve controls
over CERCLIS data, the Agency disagrees and strongly objects to the study design and report
conclusions, stating they do not focus on the program's data quality hierarchy and the
importance it places on NPL sites.

New/Improved Data or Systems: A CERCLIS modernization effort, initiated in 2002, has
been completed.  As a result of the modernization effort, CERCLIS now has standards for data
quality. Each EPA Region's CERCLIS Data Entry Control Plan, which identifies policies and
procedures for data entry, is  reviewed annually. Data quality audit fields have been added to
CERCLIS. EPA Headquarters has begun to create and share with the Regions data quality audit
reports. These reports document data quality for timeliness, completeness, and accuracy  as
                                         101

-------
determined by the Superfund data sponsors to encourage and ensure high data quality. The
modernization effort has increased the availability of CERCLIS data via Superfund eFacts, a
Superfund data mart which serves program managers in Headquarters and the Regions. In FY
2007, the program will continue its effort to improve its management of the program through the
increased availability of timely and accurate technical information to Superfund's managers. In
2007, the Agency will work to increase utilization of CERCLIS data by incorporating additional
remedy selection, risk, removal response, and community involvement data into CERCLIS.

The Business Process Reevaluation task in the modernization project has provided CERCLIS
managers with a first step in an implementation evaluation.  The document, which resulted from
the evaluation, is being used as a valuable resource for scoping the future redesign of CERCLIS
as well as the realignment of the database that will remove unnecessary data and add the new
data fields that are necessary to manage the Superfund program today. The redesign is mandated
to bring CERCLIS into the Agency's Enterprise Architecture. As part of OSRTI's effort to bring
CERCLIS into the Agency's Enterprise Architecture all Regional databases have been moved to
the National Computing Center in RTF.  This is the first step in folding the Headquarters and
Regional databases into one database. This move of the databases to RTF is being done without
changing the application, by using a commercial off the shelf (COTS) software program to
enable the Regional data entry staff to input data over the Agency's Wide Area Network.  The
initial step of moving the databases to RTF and moving all users to the COTS software has been
completed. The move to a single database will be completed during FY 2006 and implemented
in FY 2007.  The Superfund Document Management System (SDMS) will be linked to
CERCLIS. This linkage will enable users to easily transition between the programmatic
accomplishments reporting to the actual document that defines and describes the
accomplishment reported in CERCLIS.  The effort to link SDMS and CERCLIS and to
consolidate the systems will lead to common reporting (same events and data) in CERCLIS and
SDMS. This will be done by electronically extracting data from the documents in SDMS to fill
the data fields in CERCLIS - eliminating the manual data entry/human error impacts.

References: OIG audit Superfund Construction Completion Reporting, (No. E1SGF7_05_0102_
8100030)   and  Information  Technology  -   Comprehensive   Environmental  Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System  (CERCLIS) Data Quality, (No. 2002-P-00016).
U.S. Office  of Inspector General.  "Information Technology:  Comprehensive Environmental
Response,  Compensation,  and Liability Information  System  (CERCLIS) Data  Quality."
Washington, DC:  OIG. September 2002. Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet
at:   http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2002/cerlcis.pdfk   and  the   GAO   report,  Superfund
Information  on  the  Status of Sites  (GAO/RCED-98-241).  U.S.  General  Accounting Office.
"Superfund Information on the Status of Sites."    Washington,  DC:  GAO.   August  1998.
Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf).    The  Superfund Program Implementation
Manuals for the fiscal years 1987 to the current manual. U.S. EPA, Superfund. "Policies and
Guidances." Washington, DC:  EPA. Accessed January 10, 2006.  Available on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/guidance/index.htm.    The  Quality  Management  Plan
(QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (August  2003).  U.S.  EPA,
Office of Solid  Waste and  Emergency Response.  "OSWER Quality Management  Plan."
Washington, DC:  EPA. August 2003. Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
                                         102

-------
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf). Office of Environmental Information Interim
Agency Life Cycle  Management  Policy  Agency  Directive 2100.4.  U.S.  EPA,  Office  of
Technology Operations and Planning.    "OEI Information Management and  Information
Technology Policies." Washington, DC:  EPA.  Accessed January  10, 2006. Available on the
Internet at:   http://cfmt.rtpnc.epa.gov/otop/policies/infoman.cfm and  U.S. EPA,  Office  of
Technology Operations and Planning.    "OEI Information Management and  Information
Technology Policies, Interim Agency Systems Life Cycle Management Policy, Agency Directive
2100.4." Washington, DC:  EPA.  Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Intranet at:
http://intranet.epa.gOv/repolicy/ads/orders/2100_4.pdf.  EPA platform, software  and hardware
standards. U.S. EPA, Office of Technology Operations and Planning.  "Information Technology
Roadmap." Washington, DC: EPA.  Accessed January  10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf.   Quality Assurance Requirements in all contract
vehicles    under    which    CERCLIS    are   being    developed    and   maintained
(http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines).   EPA security  procedures.   U.S.  EPA,
Office of Technology Operations and Planning.  "IT Security IT Roadmap."  Washington, DC:
EPA.      Accessed   January   10,   2006.       Available   on   the   Internet   at:
http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Percentage of Superfund spending that is obligated to individual sites each year
       (PART measure)

    •   Annual Program dollars obligated per operable unit completing cleanup activities
       (PART measure)

    •   Superfund-lead removal  actions  completed annually per million dollars  (PART
       measure)

Performance Database:  Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) is EPA's financial
management system and the official system of record for budget and financial data.

Data Source: IFMS  contains records of all financial transactions (e.g., personnel, contracts,
grants, other) of Superfund appropriation resources, as distinguished by U.S. Treasury schedule
codes. Procurement data are entered manually into IFMS by Funds Control Officers throughout
the Agency. Site-specific obligations are distinguished through the Site/Project field of the
IFMS account number that is assigned to every financial transaction.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Total annual obligations include current and prior year
appropriated resources, excluding Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Science and
Technology transfers. Obligation data are generated using the OCFO Reporting and Business
Intelligence Tool (ORBIT), the Agency's system for evaluating IFMS data. Site-specific
obligation data are derived  using query logic that evaluates the Site/Project field of the  IFMS
account number. For a given fiscal year, the percentage of appropriated resources that is
obligated site-specifically is the result of dividing site-specific annual obligations by total annual
obligations.
                                          103

-------
QA/QC Procedures: The data are compliant with the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act
(FMFIA) of 1982 and received FY 2005 FMFIA certification

Data Quality Reviews: EPA received an unqualified audit opinion by the OIG for the annual
financial statements, and the auditor recommended several corrective actions. All
recommendations have been implemented by Office of the Chief Financial Officer in IFMS.

Data Limitations:  Accuracy of EPA personnel in recording their time.

Error Estimate: None.

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to replace IFMS with a new system in FY 2008.

References:

   FY 2005 FMFIA Certification
   2004 Audited Financial Statements, see http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/financial.htm
   OIG Audit "EPA Needs to Improve Change Controls for Integrated Financial Management
   System" dated August 24, 2004 (2004-P-00026)

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Current  human exposures under  control (RCRA high priority facilities)  (PART
   measure)
•   Migration of contaminated groundwater under control (RCRA high priority facilities)
   (PART measure)

Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program.

Data Source: The states and Regions enter data. A "High", "Medium", or "Low" entry is made
in the database with respect to final-assessment decision.  A "yes" or "no" or "insufficient
information" entry is made in the database  with respect to meeting the human exposures to
toxins controlled and releases to groundwater controlled indicators. An entry will be made in the
database to indicate the date when a remedy is selected and the complete construction of a
remedy is made. Supporting documentation and reference materials are maintained in the
Regional and/or state files.  EPA's Regional offices and authorized states enter data on a
continual basis.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RCRAInfo has several different modules, including a
Corrective Action Module that tracks the status of facilities that require, or may require,
corrective actions. RCRAInfo contains information on entities (genetically referred to as
"handlers") engaged in hazardous waste (HW) generation and management activities regulated
under the portion of RCRA that provides for regulation of hazardous waste. All five measures
are used to summarize and report on the facility-wide environmental conditions at the RCRA
Corrective Action Program's highest priority facilities.  The environmental indicators are used to
                                         104

-------
track the RCRA program's progress in getting highest priority contaminated facilities under
control. Known and suspected facility-wide conditions are evaluated using a series of simple
questions and flow-chart logic to arrive at a reasonable, defensible determination. These
questions were issued as a memorandum titled: Interim Final Guidance for RCRA Corrective
Action Environmental Indicators, Office of Solid Waste, February 5, 1999).  Lead regulators for
the facility (authorized state or EPA) make the environmental indicator determination; however,
facilities or their consultants may assist EPA in the evaluation by providing information on the
current environmental conditions. Remedies selected and complete constructions of remedies are
used to track the RCRA program's progress in getting highest priority contaminated facilities
moving towards final cleanup. The lead regulators for the facility make the remedies selection
and construction completion of remedies determinations.

QA/QC Procedures:  States and Regions generate the data and manage data quality related to
timeliness and accuracy (i.e., the environmental conditions and determinations are correctly
reflected by the data).  Within RCRAInfo, the application software enforces structural controls
that ensure that high-priority national components of the data are properly entered. RCRAInfo
documentation, which is available to all users on-line, provides guidance to facilitate the
generation and interpretation of data.  Training on use of RCRAInfo is provided on a regular
basis, usually annually, depending on the nature of systems changes and user needs.

Note: Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized state
personnel.  It is not available to the general public because the system contains enforcement
sensitive data.  The general public is  referred to EPA's Envirofacts Data Warehouse to obtain
filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste facilities.

Data Quality Review: GAO's 1995  Report onEPAs Hazardous Waste Information System
(http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtmhtml) reviewed whether national
RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing their hazardous waste
programs. Recommendations coincide with ongoing internal efforts (WIN/Informed) to improve
the definitions of data collected, ensure that data collected provide critical information and
minimize the burden on states.   EPA's Quality Staff of Office of Environmental Information
conducted a quality  systems audit in December 2003. The audit found the corrective action
program satisfactory.

Data Limitations:  No data limitations have been identified.  As discussed above, the
performance measure determinations are made by the authorized states and EPA Regions based
on a series of standard questions and entered directly into RCRAInfo. EPA has provided
guidance and training to  states and Regions to help ensure consistency in those determinations.
High priority facilities are monitored on a facility-by-facility basis and the QA/QC procedures
identified above are in place to help ensure data validity.

Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste does not collect data on estimated
error rates.

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has successfully implemented new tools for managing
environmental information to support federal and state programs, replacing the old data systems
                                          105

-------
(the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System and the Biennial Reporting
System) with RCRAInfo. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated
universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as facility status, regulated activities, and
compliance history. The system also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste
from large quantity generators and on waste management practices by treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities.  RCRAInfo is web-accessible, providing a convenient user interface for
federal, state and local managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled
cost, and using commercial off-the-shelf software to develop reports from database tables.

References:    U.S.  GAO, "Hazardous Waste:  Benefits of EPA's Information  System Are
Limited" (AIMD-95-167), Washington, DC:  GAO, August 22, 1995. Accessed January 18,
2006. Available on the Internet at 

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for human  exposure and
   groundwater contamination (LUST)

•  Number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for human  exposure and
   groundwater contamination on Indian country (LUST)
Performance Database: The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) does not maintain
a  national  database.   States  individually  maintain  records  for  reporting  state  program
accomplishments.

Data Source: Designated State agencies submit semi-annual progress reports to the EPA
regional offices. The data for the comparison of leaking underground storage tank cleanups will
be developed in FY 2005 for a planned reporting date of FY 2006.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures:  EPA's regional  offices verify and then forward the data in a word
processing table to OUST.  OUST staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with the
regional offices. The data are displayed in a word processing table on a region-by-region basis,
which is a way regional staff can check their data.

Data Quality Review:  None.

Data Limitations:  Percentages reported are sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations
from sample data. Data quality depends on the  accuracy and completeness of state records.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
                                         106

-------
References:  U.S.  EPA Memorandum, FY 2005  End-of-Year Activity  Report, from Cliff
Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division
Directors,  Regions  1-10,   dated  December   15,  2005.  Accessed  January  18,  2006.


                               GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 3

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Refer to DOJ, settle, or writeoff 100% of Statute of Limitations (SOLs) cases for
       Superfund sites with total unaddressed past costs equal to or greater than $200,000
       and report value of costs recovered

    •   Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial
       action at 90 percent  of Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible parties other
       than the Federal government

Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database contains information on hazardous waste
sites, potentially hazardous waste sites and remedial activities across the nation. The database
includes sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for the NPL.

Data Source: Automated EPA system; Headquarters and EPA's Regional Offices enter data into
CERCLIS

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are no analytical or statistical methods  used to
collect the information.  The  performance data collected on a fiscal year basis only. Enforcement
reports are run at the end of the fiscal year, and the data that support this measure are extracted
from the report.

QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls
are in place: 1) Superfund Implementation Manual (SPIM), the program management manual
that details what data must be reported; 2) Report Specifications, which are published for each
report detailing how reported data are calculated; 3) Coding Guide, which contains technical
instructions to such data users as Regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs),
program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit
Testing, an extensive QA check against report specifications; 5) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry
Internal Control Plan, which  includes: (a) regional policies and procedures for entering  data into
CERCLIS; (b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund accomplishments are supported by
source  documentation; (c) delegation of authorities for approval of data input into CERCLIS;
and (d) procedures to ensure  that reported accomplishments meet accomplishment definitions;
and (6) a historical lockout feature has been added to CERCLIS so that changes in past  fiscal
year data can be changed only by approved and designated personnel and are logged to  a change-
log report. Specific direction for these controls are contained in the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPIM) Fiscal Year 2004/2005
                                         107

-------
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim04.htm) and the Fiscal Year 2006/2007
SPIM (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim06.htm).

Data Quality Review: The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLIS data, in an informal
process, to verify the data supporting the performance measure. Typically, there are no
published results.

Data Limitations: None

Error Estimate: NA

New/Improved Data or Systems: None

References: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan,
approved April 11, 2001

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •  By FY 2007, complete evaluation of monitored natural attenuation  at a site with
      inorganic ground water contamination using the first version of the  evaluation
      framework developed in FY 2005

Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system

Data Source:  N/A

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  N/A

QA/QC Procedures: N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate:  N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A


                             GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 1

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•Detailed Review Papers Completed (PART measure)
•Prevalidation Studies Completed (PART measure)
•Validation by Multiple Labs Completed (PART measure)
                                       108

-------
•Peer Reviews (PART measure)
•Assays Ready for Use (PART measure)

Performance Database:  Performance is  measured by  the  cumulative  number of  actions
(usually studies) to be undertaken by the projected completion date of FY 2009. The  measures
appear as fractions where the numerator represents the total number of  cumulative actions for
the current year and the denominator represents the actions projected to be completed by  the end
of FY 2009.

Data Source:  Data are generated to support all stages of validation of endocrine  test methods
through contracts, grants  and interagency  agreements, and  the  cooperative support  of the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and  Development (OECD), and EPA's  Office  of
Research and Development (ORD). The scope of the effort includes the conduct of laboratory
studies and  associated analyses to validate  the assays  proposed for  the Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program (EDSP).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  The measures are program  outputs that  represent the
program's progress toward completing the validation of endocrine test methods. The  measures
track progress through each stage of the process rather than reporting only the  end product.
These measures are being adopted because they best show the complexity of the validation
process. For example, EPA may plan on four studies to address prevalidation issues for  a given
assay, and at the completion of the four studies, the annual performance measure (APM) would
be 4/4.  Upon review of the last study, EPA may conclude that an ambiguity exists, or  another
question has arisen that requires an additional  study. The APM would then be revised to 4/5,
showing that four studies were completed, but another study must now be completed to  address
all issues that allow EPA to move to the next phase of validation.  The denominator also could
move downward if, for instance, EPA concludes that a planned study is not needed or if an assay
performs so  poorly  during prevalidation that it is dropped  from the Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program.

Although 21 assays are being developed and  validated (denoted  by  the denominator  for the
measure "Assays  Ready for Use"), the denominators for the other measures  differ from this
number for several reasons: more than one assay may be covered in a Detailed Review Paper,
more than one prevalidation study is  required to optimize an assay and address prevalidation
questions, etc.

How various studies  are counted also requires some explanation as there are  several options.
EPA has taken the view that a study is laboratory work performed to address a specific question
whether performed in one laboratory or many labs.  Thus, a single chemical study  will  be
counted as one study, a multichemical study involving  10  chemicals in one laboratory  will  be
counted as one study, and a study of interlaboratory variability will be counted as one study for
each lab in  which testing  is  conducted. From these examples, it is apparent that laboratory
studies differ considerably in scope and complexity.

QA/QC Procedures:  Required by the EPA's Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) (40  CFR Part
792  and 40 CFR 160 Part 1), EDSP's  contractor operates an independent quality assurance unit
                                         109

-------
(QAU) to ensure that all studies are conducted under an appropriate QA/QC program.  For this
procurement, two levels of QA/QC are employed.  All prevalidation and interlaboratory studies
are conducted under a project specific Quality Assurance Program (QAP) developed by the
contractor and approved by EPA. All validation studies are conducted according to GLPs.  In
addition, EPA or its agent conducts an independent lab/QA audit of facilities participating in the
validation program.

Data Quality Review: All of the documentation and data generated by the contractor, OECD
and ORD, as it pertains to the EDSP, are reviewed for quality and scientific applicability.  The
contractor maintains  a Data  Coordination Center which manages information/data generated
under EDSP.  The contractor also conducts statistical analyses relating to lab studies, chemical
repository, and quality control studies.

Data Limitations:   There is a data lag  of approximately  9-24 months due to the variation in
length and complexity of the lab studies, and for time required for review, analysis and reporting
of data.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References:  EPA  Website;  EPA  Annual Report; Endocrine Disrupter  Screening Program
Proposed Statement  of Policy, Dec.  28,  1998; Endocrine Disrupter  Screening and Testing
Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) Final Report (EPA/743/R-98/003); EPA Contract # 68-W-01-
023.
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Number  of registrations  of reduced risk pesticides  registered (Register safer
       chemicals and biopesticides) (cumulative)
    •   Number  of new  (active   ingredients)  conventional  pesticides  registered  (New
       Chemicals)(Cumulative)
    •   Number of conventional new uses registered (New Uses)(Cumulative)
    •   Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions
    •   Reduce registration decision times for new conventional chemicals (PART measure)
    •   Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk chemicals

Performance Database:  The OPPIN  (Office of Pesticide Programs  Information  Network)
consolidates various pesticides program  databases.  It is  maintained by  the EPA and  tracks
regulatory data submissions and studies, organized by scientific discipline, which are  submitted
by the registrant in support of a pesticide's registration.  In addition to tracking decisions in
OPPIN, manual counts  are also  maintained by the office on the  registrations of reduced risk
pesticides.   Results for reduced risk pesticides, new active conventional  ingredients, and new
uses have been reported since 1996. The results are calculated on a fiscal year (FY) basis.  For
antimicrobial new uses, results have been reported since FY 2004 on a FY basis.   Both S18
                                         110

-------
timeliness and reduced risk decision times are being reported on a FY basis for the first time in
FY2005.

Data Source:  Pesticide program reviewers update the status of the submissions and studies as
they are received and as work is completed by the reviewers. The status indicates whether the
application is ready for review, the application is in the process of review, or the review has been
completed.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which when
finalized,  represent the program's statutory requirements to ensure  that pesticides entering the
marketplace are safe  for human health and the environment, and when used in accordance with
the packaging label present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While program outputs are not the
best measures  of risk reduction, registration outputs  do provide a means for reducing risk by
ensuring that pesticides entering the marketplace meet  the latest health standards, thus when used
according to the label are safe.
QA/QC Procedures: A reduced risk pesticide must meet the criteria set forth in Pesticide
Registration Notice 97-3, September 4,  1997.  Reduced risk pesticides include those  which
reduce the risks to human health; reduce the risks to non-target organisms;  reduce the potential
for contamination of groundwater, surface water or other valued environmental resources; and/or
broaden the adoption of integrated pest management strategies, or make such strategies more
available or more effective. In addition, biopesticides are generally considered safer (and thus
reduced risk).  All registration actions must employ  sound science and meet the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) new  safety standard. All risk assessments are subject  to public and
scientific peer review. The  office adheres to its Quality Management Plan (May 2000)  in
ensuring data quality and that procedures are properly applied.

Data Quality Review: These are program outputs. EPA staff and  management review the
program outputs  in accordance  with established policy for the registration of reduced-risk
pesticides as set forth in Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997.

Data Limitations: None. All required data must be submitted for the risk assessments before the
pesticide is registered. If data are not submitted, the pesticide is not registered. As stated above, a
reduced risk pesticide must meet the criteria set forth in PRN 97-3 and all registrations must
meet FQPA safety requirements. If a pesticide does not meet these criteria, it is not registered. If
an application for a reduced risk pesticide does not meet the reduced risk criteria, it is reviewed
as a conventional active ingredient.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network), which consolidates various pesticides program databases, will reduce the processing
time for registration actions.
                                          Ill

-------
References: FIFRA Sec 3(c)(5); FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3,
September 4, 1997; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996; OPP Quality Management Plan,
May 2000); Endangered Species Act.
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

ซ   Number of Tolerance Reassessments issued (PART measure)
ซ   Number of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) issued (PART measure)
ซ   Number of Product Reregistration decisions issued
.   Tolerance Reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by children (PART measure)
ซ   Number of inert ingredients tolerance/tolerance exemptions reassessed
•   Reduce decision times for REDs (PART measure)

Performance Database:  The OPPIN  (Office of Pesticide Programs Information  Network)
consolidates various EPA program databases. It is maintained by the EPA and tracks regulatory
data submissions and studies, organized by  scientific  discipline,  which are submitted by the
registrant in support of a pesticide's reregistration. In addition to tracking decisions in OPPIN,
manual counts are also maintained by the office on the reregistrations decisions. Decisions are
logged in as the action is completed, both for final decisions and interim decisions. REDs and
product reregistration decisions have been reported on a FY basis since FY 1996. Reduction in
decision times for REDs will be reported on an FY basis in FY 2005.

Data Source: EPA's Pesticides Program staff and managers.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which represent the
program's statutory requirements to  ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for
human health and  the environment and when used in accordance with the packaging  label
present a reasonable certainty of no  harm. While program outputs are not the best measures of
risk reduction, they do provide a means for  reducing risk in that the program's safety review
prevents dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace.

QA/QC Procedures: All  registration actions must employ sound science and  meet the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard. All risk assessments  are subject to public
and scientific peer review. The office adheres to the procedures for quality management of data
as outlined in its QMP approved May 2000.

Data Quality Review: Management reviews the program counts and signs off on the decision
document.

Data Limitations: None known.

Error Estimate: N/A. There are no errors associated with count data.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN, which consolidates various pesticides program
databases, will contribute to reducing the processing time for reregistration actions.
                                         112

-------
References: EPA Website http://www.epa.gov/pesticides EPA Annual Report 2002 EPA
Number 735-R-03-001; 2003  Annual Performance Plan OPP Quality Management Plan, May
2000; Endangered Species Act.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Percentage of Acre Treatments with Reduced Risk Pesticides (PART measure)

Performance Database: EPA uses an external database, Doane Marketing Research data, for
this measure. The data have been reported for trend data since FY 2001 on an FY basis.

Data  Source: Primary source is Doane Marketing  Research, Inc.  (a private sector research
database). The  database contains pesticide usage information by  pesticide, year,  crop  use,
acreage and sector.

Methods, Assumptions and  Suitability: A reduced-risk pesticide  must meet the criteria set
forth in Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997. Reduced-risk pesticides include
those  which reduce the risks to human health;  reduce the risks to non-target organisms; reduce
the potential for contamination of groundwater, surface water, or other valued  environmental
resources; and/or broaden the  adoption of integrated  pest management strategies or make such
strategies more  available or more effective. In addition, biopesticides are generally considered
safer  (and thus  reduced-risk).  EPA's  statistical and economics staff review data from Doane.
Information is also compared to prior years for variations and trends  as well as to determine the
reasons for the variability.

Doane sampling plans and  QA/QC procedures  are available to the public at their website. More
specific information about the data is proprietary and a subscription fee is required. Data are
weighted and a multiple regression procedure  is used to adjust for  known disproportionalities
(known disproportionality  refers  to  a  non  proportional sample,  which means  individual
respondents have different weights)  and ensure consistency  with  USDA and state  acreage
estimates.

QA/QC Procedures:  All registration actions  must employ sound science and meet the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard.  All risk assessments are  subject to public
and scientific peer review.  Doane data are subject to extensive QA/QC procedures, documented
at their websites. In ensuring the quality of the data, EPA's pesticide program adheres to its
Quality Management Plan (QMP), approved May 2000.

The main customers for Doan pesticide usage data are the pesticide registrants.  Since those
registrants know about sales of their own products, they have an easy  way to judge the quality of
Doane provided data.  If they considered  the  quality of the data to be poor, they would  not
continue to purchase the data.

Data  Quality Review: Doane data are subject  to extensive internal quality review, documented
at the website. EPA's statistical and economics  staff review data from Doane. Information is also
                                          113

-------
compared to prior years for variations and trends as well as to determine the reasons  for the
variability. For some crops and states, comparisons are also made with a more limited pesticide
usage database from the National Agricultural Statistics of USD A.

Data Limitations: Doane data are proprietary; thus in order to release any detailed information,
the Agency must obtain approval. There is a data lag of approximately 12-18 months, due to the
collection of data on a calendar year (CY) basis, time required for Doane to process data, lead
time for EPA to purchase and obtain data, plus the time it takes to  review and analyze the data
within the office's workload.

Error Estimate: Error estimates differ according to the data/database and year of sampling. This
measure  is compiled by  aggregating  information for many  crops  and pesticides.   While
considerable uncertainty may exist for a single pesticide on a single crop, pesticide use  data at
such a highly aggregated  level are  considered quite  accurate.     Doane  sampling plans and
QA/QC procedures are available to the public at their website. More specific information about
the data  is proprietary and a subscription fee is required.  Data  are  weighted and multiple
regression procedure is used to adjust for known disproportionah'ties and ensure consistency with
USDA and state acreage estimates

New/Improved Data  or Systems: These are not EPA databases; thus improvements are not
known in any detail at  this time.

References: EPA Website; EPA Annual Report; Annual Performance Plan and Annual
Performance  Report,  http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/download.htm; Doane  Marketing
Research, Inc.: http://www.doanemr.com; http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs and
http://www.usda.nass/nass/nassinfo; FFDCA  Sec 408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration Notice
97-3, September 4, 1997; Endangered Species Act.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Number of incidents and mortalities  to terrestrial and  aquatic wildlife caused by
       currently registered pesticides (PART measure)

Performance Database: The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) is a national
database  of information on poisoning incidents  of non-target  plants and animals  caused by
pesticide use. The fields used include the number of incidents reported for each non-target plant
or animal. The data used to report is the average for 3 years. Data are gathered on a calendar year
basis and reported on a FY basis beginning in FY 2004. There is approximately 2 year data lag.
The Environmental Fate and Effects staff for Pesticide Programs maintain this database.

Data Source: Data are extracted from written reports offish and wildlife incidents submitted to
the Agency by pesticide registrants under the  Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2), as well as  incident  reports voluntarily submitted by state and Federal
agencies  involved in investigating such incidents.
                                          114

-------
Methods, Assumptions and  Suitability:  This measure helps to provide information on the
effect of EPA's regulatory actions on the protection offish and wildlife from acute toxic effects
of pesticides. Incidents of fish and wildlife mortality caused by pesticides are summed annually
and sums are reported as three-year moving averages.  Incidents related to known misuse of
pesticides and to pesticides not currently registered in the United States are excluded,  as are
incidents for which the cause is highly uncertain.  This indicator assumes that changes in the
total number of incidents reported to the Agency reflect changes in the total number of incidents
that  are occurring.  Inherent in this  is the assumption that a consistent effort is made to
investigate and report incidents year after year.  This indicator is suitable only if fish and wildlife
mortality incidents are investigated and reported widely enough to provide adequate monitoring
of incidents  throughout the country,  and if the level of effort in investigating and reporting
incidents are reasonably consistent overtime.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the
quality of the data.  Before entering incident data in the database, a database program is used to
screen for records already in the database with similar locations and dates. Similar records are
then individually reviewed to prevent duplicate reporting. After each record is entered into the
EIIS database, an incident report is printed that contains all the data entered into the database. A
staff member, other than the one who entered the data, then reviews the information in the report
and compares it to the original  source report to verify data quality. Scientists using the incident
database are also encouraged to report any inaccuracies they find in the database for correction.

Data Quality Review: Internally and externally data quality reviews related to data  entry have
been conducted. EPA follows a quality assurance plan for accurately extracting  data from reports
and entering it into the EIIS database. This quality assurance plan is described in Appendix D of
the Quality Management Plan  for pesticides  programs. The American Bird  Conservancy has
reviewed data in the EIIS database for records related to bird kill incidents.

Data Limitations: This measure is designed to monitor trends in the numbers of acute
poisoning events reported to  the Agency. The reporting of incidents to the Agency is currently
very limited.  Very few fish and wildlife reports are  being reported by pesticide registrants under
the FIFRA 6(a)(2) requirement. This is because most fish and wildlife incidents are classified as
"minor" under the current rule,  and the registrants are required to report only aggregate data for
these minor incidents.  The aggregate data are inadequate for entering the incidents into EIIS and
including them in this index because no details are reported on individual incidents, even if they
are fish kills  or bird kills.  In 2004,  only three fish kills and one wildlife kill  were reported as
"major" incidents with adequate data to include in this index.  Incident reports voluntarily
submitted from sources other than pesticide  registrants also have been very scarce in recent
years. Since 2003,  only  two state and  regional government agencies have reported fish kill
incidents to the Agency (the California Department of Fish and Game and the US Geological
Survey) and only three  have  reported  wildlife kills  (the New York State Department of
Environmental  Conservation, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Southeast
Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study).  Many states governments have informed the Agency that
budget cuts have led to inadequate funding to investigate and  report on fish and  wildlife kills
occurring  in their states, making them unable to report these incidents to the EPA. Other states
                                           115

-------
may not be reporting because they are not aware that the EPA is collecting this information.  In
summary, the data are currently inadequate for monitoring national trends in incidents.

Error Estimate: Moving average counts of number of incidents per year may be interpreted as a
relative index of the frequency of acute toxicity effects that pesticides are causing to fish and
wildlife. The indicator numbers are subject reporting rates. If there is a change in incidents since
the baseline year, it may be due to change in tracking/reporting of kills rather than change related
to the use of a pesticides.  Also, despite efforts to avoid duplicate counting of incidents, a few
incidents likely have duplicate records in the EIIS database.  A quality assurance review of bird
kill incidents  completed  by the American Bird Conservancy in 2005 found five incidents with
duplicate records, which will be corrected

New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA is currently conducting a project with the American
Bird Conservancy to improve the quality and quantity of data on bird kill  caused by pesticides.
This project should eventually result in additional reports of bird kill incidents being submitted to
the Agency, but to date no additional incident reports have been obtained. The Environmental
Fate and Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs has begun a process to obtain an
Information Collection Request (ICR) permit, which would allow  soliciting state agencies for
voluntary submittal of any incident reports that they produce.

References: The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) is an internal EPA database.
Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2).
QMP:  Quality  Management  Plan for  the  Office of Pesticides Program,  May 20, 2000;
Endangered Species Act.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •  Percentage of high-priority chemicals for which EPA has developed short-term
      exposure limits (Acute Exposure Guideline Levels [AEGL]).  (PART measure)

Performance Database: There is no database. Performance is measured by the cumulative
number of chemicals with "Proposed", "Interim", and/or "Final" AEGL values as published by
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The results are calculated on a fiscal year basis.

 Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that
reviews  short term exposure values  for extremely  hazardous chemicals.  The supporting  data,
from both published and unpublished sources and from which the AEGL values are derived, are
collected, evaluated, and summarized by FACA Chemical Managers  and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory's scientists. Proposed AEGL values are published for public comment in the Federal
Register. After  reviewing public  comment, interim values  are presented to the  AEGL
Subcommittee of the National Academy of Sciences  (NAS) for review and  comment. After
review and comment resolution, the National Research Council under the  auspices of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) publishes the values as final.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  The work  of the National Advisory Committee's
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (NAC/AEGL, formally chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act) adheres to the 1993 U.S. National Research Council/National Academies  of
                                         116

-------
Sciences (NRC/NAS) publication Guidelines for Developing Community Emergency Exposure
Levels for Hazardous Substances.  NAC/AEGL, in cooperation with the National Academy of
Sciences'  Subcommittee on AEGLs, have developed standard operating procedures  (SOPs),
which are followed by the program. These have been published by the National Academy Press
and are referenced below.  The cumulative number of AEGL values approved as "proposed" and
"interim" by the  NAC/AEGL FACA Committee and "final" by the National  Academy of
Sciences represents the measure of performance. The work is  assumed to be completed at the
time of final approval of the AEGL values by the NAS.

QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures include public comment via the Federal Register
process; review and approval by  the FACA committee; and review and approval  by the
NAS/AEGL committee and their external reviewers.

Data Quality Review: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: This is the first time acute exposure values  for extremely
hazardous chemicals have been established according to a standardized process and put through
such a rigorous review.

References: Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
for Hazardous Chemicals, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 2001
(http://www.nap.edu/books/030907553X/html/).    NRC (National Research Council).  1993.
Guidelines for Developing Community Emergency Exposure Levels for Hazardous Substances.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

FY 2007 Performance Measure

ซ   Total EPA Cost per Chemical for which a Proposed AEGL data set is developed (PART
    measure)

Performance Database: Complete budgetary information at the program and project level is
maintained in EPA's Finance Central database. This database and other financial records are
consulted each time  the program reports  performance results.  In addition to Finance  Central,
OPPT maintains records on AEGL program income, expenditures and carry over from one year
to the next; and on  the number of FTE's allocated to the program.  Information from these
records is aggregated to determine total EPA cost per chemical for which a proposed AEGL data
set is developed.  The denominator of this ratio - number of proposed AEGL  data sets - is
tracked in separate records maintained by the program.  Specifically, there is an Access database
containing the approval  dates for proposed AEGL values and a Wordperfect file, organized by
fiscal year, that is used to record events in the AEGL process as they occur.
                                        117

-------
Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that reviews
short term exposure values for extremely hazardous chemicals. The supporting data, from both
published and unpublished sources and from which the AEGL values are derived, are collected,
evaluated, and summarized by FACA Chemical Managers and Oak Ridge National Laboratory's
scientists. Proposed AEGL values are published for public comment in the Federal Register and
then referred to the National Academies  of Science  (NAS)  for further  review and action.
Although proposed AEGLs  are  not  considered final  until so designated by the NAS, the
proposed values are suitable for many purposes.  This performance measure is tied to proposed
values rather than to final ones because actions through the proposal stage of the AEGL process
are largely  under EPA's control whereas  subsequent action to finalize the AEGL values is
largely a matter within NAS jurisdiction.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The methods involved in developing and reporting on
this  performance  measure largely consist  of simple computational steps  performed on data
relating to AEGL  cost and accomplishment.  For example, it is necessary to  track the number of
FTE's assigned to the AEGL program and then find the associated labor cost by multiplying by
standard cost-of-living factors.  Likewise,  the extramural cost associated  with managing the
program is  determined by pulling cost and budgetary data from the relevant  databases as
described above, multiplying by 70% as an estimate of the proportion of  staff and contractor
resources devoted to  proposed AEGL  development, summing as needed, and adjusting for
inflation. One assumption underlying these computations is that 70% is a reasonable estimate of
the proposal stage's share of total cost devoted to  AEGLs.  The methods,  simple as they are,
seem highly suitable for the kinds of measurement to be performed.

QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures for AEGL development include public comment via
the Federal Register process; review  and approval  by the FACA committee; and review and
approval by the NAS/AEGL committee and their external reviewers.  AEGL documents are
formally reviewed for QC purposes by designated contractors and EPA staff at critical junctures
utilizing detailed  checklists. Cost information from available records  is also  subjected to
appropriate QA/QC controls.

Data Quality Review: This is a new performance measure  and, therefore, there is no developed
track record of review and correction.   However,  appropriate oversight of the measurement
process will be provided.  Information developed in the course of measurement will be presented
to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to technical outcomes
and to provide quality oversight.

Data Limitations: No  specific  data limitations  have been identified with  respect to the
information relied upon in developing or reporting this measure.

Error  Estimate:  Not applicable. This measure does  not require inferences from statistical
samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Access databases, spreadsheets and other files are maintained
and improved on an ongoing basis. A new database is being developed to document rationales
                                          118

-------
used to develop AEGL values.   This new database  should enhance the efficiency of AEGL
development.

References: Please see www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

*   Annual reduction in the number of children aged  1-5 years with elevated blood lead
    levels (> or = 10 ug/dL). This performance measure is a direct measure of Healthy People
    2010 goal 8-11. (PART measure)

*   Percentage difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children 1-5
    years old as compared to the geometric mean  for non-low  income children 1-5 years
    old. (PART measure)

Performance Database:  Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
National Health and  Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is recognized as the primary
database in the United States for national blood lead statistics. NHANES is a probability sample
of the non-institutionalized population of the United  States.  Data are  collected on a calendar
year basis, and is currently released to the public in two year sets. The most current release is the
data set for 2001-2002, released in early 2005. Blood lead levels are measured for participants
who are at least one year old. The survey collects information on the age of the participant at the
time of the survey.

Data Source:   The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey is a survey designed to
assess the  health and nutritional status of adults and children in the U.S. The survey program
began in the early  1960s  as a periodic study, and continues as an annual survey.  The survey
examines a nationally representative sample of approximately 5,000 men, women, and children
each year located  across the U.S.   CDC's National Center for  Health Statistics (NCHS) is
responsible for the  conduct of the survey and the release of the data to the public.  NCHS and
other CDC centers publish results from the survey, generally in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report (MMWR), but also in scientific journals.   In recent years, CDC has published a
National Exposure  report based on the  data from the NHANES.  The most current National
Exposure  report was released  on July  21,  2005,   and is available  at  the web site
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/

Methods,  Assumptions,  and Suitability: Detailed interview questions cover areas related to
demographic, socio-economic, dietary, and health-related questions. The survey also includes an
extensive medical  and dental examination of participants, physiological measurements, and
laboratory tests. Specific laboratory measurements of environmental interest include: metals (e.g.
lead, cadmium, and mercury), VOCs, phthalates, organophosphates (OPs), pesticides  and their
metabolites, dioxins/furans, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). NHANES is unique in that
it links laboratory-derived biological markers  (e.g. blood, urine etc.) to  questionnaire responses
and results of physical exams. For this performance measure, NHANES has been recognized as
the definitive source.  Estimates of the number of children 1-5 years with an elevated blood lead
level based on  NHANES have been published by CDC, most recently  in May, 2005.   (See
                                         119

-------
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm). Analytical guidelines issued by
NCHS provide guidance on how many years of data should be combined for an analysis.

QA/QC Procedures:  Background documentation is available at  the NHANES web site at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.  The analytical guidelines are available at the web site
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_general_guidelinesjune_04.pdf).

Data Quality Reviews: CDC follows standardized survey instrument procedures to collect data
to promote data quality, and data are subjected to rigorous QA/QC review. Additional
information on the interview and examination process can be found at the NHANES web site at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hnanes.htm

Data  Limitations:  NHANES  is  a  voluntary survey  and selected persons may  refuse to
participate.   In addition,  the NHANES survey uses two steps, a questionnaire and a physical
exam.  There are sometimes different numbers of subjects in the interview and examinations
because some participants only complete one step of the survey. Participants may answer the
questionnaire but not provide the more invasive blood sample.  Special weighting techniques are
used to adjust for non-response. Seasonal changes in blood lead levels cannot be assessed under
the current NHANES design. Because NHANES is a sample  survey, there  may be no children
with elevated blood lead levels in the sample, but still some children with  elevated blood lead
levels in the population.

Error Estimate: Because  NHANES is  based  on  a  complex multi-stage sample design,
appropriate sampling weights should be used in analyses to produce estimates and associated
measures of variation. Recommended methodologies and appropriate weights are  provided at
the NHANES web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.  Measurement error for the blood
lead levels is anticipated.

New/Improved Data or Systems: NHANES has moved to  a continuous  sampling schedule,
scheduled release of data, and scheduled release of National Exposure reports by CDC.

References:  1) the NHANES web site, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm;  2) the National
Exposure report web site, http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/; 3) MMWR article with the most
recent  estimate   of  the   number  of  children  with  elevated  blood  lead  levels,
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm;   4)  summary information on
children's       blood        lead        levels       from       past       NHANES,
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/research/kidsBLL.htm#National%20surveys
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Annual  percentage of  lead-based  paint  certification  applications in Federally-
       managed states that require more than the 40 days of EPA effort to process (PART
       measure)
                                         120

-------
Performance Database: The National Program Chemicals Division (NPCD) in the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) maintains the Federal Lead-Based Paint  Program
(FLPP) database, an electronic database of applications for certification by individuals and firms
and applications for accreditation by training providers in states and tribal lands administered by
a Federal lead program.  The database provides a record of all applications for certification or
accreditation for Federally-managed lead programs and the actions on those applications.  The
database is augmented by hard copy records of the original applications.

Data Source:  The FLPP database is available internally to EPA Headquarters and Regional lead
program staff who process  the  applications  or oversee the processing.   The  database is
maintained on an EPA Research Triangle Park (RTF), North Carolina server. Access to the
database is granted by the Lead, Heavy  Metals, and Inorganics Branch (LHMIB) in NPCD.
Overall maintenance of the database and periodic improvements are handled by  a contractor,
currently ICF Consulting,  located  in Fairfax,  Virginia.  Data  entry  of  application data is
conducted by  a second contractor,  currently Optimus Corporation, located  in Silver Spring,
Maryland.  Optimus Corporation maintains  the  file  of the original applications.   Each EPA
Regional office maintains a file of copies of the original applications for that region.

Methods, Assumptions  and Suitability:   The number of  applications  for  certification in
Federally-managed  states and tribal lands  is  approximately  3000 per year.  Each  of these
applications is processed.  Certification is issued if all criteria are met. Some applications  may
be returned to the applicant or withdrawn by the applicant.  For the applications that are fully
processed, the length of time for EPA processing can be determined from date fields in the FLPP
database.  Accordingly, a census of all the fully processed applications for certification can be
conducted, and the percentage of applications that took more than the prescribed number of days
(e.g., 40)  of EPA effort to  process can  be  computed based on this census.  The census is
conducted every six months,  and the annual percentage calculated appropriately  from the six
month percentages.

QA/QC Procedures: NPCD  has an approved Quality Management Plan in place, dated January
2005.  Applications and instructions for applying  for certification  and  accreditation are
documented and available at the web site http://www.epa.gov/lead/traincert.htm.  Documentation
for the FLPP database is maintained internally at EPA and is available upon request.

Data Quality Reviews:  The FLPP database is an internal EPA database, maintained for the
purpose of processing and tracking applications.  The database  is interactive, and operational
usage in processing applications by Headquarters and the Regional offices provides ongoing
quality reviews.

Data Limitations:   Applications that were returned to the applicant or withdrawn by the
applicant are out of scope for this performance measure.

Error Estimate:  There is no  sampling error in this performance measure, because it is based on
a census of all applicable records.
                                          121

-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: The FLPP database is scheduled to undergo improvements in
the next few years.   The performance measurement system will help determine if there is a
change in timeliness after the improvements are implemented.

References:  1) Quality Management Plan for National Program Chemicals Division, January
2005;  2)   FLPP  database   documentation;  3)  URL  for  Applications  and  Instructions,
http://www.epa.gov/lead/traincert.htm.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

ซ   Reduce the potential for risks from leaks and spills by ensuring the safe disposal of
    large capacitors and transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Performance Database: PCB Annual Report Database. The results are calculated on a calendar
year (CY) basis. Two-year data lag and results for CY 06 will not be available until 2008.

Data Source: Annual Reports from commercial storers and disposers of PCB Waste.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data provide a baseline for the amount of safe
disposal of PCB waste annually. By ensuring safe disposal of PCBs in equipment such as
transformers and capacitors coming out of service, and contaminated media such as soil, and
structures from remediation activities, the Agency is reducing the exposure risk of PCBs that are
either already in the environment  or may be released to the environment through spills or leaks.

QA/QC Procedures: The Agency reviews, transcribes, and assembles data into the Annual
Report Database.

Data Quality Reviews:  The Agency contacts data reporters, when needed, for clarification of
data submitted.

Data Limitations: Data limitations include missing submissions from commercial storers and
disposers, and inaccurate submissions. PCB-Contaminated Transformers, of PCB concentrations
50 to 499 parts per million (ppm), and those that are 500 ppm PCBs or greater are not
distinguished in the data. Similarly,  large and small capacitors of PCB waste may not be
differentiated. Data are collected for the previous calendar year on July 1 of the next year
creating a lag of approximately one year. Despite these limitations, the data do provide the only
estimate of the amount of PCB waste disposed annually.

Error Estimate: Not available.

New/Improved Data or Systems: None

References: U.S EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, National Program Chemicals
Program, PCB Annual Report for Storage and Disposal of PCB Waste.
                                         122

-------
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Annual Percent reduction in relative risk index for chronic human health associated
       with environmental releases of industrial chemicals in commerce as measured by
       Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model (PART measure)

Performance  Database: The RSEI Model uses annual reporting from individual industrial
facilities along with a variety of other information to  evaluate chemical emissions and other
waste management activities. RSEI incorporates detailed data from EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory  (TRI)  and Integrated Risk Information System, the U.S. Census, and  many other
sources. Due to a two year TRI data lag, performance data will be unavailable for the FY 2006
Annual Performance Report. The data are based on calendar year.

Data  Source:  The RSEI model incorporates data  on chemical emissions and transfers and
facility  locations from EPA's Toxics Release Inventory;  chemical toxicity data from  EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System; stack data from EPA's AIRS Facility Subsystem and
National Emissions Trends Database and the Electric Power Research Institute; meteorological
data from the  National  Climatic Data Center; stream reach data from EPA's Reach  File 1
Database; data on drinking water systems from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System;
fishing activity data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife; exposure  factors from EPA's Exposure  Factor
Handbook; and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Methods,  Assumptions  and Suitability: The RSEI Model generates unique numerical  values
known as "Indicator Elements" using the factors pertaining to surrogate dose, toxicity and
exposed population. Indicator Elements are unitless (like an index number, they can be compared
to one-another but do  not reflect actual risk), but proportional to the modeled relative risk of
each release (incrementally higher numbers reflect greater estimated risk). Indicator Elements are
risk-related measures generated for every possible combination of reporting facility, chemical,
release  medium, and  exposure pathway  (inhalation  or ingestion).  Each Indicator Element
represents a unique release-exposure event and together these form the  building blocks to
describe exposure scenarios of interest. These Indicator Elements are summed in various ways to
represent the risk-related results for releases users are interested in assessing.  RSEI results  are for
comparative purposes and only meaningful when compared to other scores produced  by
RSEI. The measure is  appropriate for year-to-year comparisons of performance. Depending on
how the user wishes to aggregate, RSEI can address trends nationally, regionally, by state or
smaller geographic areas.

QA/QC Procedures:  TRI facilities self-report release  data and occasionally make errors. TRI
has QC functions and an error-correction mechanism for reporting such mistakes. EPA updates
off-site facility locations on an annual basis using geocoding techniques.

Data Quality Reviews: RSEI depends upon a broad array of data resources, each of which has
gone through a quality review process tailored to the specific data and managed by the providers
of the data sources. RSEI includes data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), U.S. Census, etc. All were collected for regulatory or programmatic
purposes and are of sufficient quality to be  used by EPA, other Federal  agencies, and state
                                          123

-------
regulatory agencies. Over the course of its development, RSEI has been the subject of three
reviews by EPA's Science Advisory  Board (U.S.  EPA Office of Pollution Prevention  and
Toxics, Risk  Screening Environmental  Indicators  Model,  Peer  Reviews.  Described at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html).   The RSEI  model  has undergone continuous
upgrading since the 1997 SAB Review. Toxicity weighting methodology was completely revised
and subject to a second  positive review by  SAB (in collaboration with EPA's Civil Rights
program); air methodology was revised and groundtruthed using New York data to demonstrate
high confidence; water methodology  has  been revised  in  collaboration  with EPA's  Water
program. When the land methodology has been
reviewed and revised, EPA  will have completed its  formal, written response  to the  1997 SAB
Review.

Data Limitations:  RSEI relies on data from a variety of EPA and other sources. TRI data may
have errors that are  not  corrected in the  standard TRI  QC process. In the past, RSEI  has
identified  some  of these errors and corrections have been made by  reporting companies.
Drinking water intake locations are not available for all intakes nationwide.
In coastal areas, Publicly  Owned Treatment Works (POTW) water releases may go directly to
the ocean, rather than nearby streams. EPA is  in the process  of systematically correcting
potential errors regarding POTW water releases. These examples are illustrative of the data
quality checks and  methodological improvements that are part of the RSEI development effort.
RSEI values are recalculated on an annual basis, and, resources permitting, all data sources are
updated annually.

Error Estimate: In developing the RSEI methodology, both sensitivity analyses and
groundtruthing studies have  been used to address model accuracy (documentation is provided on
the RSEI  Home Page  - www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/). For example,  groundtruthing of the  air
modeling performed by RSEI compared to site-specific regulatory modeling done by the state of
New York showed virtually identical results  in both rank order and magnitude. However, the
complexity of modeling performed in RSEI, coupled with un-quantified data limitations, limits a
precise estimation of errors that may either over- or under-estimate risk-related results.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The program regularly tracks improvements in other Agency
databases  (e.g.,  SDWIS and Reach File databases) and incorporates  newer data into the RSEI
databases. Such  improvements can  also lead to  methodological  modifications in the model.
Corrections in TRI reporting data for all previous years are captured by the annual updates of the
RSEI model.

References: The methodologies used in RSEI were first documented for the 1997 review by the
EPA Science Advisory Board. The Agency has provided  this and other updated technical
documentation on the RSEI Home Page. (RSEI Home Page - http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/)
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
Model, Peer Reviews. Described at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html
RSEI Methodology Document (describes data and methods used in RSEI Modeling)
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/method2004.pdf RSEI User's  Manual  (PDF,  1.5 MB)
explains all of the functions of the model, the data used, and contains tutorials to walk the new
user through common RSEI  tasks (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/users_manual.pdf).
                                          124

-------
A more general overview of the model can be found in the RSEI Fact Sheet (PDF, 23 KB)
(http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/factsheet_v2-l.pdf).
There are also seven Technical Appendices that accompany  these two documents and provide
additional information on the data used in the model. The Appendices are as follows: Technical
Appendix A (PDF,  121 KB) - Listing of All Toxicity Weights for TRI Chemicals and Chemical
Categories  Technical Appendix B (PDF,  290  KB) -  Physicochemical Properties for TRI
Chemicals and Chemical Categories
Technical Appendix C (PDF, 40 KB) - Derivation of Model Exposure Parameters
Technical Appendix D (PDF, 71 KB)  - Locational Data for TRI Reporting Facilities and Off-site
Facilities Technical Appendix E (PDF, 44 KB) - Derivation of Stack Parameter Data Technical
Appendix F (PDF, 84KB) - Summary of Differences Between RSEI Data and TRI Public Data
Release
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Number of new chemicals or microorganisms introduced into commerce that pose
       an unreasonable risk to workers, consumers or the environment (PART measure)

Performance Database: Implementation of this measure will require the use of several EPA
databases: Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS), pre-manufacture notice
(PMN) CBI Local Area Network (LAN),  8(e) database (ISIS), and the Focus database. The
following information from these databases will be used collectively in applying this measure:
• CBITS: Tracking information on Pre-Manufacture Notices (PMNs) received;
• PMN CBI LAN: Records documenting  PMN  review and decision,  assessment reports on
chemicals submitted for review. In addition, the information developed for each PMN is kept in
hard copy in the Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC);
• ISIS: Data submitted by industry under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(e).
TSCA 8(e)  requires  that chemical  manufacturers, processors, and distributors notify EPA
immediately of  new  (e.g.  not already reported),  unpublished  chemical  information that
reasonably  supports a conclusion of substantial risk.  TSCA  8(e)  substantial risk information
notices  most often contain toxicity  data but may  also contain information  on exposure,
environmental persistence, or actions being taken to reduce human health and environmental
risks. It is an important information-gathering tool that serves as an early warning mechanism;
• Focus: Rationale for decisions emerging from Focus meeting, including decisions on
whether or not to drop chemicals from further review.

Measurement results  are calculated on a fiscal-year basis and draw on relevant information
received over the 12-month fiscal year.

Data Source: The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), the office responsible for
the implementation of the TSCA, will compare data submitted under TSCA Section 8(e) with
previously-submitted new chemical review data (submitted under TSCA Section 5 and contained
in the PMN) to  determine the number of instances in which  EPA  failed to prevent  the
introduction of new chemicals or microorganisms into commerce which pose an unreasonable
risk to workers, consumers or the environment. Inconsistencies between the 8(e) and previously -
                                         125

-------
submitted new chemical review data will be evaluated by  applying  the methods and  steps
outlined below to determine whether the inconsistencies signify an "unreasonable risk."

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: EPA's methods for implementing this measure
involve determining whether EPA failed to prevent the introduction of chemicals or
microorganisms  into commerce that pose an  unreasonable risk  to workers,  consumers or the
environment, based on comparisons of 8(e) and previously-submitted new chemical review data.
The "unreasonable risk" determination is based on consideration of (1) the magnitude of risks
identified by EPA, (2) limitations on risk that result from specific  safeguards applied, and (3) the
benefits to industry and the public expected to be provided by the new chemical substance. In
considering risk, EPA  looks at anticipated environmental effects,  distribution and fate of the
chemical substance in the environment, patterns of use, expected  degree of exposure, the use of
protective equipment and  engineering controls, and other factors  that affect or mitigate risk.
These are the steps OPPT will follow in comparing the 8(e) data with the previously-submitted
new chemical review data.
1. Match all 8(e)  submissions in the  8(e) database  with associated TSCA Section 5 notices.
TSCA Section 5 requires manufacturers to give EPA a 90-day  advance notice (via a pre-
manufacture notice or PMN) of their intent to manufacture and/or import a new chemical. The
PMN includes  information such as  specific  chemistry identity,  use, anticipated production
volume, exposure and release information, and existing available test data. The information is
reviewed through the New  Chemicals Program to determine whether action is needed to prohibit
or limit manufacturing,  processing, or use of a chemical.
2. Characterize the resulting 8(e) submissions by the PMN review phase. For example, the 8(e)
submissions were received: a) before the PMN notice was received  by EPA, b) during the PMN
review process, or c) after the PMN review was completed.
3. Review of 8(e) data will focus on 8(e)s received after the PMN review period was completed.
4. Comparison  of hazard evaluation developed during  PMN  review with  associated 8(e)
submission.
5. Report on the accuracy of the initial hazard determination
6. Revised risk assessment developed  to determine if there was an unreasonable risk based on
established risk assessment and risk management guidelines.
The databases used and the information retrieved are directly applicable to this measurement and
therefore suitable for measurement purposes.

QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for  the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic  Substances;" June  2003) and will  ensure that  those  standards  and
procedures are applied to this effort.

Data Quality Reviews: This is a new performance measure and, therefore, there is no developed
track  record of  review and correction. However, appropriate oversight of the measurement
process will be provided. Information developed in the course of measurement will be presented
to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to technical outcomes
and to provide quality oversight. In addition, the  National  Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Advisory Council (NPPTAC), which consists of external experts providing independent review
and direction to OPPT, has provided comment on this measure.
                                          126

-------
Data Limitations: There are some limitations of EPA's review which result from differences in
the quality and completeness of 8(e) data provided by industry; for  example,  OPPT cannot
evaluate submissions that do not contain adequate information on chemical identity. The review
is also affected in some cases by a lack of available electronic information. In particular the pre-
1996 PMN cases are  only  retrievable in hard copy and may have to be  requested from the
Federal Document Storage Center. This may introduce some delays to the review process.

Error Estimate: Not applicable. This  measure does  not  require inferences from  statistical
samples and  therefore there is no estimate of statistical  error.  OPPT will  review all 8(e)
submissions received in the year with corresponding previously-submitted new chemical review
data, and not a sample of such submissions.

New/Improved Data or Systems: OPPT is currently developing an integrated, electronic
system that will provide real time access to prospective PMN review.

References: OPPT New Chemicals Program
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/, TSCA Section 8(e) - Substantial Risk
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/sect8e.htm,
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tsca8e/index/htm
"Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Percent change relative to base year in cost savings from new chemical prescreening.
    (PART measure)

Performance Database: Implementation of this measure will require the use of several EPA
databases, all of which play a role in tracking premanufacture notices (PMNs) and the action
EPA decides to take on such notices. The principal databases involved in PMN tracking, with
separate identification of prescreened chemicals, are:

          o  Chemical Control Division tracking database:  Records basic identifying and
             status information on each PMN submitted to EPA, including name of submitter,
             identity  of technical contact at company, actions taken by EPA. Enables
             chemicals to be tracked quickly and easily through the PMN review process.

          o  Management Information Tracking System (MITS): Contains non-CBI data on
             all PMNs, including chemical identification and actions taken by EPA.

          o  New Chemicals Focus meeting database:  Contains information on the decisions
             reached at Focus meetings, including whether to drop chemical from further
             review, to pursue regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
             Section  5(e) to prohibit or limit activities associated with the new chemical or to
             pursue regulation under a non-5(e) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to require
                                         127

-------
              manufacturers, importers and processors to notify EPA at least 90 days before
              beginning any activity that EPA has designated as a "significant new use," or,
              alternatively, to refer the chemical for full-scale standard review. It is critical to
              know the number and percentage of PMNs going to these outcomes in order to
              perform base year cost savings calculations in support of the cost savings
              measure.

          o   Sustainable Futures prescreening tracking databases: Contain information on
              PMNs which display evidence of chemical prescreening using OPPT screening
              methods, including data on the types of assessments and model evaluations
              performed by the submitter, and contact information on Sustainable Futures
              participants including date(s) attended EPA training.

          o   Measurement results are calculated on a fiscal year basis and draw upon relevant
              information collected over the  12-month fiscal year.

Data Source:  The major data sources involved in this measurement are fully described under
"Performance Database," above. No external data sources play a significant role in the
calculation of measurement results.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: EPA measures percent change in cost savings as a
result of chemical prescreening relative to a base year by: 1) determining the base year pre-
screening rate and base year cost savings; 2) calculating the current year prescreening rate
(prescreened PMNs as a percentage of total PMNs) and; 3) determining the actual percent
change in cost savings due to prescreening by multiplying the base year cost savings by the ratio
of the current year prescreening rate to the base year prescreening rate. Finally, the actual
percent change in cost savings relative to the base year can be compared to the target percent
change of 6.67%. This procedure assumes, quite reasonably, that cost savings from prescreening
will generally change in rough proportion to the change in the prescreening rate.

The methods used in calculating base year information are as follows:

          o   Determine base year prescreening rate by checking the data systems described
              above to obtain the number of new prescreened chemicals going through the PMN
              review process and the total number of chemicals undergoing such review.  The
              prescreening rate is simply the ratio of prescreened chemicals to total chemicals
              undergoing PMN review.

Determine base year cost savings by :

          o   Checking the relevant databases to determine the number and percentage of base
              year PMNs that are (a)  prescreened PMNs and (b) non-prescreened PMNs

          o   Estimating the number of prescreened PMNs that would have gone to regulation
              or standard review if there were no prescreening program (this is done by
              multiplying the number of prescreened PMNs by the percentage of non-
                                          128

-------
             prescreened PMNs that go to one of the "post-Focus meeting outcomes" of
             standard review, regulation under TSCA Section 5(e), or issuance of a non-5(e)
             SNUR)

          o  Subtracting the number of actual prescreened PMNs going to one of the post-
             Focus meeting outcomes from the projected number derived in the previous step,
             is the estimated number of PMNs avoiding a post-Focus meeting outcome. The
             rationale is that some some pre-screened PMNs still end up requiring post-Focus
             action, but at a lower rate than for PMNs which are not pre-screened. The
             hypothetical number estimated in this step, the difference between the projected
             and actual numbers of pre-screened PMNs requiring a post-Focus meeting
             outcome, represents the number of cases to have avoided post-Focus action as a
             result of pres-screening.

          o  Multiplying the number of cases estimated to have avoided post-Focus action as a
             result of pre-screening by unit cost factors to obtain estimates of the cost savings
             realized by avoidance of post-Focus meeting outcomes due to prescreening. (unit
             cost factors are generated separately from information/estimates maintained by
             EPA on the labor hours (Agency and contractor) associated with each post-Focus
             meeting outcome and the EPA cost per labor hour)

          o  Summing the cost savings realized by avoidance of specified post-Focus meeting
             outcomes to arrive at total cost savings for the base year.

QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances," June 2003) and will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort.

Data Quality Reviews: This is a new performance measure and, therefore, there is no developed
record of review and correction. However, appropriate oversight of the measurement process
will be provided. Information developed in the course of measurement will be presented to
senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to  technical outcomes and
to provide quality oversight.

Data Limitations: No specific  data limitations have been identified with respect to the measure
presented here, except to the extent that the measure requires certain assumptions, discussed
above, in addition to inputs of hard data.

Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure does not require inferences from statistical
samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error.

New/Improved Data or Systems: OPPT is currently developing an integrated electronic system
that will provide real time access to prospective PMN review.
                                          129

-------
References: Additional information on EPA's New Chemicals program for TSCA Section 5 can
be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/index.htm.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Percentage of High Production  Volume (HPV) chemicals  identified  as  priority
       concerns through assessment of Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) and other
       information with risks eliminated or effectively managed

Performance Database:  EPA  will track the  number  of agency actions  (e.g.,  regulatory,
voluntary), targeting  risk elimination or management of high production volume chemicals,
using internal program databases  or the Agency's Regulation and  Policy Information Data
System (RAPIDS). Many types of Agency actions qualify as  risk management or elimination
actions. Issuance of  a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under TSCA is  an  example of
regulatory action that can be tracked by the RAPIDS Promulgation Data field. An example of a
non-regulatory risk management/elimination action is a  written communication from EPA to
chemical manufacturers/users indicating the Agency's concerns and suggesting but not requiring
actions to  address chemical risks (chemical substitution, handling  protections, etc.).  These
actions would be tracked by monitoring internal communications files. The results are calculated
on a calendar-year basis.

Data Source: RAPIDS stores official Agency data on progress of rule-making and other policy
program development efforts. Data are supplied by EPA  programs managing these efforts. For
voluntary actions not tracked in RAPIDS,  performance data are tracked internally  by  program
managers.

Methods,  Assumptions and Suitability: As EPA identifies HPV chemicals that are priorities
for risk management  action, following protocols currently under development, the Agency will
commence regulatory or non-regulatory actions to address identified risks. All such actions will
be recorded for the HPV chemical(s) subject to those actions, enabling EPA to report on progress
in responding to the risks  on a chemical- or  chemical-category-specific basis. This annual
performance measures (APM) commits the Agency to eliminate or effectively manage all such
risks. Using data contained in RAPIDS, in the case of regulatory risk management action, EPA's
progress towards meeting this APM will be documented by the sequence of formal regulatory
development  steps  documented  in  that  system.  Where risk  management action  takes
nonregulatory form, such as issuance of advisory communications to chemical manufacturers or
users, progress toward meeting this APM  will be tracked by  internal files documenting such
actions. The definition of risk is being addressed in the  development of the protocols used in the
HPV screening/prioritization process.

QA/QC Procedures:  RAPIDS entries are quality assured by senior Agency managers.

Data Quality Reviews: RAPIDS entries are reviewed by EPA's Regulatory Management Staff.

Data Limitations: N/A
                                         130

-------
Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: N/A

References: None


FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•     The cumulative number of chemicals for which VCCEP data needs documents are
      issued by EPA in response to industry-sponsored Tier I risk assessments.

Performance Database: Internal VCCEP program activity tracking database. Data needs
documents are issued by EPA to conclude work on all Tier I submissions. Documents may
indicate data are sufficient to reasonably demonstrate that children are not subject to significant
risks.  Documents also may indicate that additional assessment and associated data development
are required, commencing Tier 2 work. The results are calculated on a calendar-year basis.

Data Source: Formal EPA files of VCCEP Tier I data needs communications. Data needs are
also subject to peer review, results of which are posted and made public on the Toxicology
Excellence for Risk Assessment website found at http://www.tera.org/peer/MeetingReports.html

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Information is tracked directly through internal record-
keeping systems. No models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.

QA/QC Procedures: The VCCEP program operates under Information Quality Guidelines as
found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/

Data Quality Reviews: The VCCEP program operates under Information Quality Guidelines as
found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/

Data Limitations: None known

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: None

References:  http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/vccep/index.htm

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Number of risk management plan audits completed

Performance Database:  There is no database for this measure.

Data Source: EPA's Regional offices and the states provide the data to EPA headquarters.
                                        131

-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data are collected and analyzed by surveying EPA's
Regional offices to determine how many audits of facilities' risk management plans (RMPs)
have been completed.

QA/QC Procedures:  Data are collected from states by EPA's Regional offices, with review at
the Regional and Headquarters' levels.

Data Quality Review: Data quality is evaluated by both Regional and Headquarters' personnel.

Data Limitations: Data quality is dependent on completeness and accuracy of the data provided
by state programs.

Error Estimate: Not calculated.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A

Reference: N/A

                           GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•      Brownfields properties assessed
•      Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding
•      Acres of Brownfields property available for reuse
•      Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities
•      Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed
•      Billions  of dollars of cleanup and  redevelopment  funds leveraged at Brownfields
       sites
•      Acres of Brownfields made ready for reuse per million dollars.
Performance Database:  The Assessment,  Cleanup  and Redevelopment Exchange System
(ACRES) contains the performance information identified in the above measures.
Key fields related to performance measures include:
Properties with Assessment Completed with Pilot/Grant Funding
Properties assessed with Targeted Brownfields Assessment Funding
Properties with Cleanup Complete
Acres Made Ready for Reuse
Cleanup/Redevelopment Jobs Leveraged
Assessment/Cleanup/Redevelopment Dollars Leveraged
Number of Participants Completing Training
Number of Participants Obtaining Employment
                                        132

-------
Data Source:  Data are extracted from quarterly reports and property profile forms prepared by
assessment, cleanup, revolving loan fund (RLF), job training, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary
Response  Program cooperative  agreement  award  recipients.   Information on  Targeted
Brownfields Assessments is collected from EPA Regions.

Methods, Assumptions and Sustainability:  Cooperative agreement award recipients submit
reports quarterly (except for 128(a)) and property profile forms to EPA.  Performance measure
data are extracted from these documents by an EPA contractor.  Data are then forwarded to
Regional Pilot managers for review and finalization.   Given the reporting cycle and the data
entry/QA period, there is typically a six month data lag for BMS data.

Note that accomplishments reported by Brownfields Assessment Grantees, Brownfields Cleanup
Grantees, Brownfields  Revolving Loan Fund  Grantees,  Brownfields Job Training  Grantees,
Regional Targeted Brownfields  Assessments, and State  and Tribal  128 Voluntary  Response
Program Grantees all contribute towards these performance measures.  "Number of Brownfields
properties assessed" is an  aggregate of assessments completed with Assessment Grant funding,
Regional Targeted Brownfields Assessment funding, and State  and  Tribal  128  Voluntary
Response Program funding.   Number  of Brownfields  properties cleaned up is an aggregate of
properties cleaned up by RLF Grantees, Cleanup Grantees, and State and Tribal  128 Voluntary
Response Program Grantees.  "Number of Acres  Made Ready for Reuse" is an aggregate of
acreage assessed that does  not require cleanup and acreage cleaned up as reported by Assessment
Grantees, Regional Targeted Brownfields Assessments, Cleanup Grantees, RLF Grantees, and
State  and  Tribal  128  Voluntary  Response Program Grantees.  "Number of cleanup  and
redevelopment jobs leveraged" is the aggregate of jobs leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup and
RLF Grantees.  "Amount  of cleanup  and redevelopment  funds leveraged at Brownfields
properties"  is the aggregate  of funds  leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup  and RLF  Grantees.
"Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed" is based on the "Number of Participants
Completing Training" and the "Number of Participants Obtaining Employment" reported by Job
Training Grantees.

QA/QC Procedures:  Data reported by cooperative award  agreement recipients are reviewed by
EPA Regional project officers or project managers for accuracy. Reports are produced monthly
with detailed data trends analysis.

Data Quality Reviews: No external reviews.

Data Limitations:  All data provided voluntarily by grantees.

Error Estimate: NA

New/Improved Data or  Systems:  The Brownfields  Program has developed the Assessment
Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES database) to improve data collection
and management.   The Brownfields Program will implement online  QA for Regional project
officers using the  ACRES database in FY 2006.    The Program is  also in the process of
amending the OMB ICR to  gather information from State and Tribal 128 Voluntary  Response
Program grantees.
                                         133

-------
References: none.

                                GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 3

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Acres of habitat protected or restored in National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas
    [Ocean and Coastal PART measure]
•   Program dollars per acre of habitat protected or restored [Ocean and Coastal PART
    efficiency measure]

Performance Database: The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds has developed a
standardized format for data reporting and compilation, defining habitat protection and
restoration activities and specifying habitat categories. The key field used to calculate annual
performance is habitat acreage. Annual results have been reported since 2001 for the NEP
(results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).

Information regarding habitat protection is accessible on a web page that highlights habitat
loss/alteration, as well as the number of acres protected and restored by habitat type
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.htm. This allows EPA to provide a
visual means of communicating NEP performance and habitat protection and restoration
progress to a wide range of stakeholders and decision-makers.

Data Source:  NEP documents such as annual work plans (which contain achievements made in
the previous year), annual progress reports and other implementation tracking materials, are used
to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. EPA aggregates the data
provided by each NEP to arrive at a national total for the entire Program.  EPA is confident that
the data presented are as accurate as possible Each NEP reviews the information prior to
reporting to EPA.  In addition, EPA conducts regular reviews of NEP implementation to help
ensure that information provided in these documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact
being achieved.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Measuring the number of acres of habitat restored and
protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of the habitat reported,-or of
the estuary overall, but it is a suitable measure of on-the-ground progress. Habitat acreage does
not necessarily correspond one-to-one with habitat quality, nor does habitat (quantity  or quality)
represent the only indicator of ecosystem health. Nevertheless, habitat acreage serves as an
important surrogate and a measure of on-the-ground progress made toward EPA=s annual
performance goal of habitat protection and restoration in the NEP. EPA has defined and
provided examples of Aprotectionฎ and Arestorationฎ activities for purposes of measure tracking
and reporting (see citation for the PIVOT website in references below.) "Restored and protected"
is a general term used to describe a range of activities. The term is interpreted broadly to include
created areas, protected areas resulting from acquisition, conservation easement or deed
restriction, submerged aquatic vegetation coverage increases, permanent shellfish bed openings,
and anadromous fish habitat increases.
                                          134

-------
The  NEP "Habitat Acres Protected or Restored" efficiency measure will be  calculated by
dividing the total ocean and coastal protection program dollars by the total NEP acres protected
or restored.  The measure is based on the habitat data collected by the NEPs, as described above
and reported in the annual habitat measure), and the total program dollars, which is the sum of
the NEP/Coastal budget  (including the additional funds for Long Island Sound), the Marine
Pollution budget, and the program match as reported by the NEPs.

QA/QC Procedures:  Primary data are prepared by the staff of the NEP based on their own
reports and from data supplied by other partnering agencies/organizations (that are  responsible
for implementing the action resulting in habitat protection and restoration). The NEP staff are
requested to follow EPA guidance to prepare their reports, and to verify the numbers. EPA then
confirms that the national total accurately reflects the information submitted by each program.
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was approved
in July 2001. EPA requires that each organization prepare a document called a Quality
Management Plan (QMP) that documents the organization's data quality policy, which addresses
the quality, generation and use of the organization's data  and identifies the environmental
programs to which the quality system applies (e.g., programs that rely on the collection or use of
environmental data.)

Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews conducted yet.

Data Limitations: It is still early to determine the full extent of data limitations. Current data
limitations include: information that may be reported inconsistently (based on different
interpretations of the protection and restoration definitions), acreage that may be miscalculated
or misreported, and acreage that may be double counted (same parcel may also be counted by
partnering/implementing agency or need to be replanted multiple years). In addition, measuring
the number of acres of habitat restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements
in the health of the habitat reported (particularly in the year of reporting), but is rather a measure
of on-the-ground progress made by the NEPs.

Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.

New/Improved Data or Systems: In 2004, NEP provided latitude  and longitude data (where
possible) for each project.  These data are then mapped to highlight where these projects are
located in each NEP study area.  Not only does this assist both the individual NEP and EPA in
obtaining a sense of geographic project coverage, but it provides a basis from which to begin
exploring cases where acreage may be double-counted by different agencies. An on-line
reporting system is also being developed for the NEPs= use that will assist in tracking habitat
projects, and will help reduce EPA=s QA/QC time. Currently, this system is scheduled to be in
place by September 2005.

References: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as well as data
submitted by the individual National Estuary Programs, is displayed numerically, graphically,
and by habitat type in the  Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool  (PIVOT).
PIVOT data are publicly available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/
                                          135

-------
intro.htm. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (July 2001) is available on the Intranet
at http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/infopolicy.html.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   By 2008, working with partners, achieve a net increase of 400,000 acres of wetlands

Performance Database: The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service produces information on the characteristics, extent, and status of the Nation's wetlands
and deepwater habitats. This information is used by Federal, State, and local agencies, academic
institutions, U.S. Congress, and the private sector.  The Emergency Wetland Resources Act of
1986 directs the Service to map the wetlands of the United States.  The NWI has mapped 89
percent of the lower 48 states, and 31 percent of Alaska.  The Act also requires the  Service to
produce a digital wetlands database for the United States. About 42 percent of the lower 48 states
and 11 percent of Alaska are digitized. Congressional mandates require the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to produce a status and trends reports to Congress at ten-year intervals.

The status and trends report is designed to provide recent and comprehensive estimates of the
abundance of wetlands in the 48 conterminous States. This status and trends report indicates
whether there is an actual increase in wetland acreage or if wetlands are continuing to decrease.
Up-to-date status and trends information is needed to periodically evaluate the efficacy of
existing Federal programs and policies, identify national or regional wetland issues, and increase
public awareness of and appreciation for wetlands.

The last status and trends report26 provided the most recent and comprehensive estimates of the
current gains and losses for different types of wetlands in the United States on public and private
lands from calendar year 1986 to 1997. In calendar year 1997, there were an estimated 105.5
million acres of wetlands in the conterminous United States. Of this total, 100.5 million acres
(95 percent) are freshwater wetlands and 5 million acres  (5  percent) are saltwater wetlands.

The President directed in his Earth Day 2004 announcement that the next  National Wetlands
Inventory update, status and trends report, should be completed by the end  of 2005, five years
ahead of the current schedule,  and asked that the updates be done more frequently thereafter.
The next Status and Trends Report is expected to be released by the Fish and Wildlife Service in
January 2006,  and every five years thereafter.  This new information will  show whether,
nationally, we  are making progress  against the net gain  measure and should  inform Federal,
State, Tribal, local government programs' policies and decision making.

Data Source:   The National Status and Trends Report is developed and published by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This is the only Federal study that provides  statistically valid
estimates with a published standard error for all wetlands in the conterminous United States.
Aerial imagery is the primary data source, and it is used with reliable collateral data such as
topographic maps, coastal navigation charts, published soil surveys, published wetland maps,
26 Dahl, I.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, B.C. 82pp.
                                           136

-------
and State, local or regional studies.  A random number of sites are also field verified. All
photography is cataloged, numbered, tagged, and traced in a database management system.

For each plot, aerial imagery is interpreted and annotated in accordance with procedures
published by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The results are compared with previous era imagery,
and any changes recorded. The differences between the data sets are analyzed and a statistical
estimate of the change is produced.

The five major kinds of wetlands are: 1) freshwater (or palustrine), 2) saltwater (or estuarine), 3)
riverine, 4) lacustrine (or lakes and other deepwater habitats), and 5) marine wetlands. For
analysis and reporting purposes, these types of wetlands were further divided into subcategories
such as freshwater forested wetland, freshwater emergent wetland, estuarine and marine
intertidal wetlands.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  An interagency group of statisticians developed the
design for the national status and trends study published in 2000. The study was based on a
scientific probability sample of the  surface area of the 48 coterminous States.  The area sampled
was about 1.93 billion acres and the sampling did not discriminate based on land ownership.  The
study used a stratified, simple random sampling design. About 754,000 possible  sample plots
comprised the total population.  Geographic  information system software was used to organize
the information of about 4,375 random sample plots. The plots were examined with the use of
remote sensed data in combination with field work.  Estimates of change in wetlands were made
over a specific time period.  A similar study design was used for the Status and Trends report due
out in January 2006.
QA/QC Procedures:  The Service has developed and implemented quality assurance measures
that provide appropriate methods to take field measurements, ensure sample integrity and
provide oversight of analyses, which includes reporting of procedural and statistical confidence
levels. The objective was to produce comprehensive, statistically valid acreage estimate of the
Nation's wetlands. Because of the sample-based approach, various quality control and quality
assurance measures were built into the data collection, review, analysis, and reporting stages.
This includes field verification of the plots. Six Federal agencies assist with field verification
work.

Data Quality Reviews: Not Applicable

Data Limitations: Certain habitats were excluded because of the limitations of aerial imagery
as the primary data source to detect wetlands. This was consistent with previous wetland status
and trends studies conducted by FWS.

Error Estimate:  Estimated procedural error ranged from 4 to 6 percent of the true values when
all quality assurance measures have been completed. Procedural error was related to the ability
to accurately recognize and classify wetlands both from multiple sources  of imagery and on the
ground evaluations. Types of procedural errors were missed wetlands, inclusion of upland as
wetland, misclassification of wetlands, or misinterpretation of data collection protocols.  The
                                           137

-------
amount of procedural error is usually a function of the quality of the data collection conventions;
the number, variability, training and experience of data collection personnel; and the rigor of any
quality control or quality assurance measures.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Advances in computerized cartography were used to improve
data quality and geospatial integrity.  Newer technology allowed the generation of existing
digital plot files at any scale to overlay directly over an image base.

References:
http://wetlands.fws.gov/index.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/Pubs Reports/publLhtm

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•  Annually, beginning in FY04 and in partnership with the Corps of Engineers and
   states, achieve no net loss of wetlands in the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory
   program

Performance Database:  Since 1989, the goal of the Clean Water Act Section 404 program has
been no net loss of wetlands.

Historically, the Corps has collected limited data on wetlands losses and gains in its Regulatory
Analysis and Management System (RAMS) permit tracking database.  The Corps has compiled
national Section 404 wetland permitting data for the last 10 years reflecting acres of wetland
impacts avoided (through the permit process), acres permitted for impacts, and acres mitigated.
However, limitations in methods used for data collection, reporting and analysis resulted in
difficulties in drawing reliable conclusions regarding the effects of the Section 404 program.

Data Source:  Data included in RAMS is generally collected by private consultants hired by
permit applicants or Corps Regulatory Staff. Data input is generally done by Corps staff.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RAMS was designed to be an administrative aid in
tracking permits, thus it lacks many of the fields necessary to adequately track important
information regarding wetland losses and gains. Also, the database was modified differently for
each of the 38 Corps Districts making national summaries difficult. Furthermore, the database is
also proprietary making it difficult to retrofit without utilizing its original developers.

QA/QC Procedures: Historically, there has not been a high level of QA/QC with regard to data
input into RAMS.  Its antiquated format and numerous administrative fields discourage use.
Lack of standard terms and classification also make all aspects of data entry problematic.

Data Quality Reviews:  Independent evaluations published in 2001 by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) provided a critical evaluation of the
effectiveness of wetlands compensatory mitigation (the restoration, creation, or enhancement of
wetlands to compensate for permitted wetland losses) for authorized losses of wetlands and other
                                          138

-------
waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.  The NAS determined that available data was
insufficient to determine whether or not the Section 404 program was meeting its goal of no net
loss of either wetland area or function.  The NAS added that available data suggested that the
program was not meeting its no net loss goal.  Among its suite of recommendations, the NAS
noted that wetland area and function lost and regained over time should be tracked in a national
database and that the Corps should expand and improve quality assurance measures for data
entry.

In response to the NAS, GAO, and other recent critiques of the effectiveness of wetlands
compensatory mitigation, EPA and the Corps in conjunction with the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and Transportation released the National Wetlands Mitigation
Action Plan (MAP) on December 26, 2002. The Plan includes 17 tasks that the agencies will
complete in FY 07 to improve the ecological performance and results of compensatory
mitigation. (Note: some Mitigation Action Plan items may be subsumed by the Corps' mitigation
rulemaking expected to be finalized in calendar year 2006.)

Data Limitations: As previously noted, RAMS currently provides the only national data on
wetlands losses and gains in the Section 404 Program. Also, as previously noted, there are a
number of concerns regarding the conclusions that can be drawn from these numbers.  Data
quality issues include:

1. Inability to separate restoration, creation, enhancement and preservation acreage from the
aggregate "mitigation" acreage reported;
2. Lack of data regarding how much designated mitigation acreage was actually undertaken, and
how much of that total was successful;
3. Lack of data regarding how much of the permitted impacts actually occurred; and
4. Limitations on identifying acres "avoided," because the figure is only based on the difference
between original proposed impacts and impacts authorized. Often, permit applicants who are
aware of the 404 program's requirements to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, make
initial site selection and site design decisions that minimize wetland impacts prior to submitting a
permit application. Such avoidance decisions benefit applicants, as their applications are more
likely to be accepted and processed with minor changes. This behavioral influence that the
program engenders is difficult to capture and quantify, but contributes considerable
undocumented "avoided" impacts.

Error Estimate:  Not applicable

New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA and the Corps have acknowledged the need for
improved 404 tracking. The Corps is currently piloting a new national permit tracking database
called ORM (Operation and maintenance business  information link, Regulatory Module) to
replace its existing database (RAMS).  As part of the MAP, the Corps is working with EPA and
the other Federal agencies and states to ensure that the version of ORM that is ultimately
deployed will adequately track wetlands gains and  losses.  The Corps expects to deploy ORM in
all 38 of its districts at the start of 2007, enabling national reporting in early 2008. The Corps, in
coordination with EPA and other federal agencies has invested in the development of a GIS-
enabled version of the ORM data management system, known as G-ORM and plans to beta test
                                          139

-------
it in three Corps Districts by Fall 2006.  The G-ORM enhancement will improve the
environmental results of the CWA Section 404 Program and reporting of aggregate wetland data
under it, by spatially-enabling wetland permit decision-making, improving tracking of permitted
losses and required compensation, and ensuring public and interagency access to wetland
permitting information via a system of web-services and web-mapping tools.

ORM is being designed to provide improved tracking regarding:

•      Type of impacts
•      Type and quantity of habitat impacted (Using Hydrogeomorphic and Cowardin
       classification systems)
•      Type and quantity of habitat mitigated (Using Hydrogeomorphic and Cowardin
       classification systems)
•      Type and quantity of mitigation (restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation)
•      Differentiating stream mitigation (in linear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in acres)
•      Spacial tracking via  G-ORM GIS enhancements  for both impact and mitigation sites
       (planned)
•      Functional losses (debits) at the impact site and functional gains at the mitigation site
       (credits) if assessment tool is available and applied

References:
http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems so that overall ecosystem health
    of the Great Lakes is improved

Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office  (GLNPO) will collect
and track the eight (8) components of the index and publish the performance results as part of
annual reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and as online
reporting of GLNPO's monitoring program,  .
Extensive databases for the indicator components are maintained by GLNPO (phosphorus
concentrations, contaminated sediments, benthic health, fish tissue contamination), by binational
agreement with Environment Canada (air toxics deposition), and by local authorities who
provide data to the USEPA (drinking water quality, beach closures). A binational team of
scientists and natural resource managers is working to establish a long term monitoring program
to determine extent and quality of coastal wetlands.

Data Source: Data for the index components are tracked internally and reported through the
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference  (SOLEC)  process.  The document, "State of the Great
Lakes 2005 -A Technical Report," presents detailed  indicator reports prepared by primary
authors, including listings of data sources. Depending on the indicators, data sources may include
U.S. and Canadian federal agencies, state and provincial agencies, municipalities, research
reports and published scientific literature.  Information from the following indicators is used to
evaluate the Index components:
                                          140

-------
       Coastal Wetlands group of indicators:
             Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
             Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
             Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
             Coastal Wetland Area by Type
             Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
             Effects of Water Levels Fluctuations
       Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
       Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
       Benthic Health group of indicators:
             Hexagenia
             Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod Diporeia spp.
       Contaminants in Sport Fish
       Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures
       Drinking Water Quality
       Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Index is based on a 40 point scale where the
rating uses select Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal wetlands,
phosphorus concentrations, Area of Concern (AOC) sediment contamination, benthic health, fish
tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition). Each
component of the Index is based on a 1 to 5 rating system, where 1 is poor and 5 is good.
Authors of SOLEC indicator reports use best professional judgment to assess the overall status of
the ecosystem component in relation to established endpoints or ecosystem objectives, when
available.  Each indicator is evaluated for Status (good, fair, poor, mixed) and Trend (improving,
unchanging, deteriorating, undetermined). To calculate the Index, the data for each indicator are
compared to the evaluation criteria for the numeric, 1 to 5, rating system.  Each of the index
components is included in the broader suite of Great Lakes indicators, which was developed
through an extensive multi-agency process to satisfy the overall criteria of necessary, sufficient
and feasible. Information on the selection process is in the document, "Selection of Indicators
for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4."

QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place1 (see
reference #1 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited
every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.

The SOLEC process relies on secondary use of data, i.e., data for many of the indicators are
collected, maintained and analyzed by agencies and organizations other than USEPA.
Participating agencies and organizations follow their own QA/QC procedures to assure high
quality data. A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed to document procedures
for data assessment and review for the indicators reports prepared for the State of the Great
Lakes 2005 report.  See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP."
Data Quality Review:  GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given "outstanding"
evaluations in previous peer and management reviews2 (see reference #2 below). GLNPO has
                                          141

-------
implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality
standards.

An external Peer Review of SOLEC processes and products was conducted in 2003 by an
international panel of experts familiar with large-scale regional or national indicator and
reporting systems. Panel findings were generally positive and several recommendations were
made to consider for future SOLEC events and reports.  Many of the recommendations have
been implemented, and others are being considered for feasibility.  The final report by the review
panel is available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference Peer Review Report" in the SOLEC 2004 section.
A second review of the suite of Great Lakes indicators was conducted by Great Lakes
stakeholders in 2004. As a direct result of the findings and recommendations from the
participants, several indicators were revised, combined or dropped, and a few others were added.
The indicators were also regrouped to allow the user to more easily identify the indicators
relevant to particular ecosystem components or environmental issues. The final report from the
review is available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference Peer Review Report, Part 2:  Stakeholder Review of the  Great Lakes
Indicators" in the SOLEC 2004 section.
Data Limitations: Data limitations vary among the indicator components of the Index. The data
are especially good for phosphorus concentrations, fish tissue contamination, benthic health, and
air toxics deposition.  The data associated with other components of the index (coastal wetlands,
AOC sediment contamination, beach closures, and drinking water quality) are more qualitative.
Some data are distributed among several sources, and without an extensive trend line.
Limitations for each of the index components are included in the formal indicator descriptions in
the document, "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4."

Error Estimate: Error statistics for the Great Lakes Index have not been quantified. Each unit
of the 40 point scale represents 2.5% of the total, so any unit change in the assessment of one of
the component indicators would result in a change of the index of that magnitude.  The degree of
environmental change required to affect an indicator assessment, however, may be significantly
large.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The data system specifically for this index is being
developed.  Data continue to be collected through the SOLEC process by various agencies,
including GLNPO. Efforts are currently in progress to integrate various Great Lakes monitoring
programs to better meet SOLEC objectives and to increase efficiencies in data collection and
reporting.

References:

1. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office."  EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
                                          142

-------
 2. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.

3. "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP." Unpublished.  Prepared as part of
Cooperative Agreement between USEPA and Environment Canada.

4. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2003." ISBN 0-662-34798-6,
Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En40-ll/35-2003E, and U.S.

5. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003.  Available on CD and
online at .

6. Canada and the United States. "Implementing Indicators 2003 - A Technical Report." ISBN 0-
662-34797-8 (CD-Rom), Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. Enl64-l/2003E-
MRC (CD-Rom), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-003.
2003. Available on CD from U.S. EPA/Great Lakes National Program  Office, Chicago.
Available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html

7. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2005 - Draft." Environment Canada,
Burlington, Ontario, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago,  2004. Available
online at 

8. Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Health, Version 4." Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, and U.S. EPA,
Chicago.  2000. Available online at .

All SOLEC documents, background reports, indicator reports, indicator development processes,
conference agenda, proceedings and presentations are available online at
http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html  The documents are sorted by SOLEC year and include the
State of the Great Lakes reports which are released the following calendar year.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   The average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye

Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Great Lakes Fish
Monitoring Program (GLFMP) '(see reference #1 below). This program is broken into two
separate elements, Element 1 - Open Water Trend Monitoring and Element 2 - Game Fish Fillet
Monitoring. Each program collects and monitors contaminants in Great Lakes fish at alternating
locations throughout the Great Lakes Basin; fish are collected at one set of sites during even
years and at another set in odd years. Element 1 began with the collection of data in Lake
Michigan in 1972 and the additional lakes were added in 1976.  Element 2 began with the
collection of data in all five of the Great Lakes in the early 1980' s. In FY07, the database will
contain QA/QC data from fish collected in 2005.  Data are reported on a calendar year basis and
                                         143

-------
are specific to the even or odd year sampling schedule (even year sites are only compared to
other even year sites etc.)

Data Source:  GLNPO is the principal source of data for the Great Lakes Fish monitoring
program. The  Great Lakes States and Tribes assist with fish collection.  Previous cooperating
organizations include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This indicator provides concentrations of selected
organic contaminants in Great Lakes open water fish. The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring
Program is broken into two separate elements that monitor potential exposure to contaminant
concentrations for wildlife (Element 1) and humans through consumption (Element 2).  Only
Element 1 is included in this indicator.

The first element, Open Lakes Trend Monitoring Program, was created to: (1) determine time
trends in contaminant concentrations, (2) assess impacts of contaminants on the fishery using
fish as biomonitors, and (3) assess potential risk to the wildlife that consume contaminated fish.
The first element includes data from ten 600-700 mm lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) whole
fish composites (5 fish in each composite) from each of the lakes.  Since sufficient lake trout are
not found in Lake Erie, data for 450 - 550 mm walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) are used
for that Lake.

All GLFMP data are quality-controlled and then loaded into the Great Lakes Environmental
Database (GLENDA).  Included in GLENDA are flags for each data point that can be used to
evaluate the usability of the data. Each Great Lake is a unique environment with a distinct
growth rate, food web, and chemical integrity.  For this reason, a direct comparison of annual
concentrations between basins is not appropriate. However, an average annual basin-wide
percent decrease can be determined using an exponential decrease function, and the 1990 data as
the baseline. The percent decrease of Element  1 can be calculated and compared to the 5%
reduction target to determine if the target has been met.  All years of data from all lakes are
plotted on the same graph, with each year containing 5 data points. An exponential decrease is
then found for the entire data set and the percent decrease is calculated from the best fit line. The
Lake Michigan data set represents the worst case scenario in the Great Lakes Basin for the Open
Lakes Trend Monitoring Program.

QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place2 (see
reference #2 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited
every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management. The Quality
Assurance (QA) plan that supports the analytical portion of the fish contaminant program is
approved and available online3 (see reference #3 below). The draft field sampling Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)  is being revised and will be submitted to the GLNPO QA
Officer for review upon the completion of the Quality Management Plan.

Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been evaluated as
"outstanding" in previous peer and management reviews4 (see reference #4 below). GLNPO has
                                         144

-------
implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality
standards.

Data Limitations: Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program data are not well-suited to portray
localized changes. Nevertheless, data collected at a certain site (odd year or even year sites) can
be compared to data collected from the same site.  In addition, only very general comparisons
can be made of contaminant concentrations between lakes. A recent review of the odd year
Open Lake Trend Monitoring in Lake Erie data indicate an increased variability in the data
between the years of 1999 and 2003 because during those years several individual samples (fish)
fell outside of the desired size range leading to a higher or lower than average mean sample size
for the composite.

Error Estimate: The data quality objective of the fish contaminant program was to detect a
20% change in each measured contaminant concentration between two consecutively sampled
periods at each site.  Based on changing environmental conditions, the data quality objective has
been revised to detect trends in concentration of 0.1 mg/kg/year based on three consecutive sampling
periods (6 years, as sites are sampled every other year) for a specific site, with a power of 80% or greater.
The program was designed to reach that goal with 95% confidence.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The GLENDA database is a significant new system with
enhanced capabilities. Existing and future fish data will be added to GLENDA.

References:

1.  " The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - A technical and Scientific Model For Interstate
Environmental Monitoring:' September,  1990. EPA503/4-90-004.

2.  "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office."  EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002,  Approved April 2003. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/

3.  "Great  Lakes Fish  Monitoring Program -  Quality Assurance  Project  Plan for Sample
Collection      Activities",      Great      Lakes      National      Program      Office.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP_QAPP_082504.pdf

4.  "GLNPO Management  Systems Review of 1999. "  Unpublished -  in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.

5.  "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants", Dr. Deborah Swackhammer, University of
Minnesota Environmental Occupational Health, School of Public Health, EPA Grant
#GL97524201-2, 7/1/02.De Vault, D. S. 1984. Contaminant analysis of fish from  Great Lakes
harbors and tributary mouths. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office. USEPA 905/3-84-003,
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP%20QAPP%20v7.pdf

6.  De Vault, D. S., R. Hesselberg, P. W. Rodgers and T. J. Feist. 1996. Contaminant trends in
lake trout and walleye from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22:
884-895.
                                          145

-------
7.  De Vault, D. S., W. A. Willford, R. Hesselberg, E. Nortrupt and E. Rundberg. 1985.
Contaminant trends in lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) from the upper Great Lakes. Archives
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 15: 349-356.

8.  De Vault, D. S., W. A. Willford, R. J. Hesselberg and D. A. Nortrupt. 1986. Contaminant
trends in lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) from the upper Great Lakes. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 15: 349-356.
9.  GLNPO. 1981. A Strategy for Fish Contaminant Monitoring in the Great Lakes. USEPA
Great Lakes National Program Office. .
10.  "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
11.  Swackhammer, D. L. 2001. "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants. " Unpublished - in
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.
12.  Swackhammer, D.L. February 2002. "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants. "
Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.
13.  "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999."  Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air in the Great Lakes basin will decline

Performance Database:  Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) integrated
atmospheric deposition network : (see reference #1 below) (IADN) operated jointly with
Environment Canada. Reporting starts with 1992 data and includes concentrations of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
organochlorine pesticides in air and precipitation; however, this Performance Measure addresses
only PCBs. Monitoring results from 2005 will be reported in 2007. Data are reported on a
calendar year basis.

Data Source: GLNPO and Environment Canada are the principal sources of the data. Data also
come through in-kind support and information sharing with other Federal agencies and Canada.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: There are five master IADN stations, one for each
lake, which are supplemented by satellite stations in other locations. The master stations are
                                        146

-------
located in remote areas and are meant to represent regional background levels. Concentrations
from the master stations are used for the performance measure.  Concentrations from the satellite
stations in Chicago and Cleveland are also sometimes used to demonstrate the importance of
urban areas to atmospheric deposition to the Lakes.

Air samples are collected for 24  hours using high-volume samplers containing an adsorbent.
Precipitation samples are collected as 28-day composites. Laboratory analysis protocols
generally call for solvent extraction of the organic sampling media with addition of surrogate
recovery standards.  Extracts are then concentrated followed by column chromatographic
cleanup, fractionation, nitrogen blow-down to small volume  (about 1 mL) and injection
(typically 1 uL) into gas chromatography instruments.

All IADN data are loaded and quality controlled using the Research Database Management
System (RDMQ), a Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program. RDMQ provides a unified set of
quality assured data, including flags for each data point that can be used to evaluate the usability
of the data. Statistical summaries of annual concentrations are generated by the program and
used as input into an atmospheric loading calculation. The loadings calculation is described in
detail in the Technical Summary referenced below. However, calculating loadings requires
additional data and constants that introduce further error. Therefore, the averaged annual
concentrations rather than the loadings are used in the performance measure. Concentrations can
vary from year to year due to differences in weather (temperature, wind patterns, etc.), so
comparing concentrations from one year to the next is not always appropriate. This performance
measure examines the average percent decline for the long-term trend determined using an
exponential decrease function. Each year the average percent decline is calculated after adding
new data.  A baseline percent decrease was determined using data through 2000, and the aim is
that this rate of decrease will continue.

QA/QC Procedures:  GLNPO has a Quality Management System in place, which conforms to
the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal
policy for Quality Management2 (see reference #2 below). Quality Assurance Project Plans are in
place for the laboratory grantee,  as well as for the network as a whole. A jointly-funded QA
contractor conducts laboratory and field audits, tracks QA statistics, and carries out special QA
studies. Data from all contributing agencies are quality-controlled using the S AS-based system.

Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been evaluated as
"outstanding" in previous peer and management reviews3 (see reference #3 below).  GLNPO has
implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality
Standards4 (see  reference #4 below). The IADN program has a joint Canadian-US quality
system and binational  Steering Committee that meets periodically in person or via conference
calls to make decisions on network operation and data management and quality.

A regular set of laboratory and field blanks is taken and recorded for comparison to the IADN
field samples. In addition, a suite of chemical surrogates and internal standards is used
extensively in the analyses. A jointly-funded QA contractor conducts laboratory and field audits,
tracks QA statistics, and carries out special QA studies.  As previously mentioned, data from all
contributing agencies are quality-controlled using a SAS-based system.
                                          147

-------
Data Limitations: The sampling design is dominated by rural sites that under-emphasize urban
contributions to deposition; thus, although the data are very useful for trends information, there is
less assurance of the representativeness of deposition to the whole lake.  U.S. and Canadian
laboratories use somewhat different sampling and analytical methods; QA studies have found
that differences in resulting data are attributable mostly to the sampling differences.  There are
gaps in open lake water column organics data, thus limiting our ability to calculate atmospheric
loadings. This gap is being addressed through the recent implementation by GLNPO of the
Great Lakes Aquatic Contaminant Surveillance (GLACS) program, which will collect water
contaminant data in the Lakes.

In the past, there has been a lag in the data from the Canadian sites (Burnt Island on Lake Huron
and Point Petre on Lake Ontario). U.S. data is usually reported two years after it is collected
(i.e., 2002 data was reported in 2004); the Canadian data may not be available on this schedule.

Error estimate: The performance measure examines the long-term trend in concentrations.
Concentrations have an error of +/- 40%, usually less. Differences between laboratories have
been found to be 40% or less.  This is outstanding given the very low levels of these pollutants in
the air and the difficulty in analysis.  Improvements in quality assurance (use of a clean lab for
Canadian precipitation analysis, making calibration standards consistent among agencies, etc.)
are helping to further close this gap.

New/Improved Data or Systems: GLNPO expects to post joint data that has passed quality
review to < http ://binational. net/ >, a joint international Web  Site, and to the IADN Web  Site at <
www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/ >. Copies of IADN data are now held in U. S. and Canadian databases.
Efforts are being made to be able to streamline data requests through the National Atmospheric
Chemistry Database (NAtChem), which includes atmospheric data from many North American
networks. Environment Canada management is working to reduce the data lag from the
Canadian IADN stations.

References:
1.   "Great    Lakes   National   Program   Office   Indicators.      Air   Indicators."
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/air.html

Details of these analyses can be found in the Laboratory  Protocol Manuals or the agency project
plans,    which    can   be     found    on    the     IADN    resource   page    at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/air/iadn/iadn.html

Overall results of the project can be found in "Technical Summary of Progress under the
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Program 1990-1996" and the "Technical Summary of
Progress under the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network 1997-2002". Both (as well as
the Atmospheric Loadings reports) can be found on the IADN resource page.

2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
                                          148

-------
3.  "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - inUSEPA GreatLakes
National Program Office files.

4.  "Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network Quality Assurance Program Plan - Revision 1.1.
Environment Canada and USEPA. June 29, 2001. Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Cumulative total of Areas of Concern within the Great Lakes Basin that have been
    restored and delisted

Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative total Areas of Concern (AOC) and post that information
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html>  Forty-three AOCs have been identified: 26 located
entirely within the United States; 12 located wholly within Canada; and five that are shared by
both countries. Since 1987, GLNPO has tracked the 31 that are within the US or shared;
however, none of these are currently restored and delisted.  Information is reported on a calendar
year basis, however the system is being designed for semi-annual or more frequent updates.

Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with Great Lakes States, the US
Department of State and the International Joint Commission (IJC).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office is in
regular communication with the Great Lakes States, the US Department of State and the IJC, and
is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the de-listing of AOCs. Generally speaking, under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, an AOC is an area in the Great Lakes determined to
have significant beneficial use impairments, such as restrictions on fish and wildlife
consumption, fish tumors, eutrophication, beach closings, added costs to agriculture or industry.
In 1989, the IJC established a review process and developed AOC listing/delisting criteria
(http://www.ijc.org/rel/boards/annex2/buis.htnrftablel) for existing and future AOCs. In 2001,
the U.S. Policy Committee, led by GLNPO and including State, Tribal, and Federal agencies
responsible for Great Lakes environmental issues, developed delisting guidelines for domestic
AOCs (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html) and for the binational AOCs  shared by
Michigan and Ontario http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html - appendix 5).

QA/QC Procedures:  GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place1 (see
reference #1 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited
every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.

Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given "outstanding"
evaluations in previous peer and management reviews2 (see reference #2) below.  GLNPO has
implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality
standards.
                                         149

-------
Data Limitations: None known.

Error Estimate: None.

New/Improved Data or Systems: NA

References:
GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system once there are any de-listed
U.S. or binational Areas of Concern.  Information regarding Areas of Concern is currently
available online at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html

    1.   "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office."  EPA905-R-
       02-009.  October 2002, Approved April 2003.

    2.   "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
       National Program Office files.


FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Cubic yards of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes remediated  (cumulative
    from 1997)

Performance Database:  Data tracking sediment remediation are compiled in two different
formats. The first is a matrix that shows the annual and cumulative totals of contaminated
sediment that was remediated in the Great Lakes basin in the reporting year and from 1997 for
each Area of Concern or other non-Areas of Concern with sediment remediation. The second
format depicts the yearly totals on a calendar year basis graphically.  These databases are
reported approximately one year after the completion of work.

Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data from various State and Federal
project managers across the Great Lakes region that conduct and coordinate contaminated
sediments work. These data are obtained directly from the project manager via an information
fact sheet the project manager completes for any site in the Great Lakes basin that has performed
any remedial work on contaminated sediment. The project manager also indicates whether an
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was used in the collection of data at the site.
GLNPO does not accept unsolicited data without adequate assurance that a QAPP was in place
and the reporters of the data are not likely to be biased.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The data collected to track sediment remediation in
the Great Lakes show the amount of sediment remediated (dredged, capped, other) for that year,
the amount of sediment remediated in prior years, and the amount of sediment remaining to be
addressed for a particular site. This format is suitable for year-to-year comparisons for
individual sites.
                                         150

-------
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO relies on the individual government/agency project managers to
provide information on whether an approved QAPP was in place during remediation of
contaminated sediment. This information is used to decide if the data provided by the project
manager are reliable for GLNPO reporting purposes. If an approved QAPP was not used,
sediment data would not likely be reported by GLNPO, unless GLNPO finds that alternative
information is available that provides sufficient quality documentation for the project and
associated data. This approach allows GLNPO to use best professional judgment and flexibility
in reporting data from any cases where there  was not a QAPP, but (a) the remedial action is
noteworthy and (b) the project was conducted by recognized entities using widely accepted best
practices and operating procedures.

The tracking database houses information on the calculated amount of sediment remediated at
individual sites as provided by the project managers. The individual site project managers are
responsible for completing the data request forms, reviewing draft figures to verify that the
GLNPO project manager transferred the data correctly, and providing any updated or improved
estimates.  It is GLNPO's responsibility to determine if the data are usable based upon the
information sheet provided by the project managers.  GLNPO does not attempt to verify mass
and volume estimates due to the variability in how to calculate them. GLNPO ensures that the
estimates provided make sense for the site, and that all estimates are reported in the same units.
GLNPO management and Sediment Team members review the data, in the graphic and matrix
formats, prior to reporting.  GLNPO's Sediment Team works closely with partners and has
confidence in those who provide data for the  summary statistics. This familiarity with partners
and general knowledge of ongoing projects allows GLNPO management to detect mistakes or
questionable data.
Data Quality Review: The data, in both the graphic and matrix formats, are reviewed by
individual project managers, GLNPO's Sediment Team, and management prior to being
released.  Data quality review procedures are outlined in the QAPP referenced below.  GLNPO's
Quality Management System has been given "outstanding" evaluations in previous peer and
management reviews. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits
and complies with Agency Quality Standards.

Data Limitations: The data provided in the sediment tracking database should be used as a tool
to track sediment remediation progress at sites across the Great Lakes. Many of the totals for
sediment remediation are estimates provided by project managers. For specific data uses,
individual project managers should be contacted to provide additional information.

Error Estimate: The amount of sediment remediated or yet to be addressed should be viewed as
estimated data. A specific error estimate is not available.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Existing tracking systems are anticipated to remain in place.

References:
1. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. Quality Assurance Project Plan for " Great Lakes Sediment
Remediation Project Summary Support." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National
                                         151

-------
Program Office files.

2. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Matrix".  Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.

3. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "SedimentRemediation Pie Charts". Unpublished - in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.

4. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Compilation of Project Managers Informational Sheets". Unpublished
- in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•  Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in the Chesapeake Bay

Performance Database: SAV acres in Chesapeake Bay. Total acres surveyed and estimated
additional acres from 1978 through 2004, excluding the years 1979-1983  and  1988 when no
surveys were conducted. The FY 2007 Annual Performance Report for this measure will be
based on the results of the survey conducted the previous calendar year (2006). We expect to
receive the preliminary survey results for calendar year 2006 in March 2007.

Data Source:  Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences provides the data (via an EPA Chesapeake
Bay Program (CBP) grant to Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences).  EPA has confidence in the
third party data and believes the data are accurate and reliable based on QA/QC procedures
described below.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The SAV survey is a general monitoring program,
conducted to optimize precision and accuracy in characterizing annually the status and trends of
SAV in tidal portions of the Chesapeake Bay. The general plan is to follow fixed flight routes
over shallow water areas of the Bay, to comprehensively survey all tidal shallow water areas of
the Bay and its tidal tributaries.  Non-tidal areas are omitted from the survey.  SAV beds less
than 1 square meter are not included due to the limits of the photography and interpretation.
Annual monitoring began in 1978 and is ongoing. Methods are described in the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) on file for the EPA grant and at the VIMS web site
(http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/).

QA/QC Procedures:  Quality assurance project plan for the EPA grant to the Virginia Institute
of Marine Sciences describes data collection, analysis, and management methods.  This is on file
at the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office. The VIMS web site at
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/ provides this information as well. Metadata are included with the
data set posted at the VIMS web site (http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/metadata/recent.html).

Data Quality Reviews: This indicator has undergone extensive technical and peer review by
state, Federal and non-government organization partner members of the SAV  workgroup and the
Living Resources subcommittee. Data collection, data analysis and QA/QC are conducted by the
principal investigators/scientists. The data are peer reviewed by  scientists on the workgroup.
                                         152

-------
Data selection and interpretation, the presentation of the indicator, along with all supporting
information and conclusions, are arrived at via consensus by the scientists and resource manager
members of the workgroup.  The workgroup presents the indicator to the subcommittee where
extensive peer review by Bay Program managers occurs.

There have been no data deficiencies identified in external reviews

Data Limitations:  Due to funding constraints, there were no surveys in the years 1979-1983
and 1988. Spatial gaps in 1999 occurred due to hurricane disturbance and subsequent inability to
reliably photograph SAV. Spatial gaps in 2001 occurred due to post-nine-eleven flight
restrictions near Washington D.C. Spatial gaps in 2003 occurred due to adverse weather in the
spring and summer and Hurricane Isabel in the fall.

Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Some technical improvements (e.g., photointerpretation
tools) were made over the 22 years of the annual SAV survey in Chesapeake Bay.

References:
See Chesapeake Bay SAV special reports at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreports.html and
bibliography at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savchespub.html. The SAV distribution data files
are located at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savdata.html and also at
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/statustrends/88-data-2002.xls. The SAV indicator is
published at http://www.chesapeakebav.net/status.cfm?sid=88.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •   Reduce nitrogen loads entering Chesapeake  Bay, from 1985 levels (2002 Baseline: 51
       million pounds/year reduced)
   •   Reduce phosphorus loads entering Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels (2002
       Baseline: 8 million pounds/year reduced)
   •   Reduce sediment loads entering Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels (2002 Baseline:
       0.8 million tons/year reduced)

Performance Database:  Nutrient and Sediment Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. The
Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls. Data have been collected in
1985, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and are expected on an annual basis after 2003.  There is a two
year data lag. Load data are from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of NY, MD, PA, VA, WV,
DE, and DC.

The FY 2007 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
2005 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2005 in January 2007.

Data Source: State/district data are provided to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for input
into the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model.

-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  The data are of high quality. Data are consolidated by
watershed boundaries at the state level and provided to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for
input into the watershed model.

What is the Watershed Model?

A lumped parameter Fortran based model (HSPF) that mimics the effects of hydrology, nutrient
inputs, and air deposition on land and outputs runoff, groundwater, nutrients and sediment to
receiving waters.  Ten years of simulation are used and averaged to develop the reduction effects
of a given set of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Using a ten-year average of actual
weather (hydrologic, temperature, wind, etc.) ensures wet, dry and average conditions for each
season are included. The effectiveness of the model is dependent upon the quality of the
assumptions, BMPs and landuse descriptions used.  The model is calibrated extensively to real-
time monitoring, outside peer review and continual updates as better information, data collection
and computer processing power become available.

What are the input data?

The model takes meteorological inputs such as precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration,
wind speed,  solar radiation, dewpoint, and cloud cover to drive the hydrologic simulation.  The
changes in nutrient outputs are primarily determined by such factors as land use acreage, BMPs,
fertilizer, manure, atmospheric deposition, point sources, and septic loads.

BMPs:  Watershed Model BMPs include all nutrient reduction activities tracked by the
jurisdictions for which a source has been identified, cataloged and assigned an efficiency.
Efficiencies  are based on literature review, recommendations of the appropriate source
workgroup and approved by the Nutrient Subcommittee. It is the responsibility of the
jurisdictions to track and report all nutrient reduction activities within their borders and maintain
documentation to support submissions.

Land use acreage is  determined by combining analyses of satellite imagery and county-based
databases for agricultural activities and human population. Fertilizer is determined by estimated
application rates by  crops and modified by the application of nutrient management BMPs.
Manure applications are determined by an analysis of animal data from the census of agriculture.

Atmospheric deposition is determined by an analysis of National Atmospheric Deposition
Program (NADP) deposition data and modified by scenarios of the Regional Acid Deposition
Model.  Point Source loads are determined from Discharge Monitoring Reports.  Septic loads are
estimated in a study commissioned by the CBP.

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/1127.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/114.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/112.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
                                          154

-------
What are the model outputs?

The watershed model puts out daily flows and nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads for
input to the water quality model of the Chesapeake Bay. The daily loads are averaged over a 10-
year hydrologic period (1985-1994) to report an average annual load to the Bay.  The effect of
flow is removed from the load calculations.

What are the model assumptions?

BMPs: Model assumptions are based on three conditions: knowledge, data availability and
computing power. The ability to alter what is used in the watershed model is a function of the
impact the change would have on calibration. In many cases there is new information, data or
methodologies that would improve the model, but changes are not possible because of the impact
on the current calibration.

Changes in manure handling, feed additives, new BMPs and some assumptions could be
incorporated into the model without impacting the calibration. In these cases, the changes were
made.

Other input assumptions, such as multiple manure application levels, increasing the number and
redefining some land uses, defining new nutrient or sediment sources, adjusting for varying
levels of management (range of implementation levels)  are items scheduled for incorporation in
the new model update (2005).

Input assumptions are documented in the above publications. Assumptions of the actual model
code are in the HSPF documentation:
ftp://water.usgs.gov/pub/software/surface_water/hspf/doc/hspfhelp.zip

Data are collected from states and local governments programs. Methods are described at
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/data/index.htm. (refer to CBP Watershed Model Scenario Output
Database, Phase 4.3).  For more information contact Kate Hopkins at hopkins.katefg.epa.gov or
Jeff Sweeney jsweenevfg.chesapeakebav.net

QA/QC Procedures:  State offices have documentation of the design, construction and
maintenance of the databases used for the performance measures, showing they conform to
existing U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA/NRCS) technical standards and specifications for nonpoint source data and EPA's
Permit Compliance System (PCS) standards for point source data. State offices also have
documentation of implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) based on USD A NRCS
standards and specification and the Chesapeake Bay Program's protocols and guidance.  BMPs
are traditionally used to reduce pollutant loads coming from nonpoint sources such as
urban/suburban runoff, agriculture, and forestry activities.

References include: the USD A NRCS Technical Guide  and Appendix H from the Chesapeake
Bay Program (contact Russ Mader at mader.russfg.epa.gov or Kate Hopkins at
hopkins.katefg.epa.gov).  Quality assurance program plans are available in each state office.
                                          155

-------
Data Quality Reviews: All data are reviewed and approved by the individual jurisdictions
before input to the watershed model.  QA/QC is also performed on the input data to ensure basic
criteria, such as not applying a BMP at a higher level than allowed. A specific level of input
should yield output within a specified range of values. Output is reviewed by both the CBPO
staff and the Tributary Strategy Workgroup as an additional level of QA/QC. Any values out of
the expected range is analyzed and understood before approval and public release. The model
itself is given a quarterly peer review by an outside independent group of experts. There have
been no data deficiencies identified in external reviews.

Data Limitations: Data collected from voluntary collection programs are not included in the
database, even though they may be valid and reliable.  The only data submitted by state and local
governments to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office are data that are required for reporting
under the cost share and regulatory programs. State and local governments are aware that
additional data collection efforts are being conducted by non-governmental organizations,
however, they are done independently of the cost share programs and are not reported.

Error Estimate: There may be errors of omission, misclassification, incorrect georeferencing,
misdocumentation or mistakes in the processing of data.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The next version of the watershed model is currently under
development and will be completed in 2006. The new version (phase 5) will have increased
spatial resolution and ability to model the effects of management practices.  The phase 5
watershed model is a joint project with cooperating state and Federal agencies. Contact Gary
Shenk gshenk@chesapeakebay.net or see the web site at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/phase5.htm

References:
See http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data/index.htm, refer to CBP Watershed Model Scenario
Output Database, Phase 4.3. Contact Kate Hopkins at hopkins.katet@,epa.gov or Jeff Sweeney
jsweenev(@,chesapeakebav.net
The nutrient and sediment loads delivered to the Bay indicator are published at
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/status.cfm?sid=186.  The nutrient and sediment loads delivered to
the Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls.  See "Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model Application and Calculation of Nutrient and Sediment Loadings, Appendix H:
Tracking Best Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in the Chesapeake Bay Program, A
Report of the Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee", USEPA Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD, August 1998, available at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
See     USDA     NRCS    Field     Office     Technical      Guide     available     at
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/
FY 2007 Performance Measures:
                                          156

-------
•  Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems so that overall aquatic system
   health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico is improved on the "good/fair/poor" scale
   of the National Coastal Condition Report

•  Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin to reduce the size
   of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico

Performance Database:  (1) Louisiana Coastal Hypoxia Shelfwide Survey metadata (data
housed at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Data Center, Silver
Spring, Maryland). Funds for this research are provided by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program (NOAA/COP)

(2) Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP)  - Gulf surveys.

The data used in assessing performance under this measure have been collected  annually on a
calendar year basis since 1982.

Data Source:  (1) Hydrographic data are collected during annual surveys of the  Louisiana
continental shelf.  Nutrient, pigment and station information data are also acquired. The
physical, biological and chemical data collected are part of a long-term coastal Louisiana dataset.
The goal is to understand physical and biological processes that contribute to the causes of
hypoxia and use the data to support environmental models for use by resource managers.

(2) The Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) is a
state/Federal/university program for collection, management and dissemination of fishery-
independent data and information in the southeastern United States.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The distribution of hypoxia on the Louisiana shelf has
been mapped annually in mid-summer (usually late July to early August) over a standard 60- to
80- station grid since 1985.  During the shelfwide cruise, data  are collected along transects from
the mouth of the Mississippi River to the Texas border. Information is collected on a wide range
of parameters,  including conductivity/temperature/depth (CTD), light penetration, dissolved
oxygen, suspended solids, nutrients, phytoplankton, and chlorophyll. Hydrographic, chemical,
and biological  data also are collected from two transects of Terrebonne Bay on a monthly basis,
and bimonthly, off Atchafalaya Bay.  There is a single moored instrument array  in 20-m water
depth in the core of the hypoxic zone that collects vertical conductivity/temperature data, as well
as near-surface, mid, and near-bottom oxygen data; an upward directed Acoustic Doppler
Current Profiler (ADCP) on the seabed measures direction and speed of currents from the seabed
to the surface.  There is also an assortment of nutrient and light meters.

Station depths  on the cruises range from 3.25 to 52.4 meters. Northern end stations of transects
are chosen based on the survey vessel's minimum depth limits for each longitude.

Standard data collections include hydrographic profiles for temperature, salinity, dissolved
oxygen, and optical properties. Water samples for chlorophyll a and phaeopigments, nutrients,
                                          157

-------
salinity, suspended sediment, and phytoplankton community composition are collected from the
surface, near-bottom, and variable middle depths.
The objective is to delimit and describe the area of midsummer bottom dissolved oxygen less
than 2 (rag. L).

Details of data collection and methodology are provided in referenced reports.

QA/QC Procedures: NOAA does not require written QA/QC procedures or a Quality
Management Plan; however, the procedures related to data collection are covered in metadata
files.

The SEAMAP Data Management System (DMS) conforms to the SEAMAP Gulf and South
Atlantic DMS Requirements Document developed through a cooperative effort between National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and other SEAMAP participants.

Data Quality Reviews: (1) Essential components of the environmental monitoring program in
the Gulf of Mexico include efforts to document the  temporal and spatial extent of shelf hypoxia,
and to collect basic hydrographic, chemical and biological data related to the development of
hypoxia over seasonal cycles. All data collection protocols and data are presented to and
reviewed by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force (the Task
Force) in support of the adaptive management approach as outlined in the Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (the Action
Plan).

(2) Biological and environmental data from all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys are included in the
SEAMAP Information System, managed in conjunction with National Marine Fisheries Service
- Southeast Fisheries Science Center (NMFS-SEFSC). Raw data are edited by the collecting
agency and verified by the SEAMAP Data Manager prior to entry into the system. Data from all
SEAMAP-Gulf surveys during 1982-2003 have been entered into the system, and data from
2004 surveys are in the process of being verified, edited, and entered for storage and retrieval.

Data Limitations: Monitoring for shelf-wide conditions are currently performed each year
primarily, but not exclusively, in July. The spatial boundaries of some monitoring efforts are
limited by resource availability. Experience with the datasets has shown that when data are
plotted or used in further analysis, outlying values may occasionally be discovered.

Error Estimateฑ (1) The manufacturers state +/- 0.2mg/L as the error allowance for both
SeaBird and Hydrolab oxygen sensors.

References:
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico  Watershed Nutrient Task force.2001.  Action  Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating,  and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington,
DC.

Rabalais N.N., R.E. Turner, Dubravko Justic, Quay Dortch, and W.J. Wiseman. 1999.
Characterization of Hypoxia. Topic 1 Report for the Integrated assessment on Hypoxia in the
                                         158

-------
Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 15. Silver Spring
Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Hendee, J.C. 1994. Data management for the nutrient enhanced coastal ocean productivity
program. Estuaries 17:900-3

Rabalais, Nancy N., W.J. Wiseman Jr., R.E. Turner ; Comparison of continuous records of near-
bottom dissolved oxygen from the hypoxia zone of Louisiana. Estuaries 19:386-407

SEAMAP Information System http://www.gsmfc.org/sis.html

                               GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 5

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •  Identification and evaluation of in silico, biochemical and molecular indicators that
      can be used to validate the predictiveness of high through put tools for categorizing
      potential  for toxicity for a subset of  well studied chemicals such as food  use
      pesticides

   •  Improved  risk  assessment  tools  and characterization  of  ecological  risks  of
      genetically modified crops

   •  Conduct numerical air quality simulations using as input regional climate modeling,
      emissions modeling, and driver scenarios

   •  Final Air Quality Criteria Document (AQCD) for Lead which serves as the basis for
      the  EPA/OAQPS staff paper for  the  National  Ambient  Air Quality Standard
      (NAAQS)

   •  Complete 16 human health  assessments of high priority chemicals for interagency
      review  or  external peer review,  including  acrylonitrile,  methanol, methylene
      chloride, trichloroethylene, and dioxin for interagency review

   •  Improved protocols for screening and testing (PART Measure)

   •  Effects and exposure milestones met (PART Measure)

   •  Assessment milestones met (PART Measure)

   •  Risk management milestones met  (PART Measure)

   •  Provide guidance documents, journal articles or models to support efficient and
      effective outdoor clean-ups  and safe  disposal  of  decontamination wastes after
      chemical, biological, or radiological terrorist attacks. These materials can  be used
      by emergency and remedial response personnel, and building and facility managers
                                        159

-------
   •  Generate emergency/laboratory capacity  documents, guidance or other tools  to
      improve the standardization of methods and/or safety of personnel involved with the
      collection or analysis  of environmental samples  generated  during a nationally
      significant

   •  Test and evaluate homeland security-related technologies and produce a technology
      evaluation report  for each.  The  reports  will  contain  detailed  performance
      information that can be used by emergency and remedial response personnel, water
      utility operators, and building and facility  managers for selecting technologies for
      purchase and for deployment in protecting against or recovering from a chemical,
      biological, or radiological terrorist

   •  Provide products, such as monitoring systems, journal articles, analytical methods,
      and detectors, to enhance the security of water systems (through early detection of a
      contamination attack of a water system) and prepare for a terrorist attack on water
      system (through improved analytical techniques  and response techniques for
      treatment of the water and decontamination of the infrastructure). Intended for use
      by water utilities, first responders and Local, State and Federal Government

   •  Evaluate relevant health and risk-related information and data and summarize into
      usable tools, such as applied risk assessment methodologies, guidance, and journal
      articles, to support risk assessors and other  decision-makers in the rapid assessment
      of  risk and  the determination of cleanup goals and procedures  following the
      contamination of buildings/facilities, water distribution systems  or  outdoor areas
      with chemical, biological or radiological agents as a result of a terrorist

Performance Database: Program outputs.

Data Source: Internal tracking system, the Integrated Management Resources System (IMRS).

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures: N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate:  N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A

References:  N/A

FY 2007 Performance Measure:
                                        160

-------
   •   Number of states using a common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to
       determine the status and  trends of ecological resources and  the effectiveness of
       national programs and policies (PART measure)

Performance Database: Internal Regional EPA tracking system; Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) database for public access. The internal tracking database is for
partners in twenty-three states. These  data have not undergone QA and are works-in-progress.
The public database, on the other hand, contains all information that has completed QA and has
been made public in the National Coastal Condition Report.

Data  Source:   Survey responses from coastal states that have adopted a  standard protocol for
monitoring the ecological  condition of estuaries;  including, probabilistic sampling designs,
response designs for indicators, laboratory  analyses, statistical analyses and reporting formats.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  EPA has a cooperative agreement with twenty-three
states to conduct the National Coastal  Assessment Monitoring survey. As part of the National
Coastal Assessment (NCA) Quality Assurance Program, participating states are trained on the
application of the probability-based sampling design and  standardized  methods required for
sample collection.

QA/QC  Procedures:  Each  State or Cooperative Agreement  recipient participates in an
extensive,  three-level QA  review  process  outlined in the  Quality Assurance Project  Plan
coordinated by EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic
Ecology Division (AED).

Data  Quality Reviews:   The NCA Program monitors and assesses the quality of the data
collected.   To ensure a high quality data  set,  states collect a suite of field data for laboratory
analysis. The states may elect to forward the samples to a national contract  laboratory or conduct
the analytical analyses themselves.  The results of the field  and laboratory analyses are  sent to
AED for incorporation into an internal EPA regional database.

Data Limitations:  N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  EPA  anticipates by 2007, all  states will  have adopted and
implemented the  National Coastal Assessment  Monitoring survey.  Improvements  in the
management of contracts, coordination of  the shipment of samples, and distribution of resulting
data are now performed by EPA to give states without capability opportunity to partner with the
agency.

References:
                                          161

-------
US EPA. 2000.  Coastal 2000 Northeast Component Information Management Plan. Office of
Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI.

US EPA. 2001. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): National Coastal
Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan, 2001-2004. EPA/620/R-01/002. Office of Research
and Development,  National Health and  Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,  Gulf
Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.

US EPA. 2001 National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-620/R-01/005. Office of Research and
Development &  Office of Water, Washington, DC.

US EPA. 2005.  National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002.  Office of Research
and Development & Office of Water, Washington, DC.

US EPA. 2005. National Coastal Condition Report II. Appendix A - Quality Assurance, pp. 259-
264. EPA-620/R-03/002.  Office of Research and Development & Office of Water, Washington,
DC.

US EPA. 2005. National Coastal Condition Report II. Appendix B - Three-Level QA Review of
Coastal 2000 Northeast Database,  pp. 265-266. EPA-620/R-03/002.  Office of Research and
Development &  Office of Water, Washington, DC.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of public health outcomes long-
      term goal  (PART Measure)

   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of mechanistic data long-term
      goal  (PART Measure)

   •  Percentage of planned outcputs delivered in support of the aggregate and
      cumulative risk long-term goal (PART Measure)

   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the susceptible
      subpopulations long-term goal (PART Measure)

   •  Average time (in days) to process research grant proposals from RFA closure to
      submittal to EPA's Grants Administration Division, while maintaining a credible
      and efficient competitive merit review system (as evaluated by external expert
      review)  (PART Measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking systems.
                                        162

-------
Data Source:  N/A

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  N/A

QA/QC Procedures: N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate:  N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References: N/A

                              GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 1


VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •  Percentage of concluded enforcement cases (including SEPs) requiring that
      pollution be reduced, treated, or eliminated

   •  Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of
      concluded enforcement actions
   •  Percentage of concluded enforcement cases (including SEPs) requiring
      implementation of improved environmental management practices

   •  Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved
      environmental management practices as a result of concluded enforcement actions
      (i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs)

   •  Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audit agreements

Performance Databases: The Integrated Compliance Information System, (ICIS), which tracks
EPA civil enforcement (e.g., judicial and administrative) actions. The Criminal Case Reporting
System (CCRS), the new enhanced database for tracking criminal enforcement actions, will track
the criminal enforcement components  of the pollution reduction and improved environmental
management  measures and, conjunction with  ICIS, will  track  the  criminal  enforcement
recidivism measure.

Data Source:  Most of the essential data on environmental results in ICIS are collected through
data developed originally through the use of the Case Conclusion Data  Sheet (CCDS), which


                                       163

-------
Agency staff begin preparing after the conclusion of each civil (judicial and administrative)
enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS in 1996 to capture relevant information on the
results and environmental benefits of concluded enforcement cases.  The information generated
through the CCDS is used to track progress for several of the performance measures. The CCDS
form consists of 27 specific questions which, when completed, describe specifics of the case; the
facility involved; information on how the case was concluded; the compliance actions required to
be  taken by  the  defendant(s);  the  costs  involved;  information  on  any  Supplemental
Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the settlement; the amounts and types of any
penalties assessed;  and any costs recovered through the action,  if applicable.  The CCDS
documents whether the facility/defendant, through injunctive relief, must:  (1) reduce pollutants;
and (2) improve management practices to  curtail,  eliminate or better monitor and handle
pollutants in the future. The Criminal Enforcement Program  also maintains a separate case
conclusion data form  and  system  for  compiling and  quantifying the results  of  criminal
enforcement prosecution, including pollution reduction and the percentage of concluded criminal
enforcement  cases  requiring improved environmental management practices.   The revised
criminal enforcement case conclusion form will be used in FY06.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  For enforcement actions which  result  in pollution
reductions, the staff estimate the amounts of pollution reduced for an immediately implemented
improvement, or an average  year once a long-term solution is  in place.  There are established
procedures for the staff to calculate, by statute, (e.g., Clean Water Act), the pollutant reductions
or eliminations.  The  procedure first entails the determination of the difference between the
current Aout of complianceฎ quantity of pollutants released and the post enforcement action Ain
complianceฎ quantity  of pollutants released.  This difference  is then converted into  standard
units of measure.

QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures [See references] are in
place for both the CCDS and ICIS entry. There are a Case Conclusion Data Sheet Training
Booklet [See references] and a Case Conclusion Data Sheet Quick Guide [See references], both
of which have been distributed throughout Regional and Headquarters = (HQ) offices. The
criminal enforcement program has prepared a companion guide for use by its field agents.
Separate CCDS Calculation and Completion Checklists [See references] are required to be filled
out at the time the CCDS is completed.  Criminal enforcement measures are quality assured by
the program at the end of the fiscal year.

Quality Management  Plans (QMPs)  are  prepared  for  each Office within  The Office of
Enforcement and Compliance  Assurance (OECA). OC=s QMP, effective for 5 years,  was
approved July 29, 2003 by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) and is required to be
re-approved in 2008. OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual executive certification of
the overall accuracy of ICIS information to satisfy the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA), the Agency's information quality  guidelines, and other significant enforcement and
compliance  policies on performance  measurement.  In addition, in FY 2003, the Office of
Compliance  (OC)  established extensive  processes  for  ensuring  timely  input,  review  and
certification of ICIS information. OC implements this process  on a quarterly basis to  assure a
high level of quality of the data in the ICIS data system.
                                          164

-------
Data Quality Review: Information contained in the CCDS and ICIS are required by policy to
be reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy. ICIS data is
reviewed quarterly and reviewed and certified at mid-year and end-of-year.

Data Limitations:  The pollutant reductions or eliminations reported on the CCDS are estimates
of what will be achieved if the defendant carries out the requirements of the settlement.
Information on expected outcomes of state enforcement is not available. The estimates are based
on information available at the time a case is settled or an order is issued. In some instances, this
information will be developed and entered after the settlement, during continued discussions
over specific plans for compliance.  Because of the time it takes to agree on the compliance
actions, there may be a delay in completing the CCDS. Additionally, because of unknowns at
the time of settlement, different levels of technical proficiency, or the nature of a case, OECA=s
expectation is that based on information on the CCDS, the overall amounts of pollutant
reductions/eliminations will be prudently underestimated.

Error Estimate: Not available

New & Improved Data or Systems:  In November 2000, EPA completed a  comprehensive
guidance package on the preparation of the Case Conclusion Data Sheet.  This guidance, issued
to headquarters = and regional managers and staff, was made available in print  and CD-ROM,
and was supplemented in FY 2002 [See references]. The guidance contains work examples to
ensure  better calculation of the  amounts of pollutants reduced or eliminated through concluded
enforcement actions.   EPA trained each of its ten regional offices  during FY 2002.  OC=s
Quality Management  Plan was approved by OEI  July 29, 2003, and is effective for five years.
[See references]. A new criminal enforcement case management, tracking and reporting system
(Criminal Case Reporting  System) will come on line  during FY 2006 that will replace the
existing criminal docket (CRIMDOC). This new system allows for a more user friendly  database
and greater tracking, management, and reporting capabilities.

In FY 2006, a new version of the ICIS data system, ICIS 2.0, will become operational. The new
data system will have  all of the functionality of old ICIS (ICIS 1.0) but will also: a) add some
functionality for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities and b) become the
database of record for the Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge  Elimination
System (NPDES) program, including all federal and state enforcement, compliance and
permitting data. (States will be migrated in waves over to ICIS 2.0 from the predecessor data
system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS), over a period of about two years.)

References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life Cycle
Management Guidance, (IRM Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994, reference Chapter
17 for Life Cycle Management). Case Conclusion Data Sheets: Case Conclusion Data Sheet,
Training Booklet, issued November 2000 available:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning/caseconc.pdf; Quick Guide for
Case Conclusion Data Sheet, issued November 2000. Information Quality Strategy and OC=s
Quality Management Plans: Final Enforcement and Compliance Data Quality Strategy, and
Description of FY 2002 Data Quality Strategy Implementation Plan Projects, signed March 25,
2002. ICIS: U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and  Compliance Assurance, ICIS Phase I,
                                         165

-------
implemented June 2002. Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the
public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Criminal Enforcement Division Case
Conclusion

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site
       compliance inspections and evaluations

Performance Databases: ICIS and manual reporting by regions

Data Sources: EPA regional offices and Office of Civil Enforcement (specifically, the Clean
Air Act (CAA)- Mobile Source program) and Office of Compliance - Agriculture Division.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  A new measurement tool, the Inspection Conclusion
Data Sheet, (ICDS) will be used to analyze results from inspections/evaluations conducted under
some of EPA=s major statutes.  EPA will analyze data on the three pieces of information from
the ICDS: on-site actions taken by facilities, deficiencies observed,  and compliance assistance
provided. The inspectors complete the Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS) for each
inspection or evaluation subject to ICDS reporting and the information is either entered into ICIS
or reported manually by the Regions and HQ programs.

QA/QC Procedures: ICIS has been developed per Office of Information Management
Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data validation processes, internal screen audit
checks and verification, system and user documents, data quality audit reports, third party testing
reports, and detailed report specifications for showing how data are calculated.

Data Quality Review: Regional manual reports are reviewed and checked against the
inspection or evaluation data entered into other Agency databases (Air Facilities Subsystem
(AFS), Permit Compliance System (PCS), Online Tracking Information System (OTIS),
Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA)). Manual reports are also checked against
ICIS if the Region entered the manual reported inspections/evaluations into that system.
Information contained in the CCDS, ICDS and ICIS are required by policy to be reviewed by
regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy.  In FY2003, OECA instituted a
requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of information to
satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant
enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement. ICIS data are reviewed
quarterly and certified at mid-year and end of year.

Data Limitations: Through FY 2005, ICIS is the database of record for only CAA 112(r)
inspections and audits.  Beginning in FY 2006, ICIS becomes the databases  of record for all
inspections that are not reported into one of the other legacy data bases (with the exception of the
reporting by a couple of Regions' Underground Injection Control (UIC) inspections). The legacy
databases into which certain program's inspections will continue to be reported are AFS, PCS,
RCRAInfo, and NCDB/FTTS. Regions are encouraged to use ICIS  specifically for ICDS
                                         166

-------
reporting, for all inspection programs. This may result in redundant, incomplete, or contradictory
data.

New & Improved Data or Systems: In FY 2006, a new version of the ICIS data system, ICIS
2.0, will become operational. The new data system will have all of the functionality of old ICIS
(ICIS 1.0)  but will   also: a) add  some functionality for tracking EPA enforcement and
compliance activities  and b) become the database of record for  the Clean Water Act (CWA)
national Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) program,  including all federal and
state enforcement, compliance and permitting data.  (States will be migrating in waves over to
ICIS 2.0 from the predecessor data system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS), over a period
of about two years.)

References: ICIS: U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, ICIS Phase I,
implemented June 2002. Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the
public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •  Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA
      reporting that they improved environmental management practices as a result of
      EPA assistance

   •  Percentage of regulated entities  receiving direct assistance from EPA reporting that
      they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA assistance
Performance Database:  EPA Headquarters and Regions will manage data on regulated entities
receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA through ICIS.

Data source: Headquarters and EPA=s Regional offices will enter information in ICIS upon
completion and delivery of media and sector-specific compliance assistance including
workshops, training, on-site visits and distribution of compliance assistance tools.  ICIS is
designed to capture outcome measurement information such as increased
awareness/understanding of environmental laws, changes in behavior and environmental
improvements as a result of the compliance assistance provided.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  N/A

QA/QC: Automated data checks and data entry guidelines are in place for ICIS.

Data Quality Review: Information contained in the ICIS is reviewed by Regional and
Headquarters staff for completeness and accuracy.  In FY2003, OECA instituted a requirement
for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of information to satisfy the
GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and
compliance policies on performance measurement. ICIS data are reviewed quarterly and certified
at mid-year and end of year.

Data Limitations: None
                                         167

-------
Error Estimate: None

New & Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to improve and/or modify elements of the
compliance assistance module in ICIS based on use of the system.

References:  US EPA, Integrated Compliance Information  System Compliance  Assistance
Module,  February  2004;  US  EPA,  Compliance  Assistance in the Integrated Compliance
Information System Guidance, February  20, 2004.   US  EPA, 2005  Guidance Addendum for
Reporting Compliance Assistance in the  Integrated Compliance Information system, March
2005.
                               GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Number of pounds reduced (in millions) in generation of priority list chemicals from
    2001 baseline of 84 million pounds

Performance Database: Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) provides facility/chemical-specific
data quantifying the amount of TRI-listed chemicals entering wastes associated with production
processes in each year. The total amount of each chemical in production-related wastes can be
broken out by the methods employed in managing such wastes, including recycling, energy
recovery, treatment, and disposal/release. Amounts of these wastes that are not recycled are
tracked for this performance measure. The performance measure uses the Chemical Abstract
System (CAS) numbers for the 23 chemicals identified by EPA as priority chemicals
(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/chemlist.htm).

Data Source: Regulated facilities report facility-specific, chemical-specific release, waste and
recycling data to EPA. For example, in calendar year 2003, 23,811 facilities filed 91,648 TRI
reports.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  TRI data are collected as required by Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and expanded by the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990.  (40 CFRPart 13101; www.epa.gov/tri/). Only certain facilities in
specific Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes are required to report annually the
quantities of over 650 listed toxic chemicals and chemical categories released to each
environmental medium and otherwise managed as waste (40 CFR Part 13101;
www.epa.gov/tri/). Regulation requires covered facilities to use monitoring, mass balance,
emission factors and/or engineering approaches to estimate releases and recycling volumes. For
purposes of the performance measure, data controls are employed to facilitate cross-year
comparisons: a subset of chemicals and sectors are assessed that are consistently reported in all
years.
                                         168

-------
QA/QC Procedures: Most facilities use EPA-certified automated Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) Form R reporting tools, which contain automated error checking mechanisms. Upon
receipt of the facilities' reports, EPA conducts automated edits, error checks, data scrubs,
corrections and normalization during data entry and subsequent processing. The Agency does
not control the quality of the data submitted by the regulated community. EPA does, however,
work with the regulated community to improve the quality of their estimates.

Data Quality Review: The quality of the data contained in the TRI chemical reports is
dependent upon the quality of the data that the reporting facility uses to estimate its releases and
other waste management quantities. Use of TRI Form R by submitters and EPA's data reviews
help assure data quality. The GAO Report Environmental Protection: EPA Should Strengthen Its
Efforts to Measure and Encourage Pollution Prevention (GAO - 01 - 283,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01283.pdf), recommends that EPA strengthen the rule on
reporting of source reduction activities. Although EPA agrees that source reduction data are
valuable, the Agency has not finalized regulations to improve reporting of source reduction
activities by TRI-regulated facilities.

Data Limitations: Use of the data should be based on the user's understanding that the Agency
does not have direct assurance of the accuracy of the facilities' measurement and reporting
processes. TRI release data are reported by facilities on a good faith, best-estimate basis. EPA
does not have the resources to conduct on-site validation of each facility's reporting data, though
on-site investigations do occur each year at a subset of reporting facilities.

Error Estimate:  From the various data quality efforts, EPA has learned of several reporting
issues such as incorrect assignment of threshold activities and incorrect assignment of release
and other waste management quantities (EPA-745-F-93-001; EPA-745-R-98-012;
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data_quality_reports/index.htm; www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm.')

       For example, certain facilities incorrectly assigned a 'processing' (25,000 Ib) threshold
instead of an  'otherwise use' (10,000 Ib) threshold for certain non-persistent, bioaccumulative
and toxic (PBT) chemicals, so they did not have to report if their releases were below 25,000 Ibs.
Also, for example, some facilities incorrectly reported fugitive releases instead of stack releases
of certain toxic chemicals.

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to develop  regulations for improving reporting of
source reduction activities by TRI reporting facilities.

References:   and Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) indices are available at http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

ซ   Reduction in overall pounds of pollution
.   Billions of BTUs of energy conserved
.   Billions of gallons of water saved
.   Millions of dollars saved through reductions in pollution
                                          169

-------
ซ   Cumulative reduction of hazardous chemical releases to the environment and
    hazardous chemicals in industrial waste, in millions of pounds. (PART measure)

The Agency's  Pollution  Prevention  programs  include  Green  Chemistry, Design for the
Environment, Green Engineering, and other Pollution Prevention (P2)  Programs. Each of these
programs operates under the principles of the Pollution Prevention Act  and works with others to
reduce waste at the source, before it is generated. These programs are  designed to facilitate the
incorporation of pollution prevention  concepts  and principles into  the  daily operations  of
government agencies, businesses, manufacturers, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.

Performance Database: Green Chemistry (GC): EPA  is developing an electronic database
("metrics" database) which will allow organized storage and retrieval of green chemistry data
submitted to  EPA  on alternative feedstocks, processes, and  safer chemicals.  The database is
being designed to store and retrieve, in a systematic  fashion, information on the environmental
benefits  and, where  available, economic benefits  that  these alternative  green chemistry
technologies  offer. The database  is also being designed to track  the quantity  of hazardous
chemicals and solvents eliminated through implementation of these  alternative technologies.
Green Chemistry technology nominations are received up to December 31 of the year preceding
the reporting year,  and it normally takes 6-12 months to  enter new technologies  into the
database.  By the end of FY 2005, EPA expects to achieve its target of having a single instance
of each unique nominated technology for 1996-2003 in the database.

Design for the Environment (DfE): DfE does not have a performance database. Instead, DfE is
populating an evaluation  spreadsheet for  its programs  (i.e.,  Alternatives  to  Lead Solder in
Electronics,  Furniture   Flame  Retardants Alternatives,   the  Formulator  Program,  and  a
collaboration with the  Air  Office  on DfE approaches as  implementation mechanisms for
regulating Local Area  Sources, such as Auto  Refinishing). Spreadsheet content will vary by
approach, and generally will include measures  comparing baseline technologies or products to
"cleaner"  ones, as well as information on partner  adoption  and/or market share of cleaner
alternatives; for example, the DfE formulator approach tracks chemical improvements (such as
pounds of chemicals of concern no longer used by partners, and  conversely  pounds of safer
ingredients) and resource savings. This information will allow benefit calculations. Information
is collected on an ongoing basis.

Green Engineering (GE): Similar to the Green  Chemistry Program, EPA will be developing an
electronic database to keep track of environmental benefits of GE projects including, gallons of
water, British Thermal Units (BTUs) and  dollars saved and pounds of carbon dioxide  (CCh)
emissions eliminated

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: EPA  has worked closely with state and local P2  programs
to  develop a national  system that will  provide data on environmental outcomes  (the core P2
metrics included in the above  performance measures). Many EPA Regional offices,  state and
local P2 programs are currently collecting data on P2 program activities, outputs, and outcomes.
EPA has worked successfully with these programs to reach consensus  on standardized metrics,
including  definitions, and to reach consensus  on an ongoing system to  gather data on these
metrics. The core measures in the National Pollution Prevention Results System were adopted in
                                          170

-------
April 2005.  Over  25 state  and  state-level P2  organizations have  signed Memoranda of
Agreements to provide data using the metrics. The system will also benefit from new reporting
requirements in EPA P2 grants. The new system has the cooperation of key stakeholder groups,
such as the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, which is currently updating a January
2003 report providing baseline data for the period 1990-2000 to add data from 2001-2003.  The
new system also has the cooperation of the  regional Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange
(P2RX) centers. As the system is implemented, data collected from the program will be placed in
a new national database, facilitating convenient data storage and retrieval.

Data Source: Green Chemistry (GC): Industry and academia submit nominations annually to the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in response to  the Presidential Green
Chemistry Challenge Awards. Environmental and economic benefit information is included in
the nomination  packages. The metrics database  pulls this  benefit information from the
nominations.

Design for the Environment (DfE): The source of DfE's evaluation information varies by the
approach and the partner industry. For example, in DfE's formulation improvement partnerships,
partners  provide proprietary  information  on both their original  formulation  and  their
environmentally  improved one. Partners sign a memorandum of understanding with EPA/DfE
which includes information on how the company uses cleaner chemistry to formulate a product,
the environmental and health benefits  of the product, and customer and sales information. For
other partnerships,  data sources typically include technical studies  (e.g., cleaner technology
substitutes  assessments, life-cycle assessments) and market/sales/adoption  information  from
associations.

Green Engineering  (GE): Data will come from profiles of recognized  projects by technical
journals or organizations, such as the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, or directly
reported by project leaders on industry projects or joint academia-industry projects.

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: State and local P2 programs will submit data as described
above.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  Green Chemistry  (GC):  The information will be
tracked directly through internal record-keeping systems. No models or assumptions or statistical
methods are employed.

Design for the Environment  (DfE): Methods and assumptions vary by  approach and partner
industry. Each DfE partnership identifies and focuses on a unique set of chemicals and industrial
processes. For most DfE approaches, the general method is to 1) develop a model for a "typical"
or "average" facility, 2) assess the differences  between traditional  and alternative technologies
on  metrics such as  toxics use, resource  consumption, cost,  and performance, 3) track market
share of alternative  technologies over time, and 4) multiply the increase in  use of alternative,
cleaner technologies by the environmental, cost, and performance differences identified in Step
2. Through this quantitative process, the Agency is able to calculate  the benefits generated by the
cleaner technology: e.g. how much toxics use reduction is occurring, how much less resources
are consumed. Similarly, for DfE's formulation improvement approach, the method is to
                                          171

-------
analyze environmental (e.g., toxics use, resource consumption) and cost differences between the
old and improved formulations. Proprietary information, including sales data, are provided by
our partners. For each approach, we will develop a spreadsheet that includes the methods and
assumptions.

Green Engineering (GE): The information will be tracked directly through EPA record keeping
systems. No models or statistical extrapolations are expected to be used.

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: The data will come from state and local P2 programs as
described above. No models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.

QA/QC Procedures: All Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs operate under the
Information Quality Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html
and under the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Quality Management Plan (QMP). The Quality
Management Plan is for internal use only.

Green Chemistry:  Data undergo a technical screening  review by the  Agency before  being
uploaded to the database to determine if they adequately  support the environmental benefits
described in the application. Subsequent to Agency screening, data are reviewed by an external
independent  panel  of  technical  experts  from  academia,  industry,  government,  and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Their comments on potential benefits are incorporated
into the database. The panel  is convened  by the Green Chemistry Institute of the American
Chemical  Society, primarily  for judging  nominations  submitted  to the Presidential Green
Chemistry Challenge Awards Program and selecting winning technologies.

Design for the Environment (DfE): Data undergo a technical screening  review by DIE before
being uploaded to the spreadsheet.  DfE determines whether data submitted adequately support
the environmental benefits described.

Green Engineering  (GE):  Data collected will be reviewed to ensure it meets EPA's Quality
Guidelines in terms of transparency, reasonableness and accuracy.

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: Data will undergo technical screening review by EPA and
other  program participants (e.g., National Pollution Prevention Roundtable) before being placed
in the database.  Additional QA/QC steps to be developed, as appropriate.

Data  Quality Review: All Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) programs operate
under EPA's Information Quality Guidelines as found at
http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html and under the  OPPT Quality Management
Plan (QMP).
 Green Chemistry (GC): Review of industry and academic data as documented in U.S. EPA,
Office of Pollution  Prevention and  Toxics,  Green  Chemistry  Program  Files  available  at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/

Design for the Environment (DfE): Not applicable.
                                          172

-------
Green Engineering (GE): Data collected will be reviewed to meet data quality requirements.

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: The new metrics and data system were based, in part, on
recommendations in the February 2001 GAO report,  "EPA  Should Strengthen Its  Efforts to
Measure and Encourage Pollution Prevention" (GAO-01-283). They also incorporate work by
such organizations as the Northeast Waste Management Officials Association, Pacific Northwest
Pollution Prevention Resource Center, and National Pollution Prevention Roundtable

Data Limitations:  Green Chemistry (GC):  Occasionally data are not available  for a given
technology due to confidential business information (the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge
Awards Program does not process CBI). Because the Presidential Green Chemistry  Challenge is
a voluntary  public program,  it  cannot  routinely accept or process  CBI. If  the program
stakeholders cannot verify a technology because of proprietary  information, especially during the
final judging stage of the awards program, they can and do ask EPA to conduct the verification
internally. EPA will then ask the company to share confidential information with CBI-cleared
OPPT staff in order for EPA to conduct the verification. It also is occasionally unclear as to what
is the percentage market penetration of implemented alternative green chemistry technology
(potential benefits vs. realized benefits).  In these cases, the database is so noted.

Design for the Environment (DfE): Occasionally, data on innovative chemistries or  technologies
are  claimed CBI  by the developing company, thus limiting  the implementation of beneficial
pollution prevention practices on a wider scale.

Green Engineering (GE): There may be instances in which environment benefits are not clearly
quantified. In those instances, the data will be excluded.

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: Limitations arise from the reliance on individual state and
local  P2 programs to gather data. These programs vary  in  attention to data collection from
sources within their jurisdictions, data verification and other QA/QC procedures. Also,  despite
plans described above to move toward consistent metrics and definitions, some differences exist.
EPA is  attempting to address these concerns by  strengthening reporting requirements in its P2
grants (which fund  much of the state and local P2 work) and focusing those requirements on
outcomes, adding comprehensive new grant reporting forms  and  databases which are parallel
with the National P2 Results System, and adding a P2 component to EPA Information Exchange
Network (which provides financial support and a comprehensive data system to link state data
with EPA).

Error Estimate:  Green Engineering (GE): There  may be instances in which environmental
benefits are not clearly quantified. In those instances, the data will be excluded. Not  applicable
for other programs contributing data to this measure.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Green Chemistry (GC), Design for the Environment (DfE),
Green Engineering (GE): The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has initiated an industry self-
monitoring program called Responsible Care. Beginning in 2003, member companies will collect
and report on a variety of information.  Measures tentatively include Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) releases; tons of CO2 equivalent per pound of production; total BTUs consumed per pound
                                          173

-------
of production; systems for assessing or, reassessing potential environmental, health, and safety
risks; percentage of products re-evaluated; percentage of commitments for chemical evaluation
programs; documentation of process for characterizing and  managing product  risks;  and
documentation of communication of risk characterization results. Many of these measures are
similar to the EPA program targets identified under Goal 5, Objective 2. These reports may be an
invaluable source of industry  baseline information. It  is important that the EPA programs
identified under Goal 5 evaluate the utility of the reports generated under the ACC's Responsible
Care Program in support of the EPA's programs as well as the goals  of  Responsible Care.
(CAPRM II, Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures, March 2003 pp. 313).  The Pollution
Prevention (P2)  program's  data collection system is currently  under development through a
partnership with the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable and EPA.
References:
Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures II: http://www.pepps.fsu.edu./CAPRM/index.html
Green Chemistry (GC): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/
Design for the Environment (DIE): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/
Green Engineering (GE): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
http://www.p2.org/workgroup/Background.cfm
http://www.epa.gov/Networkg/

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Percent reduction  in Toxics  Release  Inventory  (TRI)  chemical  releases  to the
    environment from the business sector per unit of production ("Clean Index")

•   Percent reduction in TRI chemicals in production-related wastes generated  by the
    business sector per unit of production ("Green Index")

•   Percent reduction in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reported toxic chemical releases at
    Federal Facilities.

Performance  Database:  TRIM:  Toxics  Release Inventory Modernization, formerly  TRIS
(Toxics Release Inventory System) provides facility/chemical-specific data quantifying the
amount of TRI-listed chemicals entering wastes associated with production process in each year.
The total amount of each chemical in production-related wastes can  be  broken out by the
methods employed in  managing such wastes, including recycling, energy recovery, treatment,
and disposal/release. Amounts of these wastes that  are  not recycled are tracked  for  these
performance measures. The fourth performance measure uses the Chemical Abstract  System
(CAS)   numbers   for the   23   chemicals   identified  by  EPA  as   priority  chemicals
(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/chemlist.htm).

Data Source: Regulated facilities report facility-specific, chemical-specific release, waste and
recycling data to EPA on a calendar year basis. For  example, in calendar year 2003, 23,957
                                          174

-------
facilities filed 97,251 TRI reports. FY 2007 results will not be available until FY 2009 due to a
two year data lag.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: TRI data are collected as required by sections 313 of
EPCRA and 6607 of Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (40  CFR ' 372; www.epa.gov/tri/).  Only
certain facilities in specific Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes are required to report
annually the quantities of over 650 listed toxic chemicals and chemical categories released to
each environmental medium and otherwise managed as waste (40 CFR ' 372; www.epa.gov/tri/).
Regulation requires covered facilities to use monitoring, mass balance, emission factors and/or
engineering calculations approaches to estimate releases and recycling volumes. For the Clean
and Green Index measures and priority list chemicals measure, data controls are  employed to
facilitate cross-year comparisons:  a subset of chemicals and sectors  are  assessed that are
consistently reported in all years; data are normalized to control for changes in production using
published  U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) gross product indices (chain-type quantity
index for the manufacturing  sector). [Please  note the federal facility  measure  data are not
normalized to control for changes in production.]

QA/QC Procedures: Most facilities use EPA-certified automated Toxics Release  Inventory
(TRI) FORM R reporting tools, which contain automated error checking mechanisms. Upon
receipt of  the facilities' reports, EPA  conducts  automated edits,  error checks,  data scrubs,
corrections and normalization during data entry and subsequent processing to  verify that the
information provided by the facilities is correctly entered in TRIM. The Agency does not control
the quality of the data submitted by the regulated community. EPA does, however, work with the
regulated community to improve the quality of their estimates.

Data Quality Review:  The  quality  of the  data contained  in the TRI  chemical reports is
dependent upon the quality of the data that the reporting facility uses to estimate its releases and
other waste management quantities. Use of TRI Form R by submitters and EPA's performance
data reviews combine to help assure data quality.

Data Limitations: Use of the data should be based on the  user's understanding that the Agency
does not have direct  assurance  of the accuracy  of the facilities'  measurement and reporting
processes. TRI release data are reported by facilities on a  good faith, best-estimate basis.  EPA
does not have the resources to conduct on-site validation of each facility's reporting data, though
on-site investigations do occur each year at a subset of reporting facilities.

Error  Estimate: From  the various data quality efforts, EPA has learned of several reporting
issues such as incorrect assignment of threshold activities and incorrect assignment of release
and   other  waste  management   quantities   (EPA-745-F-93-001;    EPA-745-R-98-012;
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data_quality_reports/index.htm;     www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm.)
For example, certain facilities incorrectly assigned  a 'processing' (25,000 Ib) threshold instead of
an 'otherwise use' (10,000 Ib) threshold for certain persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT)
chemicals, so they did  not have to report  if their releases were  below 25,000 Ibs.  Also, for
example, some facilities incorrectly reported fugitive releases instead of stack releases of certain
toxic chemicals.
                                           175

-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: To improve reporting efficiency and effectiveness, reduce
burden, and promote data reliability and consistency across Agency programs, EPA simplified
the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements.  The TRI Form Modification Rule
effective September of 2005, will simplify data elements, reduced the number of reporting codes,
and make two technical  corrections to the regulations by correcting contact information and
removing an outdated description of a pollution prevention data element.  The revised TRI form,
will allow the EPA to better target pollution prevention efforts, improve public access  to
information about source reduction and pollution control activities undertaken by some facilities,
and encourage manufacturers to comply by making it easier to use.  Please see the following for
additional information on this rule: http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/modrule/index.htm

References: www.epa.gov/tri/ and additional citations provided above: EPA-745-F-93-
001 ;EPA-745-R-98-012; http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm;
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data_quality_reports/index.htm;  OSWER  priority  chemicals and fact
sheets http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/chemlist.htm;
www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm; Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indices are available at
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Specific annual reductions in six media/resource areas: water use, energy use, materials
   use, solid waste generated, air releases, and water discharges

•  Reduce 3.5 billion gallons of water use; 15.5 million MMBTUs of energy use; 1,000 tons
   of materials use; 440,000 tons of solid waste; 66,000 tons of air releases; & 12,400 tons
   of water discharges

•  Reduce 3.7 billion gallons of water use; 16.3 million MMBTUs of energy use; 1,050 tons
   of materials use; 460,000 tons of solid waste; 66,000 tons of air releases; & 12,400 tons
   of water discharges

Performance Databases: Both the Performance Track On-Line (a Domino database) and the
Performance Track Members Database (a Microsoft Access database) store information that
facilities have provided to EPA in applications and annual performance reports. Performance
Track members select a set of environmental indicators on which to report performance over a
three-year period of participation. The externally reported indicators (listed above) may or may
not be included in any particular facility's set of indicators. Performance Track aggregates and
reports only that information that a facility voluntarily reports to the  Agency.  A facility may
make progress towards one of the above indicators, but if it is not among its set of
"commitments", then Performance Track's data will not reflect the changes occurring at the
facility.  Similarly, if a facility's performance declines in any of the above areas and the indicator
is not included among its set of commitments, that decline will not be reflected in the above
results.

Members report on results in a calendar year.  Fiscal year 2007 corresponds most closely with
members' calendar year 2006.  That data will be reported to the Performance Track program by
                                          176

-------
April 1, 2007.  The data will then be reviewed, aggregated, and available for external reporting in
September 2007. (Calendar year 2005 data will become available in September 2006.)

Data Source: All data are serf-reported and self-certified by member facilities.  As described
below, Performance Track engages in quality control to the extent possible, but it does not
conduct formal auditing. However, a criterion of Performance Track membership is the
existence of an environmental management system (EMS) at the facility, a key element of which
is a system of measurement and monitoring. Most Performance Track facilities  have had
independent third-party audits of their EMSs, which create a basis for confidence in the
facilities' data. It is clear from submitted reports that some facilities have a tendency to estimate
or round data.  Errors are also made in converting units and in calculations.  In general, however,
EPA is confident that the externally reported results are a fair representation of members'
performance.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  Data collected from members' applications and
annual performance reports are compiled and aggregated across those members that choose to
report on the given indicator. The data reflect the performance results at the facility; any
improvements or declines in performance are due to activities and conditions at the specific
facility as a whole.  However, in some cases, facilities report results for specific  sections of a
facility and this may not be clear in the reports submitted to the program. For example, Member
A commits to reducing its VOCs from 1000 tons to 500 tons over a 3-year period. In Year 1, it
reports a reduction  of VOCs from 1000 tons to 800 tons. Performance Track aggregates this
reduction of 200 tons with results from other facilities. But unbeknownst to Performance Track,
the facility made a commitment to reduce its VOCs from Production Line A and is only
reporting on its results from that production line.  The facility is not intentionally hiding
information from EPA, but mistakenly thought that its commitment could focus  on
environmental management activities at Production Line A rather than across the entire facility.
Unfortunately, due  to increased production and a couple of mishaps by a sloppy  technician, VOC
emissions at Production Line B  increased by 500 tons in Year 1. Thus, the facility's VOC
emissions actually increased by 300 tons in Year 1.  Performance Track's statement to the public
that the facility reduced its emissions by 200 tons is therefore misleading.

The data can be used to make year-to-year comparisons, but reviewers and analysts should bear
in mind that Performance Track membership is constantly in flux.  Although members should
retain the same set of indicators for their three-year participation period, as new  members join
the program and others leave, the baseline constantly changes.

Due to unavoidable issues regarding the timing of the application period, a small subset of
reported data will represent two years of performance at certain facilities, i.e., the baseline will
be two years prior rather than one year.

QA/QC Procedures:  Data submitted with applications and annual performance reports to the
program are reviewed for completeness and adherence to program formatting requirements.  In
cases where it appears possible that data is  miscalculated or misreported, EPA or contractor staff
follows up with the facility.  If the accuracy of data remains under question or if a facility has
                                          177

-------
provided incomplete or non-standard data, the database is coded to ensure that the data is
excluded from aggregated and externally reported results.

Additionally, Performance Track staff visit up to 20% of Performance Track member facilities
each year. During those visits, facilities are asked about their data collection systems and about
the sources of the data reported to the program.

Performance Track contractors conduct a quality review of data entered manually into the
database. Performance Track staff conduct periodic checks of the entered data.

As described, Performance Track is quality controlled to  the extent possible, but is not audited in
a formal way.  However, a prerequisite of Performance Track membership is an environmental
management system (EMS) at the facility,  a key element of which is a system of measurement
and monitoring.  Most Performance Track  facilities have had independent third-party audits of
their EMSs, which create a basis for confidence in the facilities' data.

A Quality Management Plan is under development.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A.

Data Limitations: Potential sources of error include miscalculations, faulty data collection,
misreporting, inconsistent reporting, and nonstandard reporting on the part of the facility. Where
facilities submit data outside of the Performance Track On-Line system, Performance Track staff
or contractors must enter data manually into the database. Manually entered data is sometimes
typed incorrectly.

It is clear from submitted reports that some facilities have a tendency to estimate or round data.
Errors are also made in converting units and in calculations.  In general, however, EPA is
confident that the externally reported results are a fair representation of members' performance.

Error Estimate: Not calculated.

New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: Since spring 2004, all Performance Track
applications and annual performance reports have been submitted electronically (i.e., through the
Performance Track On-Line system), thus  avoiding the need for manual data entry.
Additionally, the program is implementing a new requirement that all members gain third-party
assessments of their EMSs.  Also, the program has reduced the chances that data may reflect
process-specific (rather than facility-wide) data by paying additional attention to the issue in the
review process and by instituting "facility-wide data" requirements for all indicators.

References: Members' applications and annual performance reports can be found on the
Performance Track website at https://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/ptrack.nsf/faMembers?readform.
Performance Track On-Line and the Performance Track Members Database are not generally
accessible.  Performance Track staff can grant access to and review of the databases by request.

                                GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 3
                                          178

-------
FY 2007 Performance Measures:
•  Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs (PART measure)

•  Percent of tribes  with  EPA-reviewed monitoring and assessment occurring (PART
   measure)

•  Percent of tribes with EPA-approved multimedia work plans (PART measure)

•  Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian country per million dollars
   (PART efficiency measure)

Performance Database:
       EPA's American Indian  Environmental  Office  (AIEO) developed  an information
technology infrastructure, named  the Tribal  Program Enterprise Architecture (TPEA).  The
TPEA is a suite of ten secure Internet-based applications that track environmental conditions and
program implementation in Indian country as well as other AIEO business functions. One TPEA
application, the Objective 5.3 Reporting System, tracks progress in achieving the performance
targets under  Goal 5 Objective 3 of EPA's National Strategic Plan - "Build Tribal  Capacity."
EPA staff use the Objective 5.3  Reporting System to  establish  program  performance
commitments  for future fiscal years, to record actual program performance for overall national
program management.  Therefore, the Objective 5.3 Reporting System serves as the performance
database for all of the annual performance measures.

Data Source:

The performance measure, "Percent of  tribes with delegated and  non-delegated programs,"
tracks the  number of: Treatment in a manner similar to a State (TAS) approvals or primacies;
implementations of a tribal program; executions of Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative
Agreements (DITCA);  and GAP (General Assistance Programs) grants that have provisions for
the implementation of solid waste or hazardous waste programs.

EPA Regional project officers managing Tribes with delegated and non-delegated environmental
programs input data, classified by tribe,  into the Objective  5.3 Reporting System to derive a
national cumulative total.

The performance measure, "Percent of Tribes  with EPA approved multi-media workplans,"
tracks the number  of:   Performance  Partnership   Grants  (PPGs);  Tribal  Environmental
Agreements (TEAs), Tier I, Tier  II, and Tier III; Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs); and
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).

EPA Regional tribal program liaisons input data, which are summed annually.  It is possible a
tribe will contribute to the measure in more than one way.
                                        179

-------
The performance measure, "Percent of tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and assessment
occurring (cumulative)," reports the number of active Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs).
All ongoing environmental monitoring programs are required to have active QAPPs. Regional
tribal  program liaisons obtain the information  from Regional Quality Assurance Officers and
input it into the Objective 5.3 Reporting System. The data are updated continuously and summed
at the end of the fiscal year.

The performance measure, "Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian Country
per million dollars," is calculated annually by summing the number of tribes receiving GAP
grants, the number of TAS approvals or primacies, the number of DITCAs, and the number of
GAP grants  that have provisions for the implementation of solid  or hazardous waste programs
and dividing that sum by the annual GAP appropriation (less rescissions and annual set-asides.)

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Objective 5.3 Reporting System contains  all the
information for reporting on performance. The measure that tracks delegated and  non-delegated
programs can be cross-referenced  and  verified with  records  from  the Integrated  Grants
Management System.  The measure that tracks monitoring and  assessment programs can be
verified from databases maintained by the Regional Quality Assurance Officers.   The measure
that tracks multimedia work plans can be verified from official correspondence files between
EPA Regions and Tribes, or from project officer case files.

QA/QC Procedures: Data used in the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture contains quality
assurance and metadata documentation prepared by the originating agency or program.  Because
the information in the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture is  used for budget and strategic
planning purposes, AIEO requires adherence to the Agency's  Information Quality Guidelines.


Data  Quality Reviews:   Data  correction and improvement is an ongoing component  of the
Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture. The Objective 5.3  Reporting System relies on multiple
staff-level reviews.  In addition, a  special application,  the  Tribal  Information  Management
System (TIMS) Data Center was developed to support the submission of corrections to boundary
information, narrative tribal profiles, and factual database information - particularly latitude and
longitude coordinates for facilities.   The AIEO collects and  passes along recommendations
regarding the correction or modification of databases whenever errors are detected or suggestions
for database improvement are received.  Each database manager retains the responsibility of
addressing the recommended change according to quality assurance protocols. Because the data
submittals are used for budget or strategic planning purposes,  AIEO requires that all submittals
comply     with     the      Agency's           Information      Quality      Guidelines.


Data Limitations:  A large part of the data used by the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture
has not been coded to particular Tribes by the recording agency.  AIEO uses new geographic
data mining technologies to extract records based on the geographical coordinates of the data
points. For example, if a regulated facility has latitude and longitude coordinates that place it in
the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation, then it is assigned  to the Arapaho  and Shoshone
Tribes of the Wind River Reservation.  This technique is extremely powerful because it Atribally
                                          180

-------
enablesฎ large numbers of information systems which were previously incapable of identifying
Tribes.  This approach will be applied to all EPA databases.  There are limitations, however.
When  database  records  are  not  geographically identified with latitude and longitude, the
technique does not work and the record is lost to the system.  For EPA regulated facilities in the
Facility Registry System, AIEO  estimates that 64% have latitude and longitude  recorded.
Therefore, the accuracy of EPA's data concerning environmental conditions in Indian country
will depend on additional  improvements to Agency data systems.

Error  Estimate: Analysis  of variation of reservation boundary coverages available to EPA
indicates deviations  of up to 5%.   Another  source  of error is that  some  records are not
sufficiently described geographically to be assigned to specific Tribes. It is estimated that 36%
of the regulated  facilities in  EPA's regulatory databases  are not geographically described.  The
TPEA identifies  the non-geographically indexed facilities by postal zip code for zip codes that
overlap tribal boundaries.

New/Improved  Data or Systems:  The technologies used by the  Tribal Program Enterprise
Architecture are  new, secure and state-of-the-art. The geographic interface is  a product called
ARC/IMS,  which is  a web-based application, with a  fully  functional scalable Geographic
Information  System (GIS). The Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture uses  XML protocols to
attach to and display information seamlessly and in real-time from cooperating agency data
systems without  having to download the data to an intermediate server.  In addition, the  TPEA
project has developed web-based, secure  data input systems that allow Regional project officers
and tribal program  liaisons  to  input programmatic data directly into  performance reporting
systems, TIMS and other customizable reports.

References:

Objective 5.3 Reporting System: https://oasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TATS/tats_prv/entry_page
EPA's Information Quality Guidelines: http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines

                                GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 4

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•  Percent  increase in Pollution Prevention/Sustainability program  publications rated as
   highly cited papers

Performance Database: No  internal tracking system

Data  Source:   The source of data will  be a contractor-produced bibliometric  analysis of
Pollution Prevention/Sustainability program publications.

Methods, Assumptions  and Suitability:  The  analysis  will be  completed  using Thomson's
Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI are a
comprehensive compilation of essential science performance statistics and science trends data
derived from Thomson's databases. The chief indicator of output,  or productivity, is journal
                                          181

-------
article publication counts. For influence and impact measures, ESI employs both total citation
counts and cites per paper scores. The former reveals gross influence while the latter shows
weighted influence, also called impact. JCR presents quantifiable statistical data, which provide
a systematic, objective way  to evaluate  the  world's leading journals  and their impact and
influence in the global research community.

QA/QC Procedures:  Source data will be used  in comparing program publications  to field
benchmarks, Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Report (JCR).

Data Quality Reviews:  Additional benchmarks will be used to determine the number of self-
citations of articles by the same author in order to reduce the self-citation rate.

Data Limitations:  N/A

Error Estimate:  N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References:

Essential Science Indicatorsฎ- Thomson Scientific. 2003.

Journal Citation Reportsฎ. Thomson Scientific. 2003.

US EPA.  December 2004. BOSC Program Review.  Citation  Analysis of ORD's Endocrine
Disrupters (EDCs) Research Program, publication list.

ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Percent to which competency/skill gaps are reduced (beginner to intermediate) in
    mission-critical occupations (MCO)

•   Percent to which competency/skill gaps are reduced (intermediate to expert) in MCOs

Database:   Database populated with competency/skills of employees  obtained from a serf-
assessment survey, and competency/skills deemed necessary within each occupation.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:   Survey  data will be  used to  provide  current
competency/skills  of the present MCO employees.  These data will be compared to what
competency/skills  EPA feels  is necessary for mission accomplishment within  each MCO to
arrive at a baseline assessment.

Yearly surveys of the MCO employee base will be completed and compared to the baseline.
                                         182

-------
QA/QC Procedures:  The Office of Human Resources will be conducting a survey of EPA's
MCO workforce to reflect competency/skills possessed within each MCO grouping.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations:   Employees will self-assess their competency/skills.  If they over-inflate or
under-inflate this assessment, analysis of the information may not correctly identify gaps.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: This is a new competency/skills database.

References: This is a new competency/skills database.


FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Number of new hires recruited through EPA's Environmental Intern Program (EIP) in
   Mission Critical Occupations (MCO)

Data Source: The Office of Human Resources (OHR) PeoplePlus system.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on new hires through the EIP is collected by
OHR and maintained by the National EIP Manager. Using the information from the PeoplePlus
New Hire Report and consulting with the headquarters National EIP Manager, a determination
can be made if the new hire in an MCO was recruited through the EIP.

QA/QC Procedures: PeoplePlus contains nature of action codes (NOAC) designating the type
of personnel action taken and the appointing authority. Efforts are underway to establish an EIP
designation code. The NO AC and an EIP identifier will more readily identify new hires in
MCOs recruited through the EIP.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The establishment of an EIP designation code in  PeoplePlus
will provide an integrated approach to identifying new hires through the EIP.

References: PeoplePlus.


FY 2007 Performance Measures:
                                         183

-------
•  Average time to hire non-SES positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is
   extended, expressed in working days

Data Source: The Office of Human Resources (OHR) Ez-Hire System.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on new hires is collected by OHR using the Ez-
Hire system. A data file is obtained from the Ez-hire contractor and downloaded into Excel
spreadsheets, which are formatted into the various components of the Office of Personnel
Management's 45-day Hiring Model. OHR staff review the results and further investigate any
data anomalies prior to finalizing the report and sending it to the servicing Human Resources
Officer (HRO) who views and validates the data.

QA/QC Procedures: Ez-Hire contains new hire data from the time the vacancy is announced
until the selection is made by the Selecting Official from the  Referral Certification.

Data Quality Reviews: OHR staff review and analyze the results of the report, investigate any
data anomalies, finalize the report, and send to the HRO.  The servicing HRO further reviews
and validates the data. Any discrepancies are reported to OHR's  staff for review  and remedy.
The results of the OHR staff review is shared with the HRO.

Data Limitations:  N/A

Error Estimate:  N/A.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The Ez-Hire system provides adequate data for  analysis of
the average time to hire for non-Senior Executive Service (SES)  applicants.

References:  Ez-Hire
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   For SES positions, the average time from the date vacancy closes to date offer is
    extended, expressed in working days.

Data Source: The Executive Resources Staff (ERS) weekly activity report. This is a text report
that tracks SES personal actions through the various stages of the hiring process.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data from the weekly report is tracked and reported
quarterly.  ERS staff review the results and further investigate any data anomalies prior to
finalizing the quarterly report.

QA/QC Procedures:  Data are added as vacancy status changes
                                         184

-------
Data Quality Reviews: The ERS Operations Team Leader reviews data weekly, analyzes the
results and notes instances where goals may not be met. The Team Leader meets with specialists
to investigate any data anomalies in attempt to meet standards.

Data Limitations:  N/A

Error Estimate: N/A.

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References: Ez-Hire

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPA's 21 laboratories from
    the 2003 base

Performance Database: The Agency's contractor provides energy consumption information
quarterly and annually.  The Agency keeps the energy consumption data in the "Energy
Reporting System." The contractor is responsible for validating the data.

Data Source: The Agency's contractor collects quarterly energy data from each of EPA's
laboratories. The data are based on metered readings from the laboratory's utility bills for certain
utilities (natural gas, electricity, purchased steam, chilled water, high temperature hot water, and
potable water) and from on-site consumption logs for other utilities (propane and fuel oil). The
data from the on-site consumption logs are compared to invoices to verify that reported
consumption and cost data are correct.

Methods, Assumptions, and  Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures: EPA's Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch compares reported energy
use at each facility against previous years' data to see if there are any  significant and
unexplainable increases or decreases in energy quantities and costs.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: EPA does  not have a formal meter verification program to ensure that an on-
site utility meter reading corresponds to the charges included in the utility bill.

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References: N/A
FY 2007 Performance Measures:
                                         185

-------
•  The Central Data Exchange (CDX) will fully support electronic data exchange
   requirements for major EPA environmental systems, enabling faster receipt,
   processing, and quality checking of data
•  States will be able to exchange data with CDX through state nodes in real time, using
   new web-based data standards that allow for automated data-quality checking
•  States, tribes, laboratories, and others will choose to use CDX to report environmental
   data electronically to EPA, taking advantage of automated data quality checks and on-
   line customer support.
•  Customer-help desk calls resolved in a timely fashion.

Performance Database: CDX Customer Registration Subsystem.

Data Source: Data are provided by state, private sector, local, and tribal government CDX users.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: All CDX users must register before they can begin
reporting to the system.  The records of registration provide an up-to-date, accurate count of
users. Users identify themselves with several descriptors.

QA/QC Procedures:  QA/QC have been performed in accordance with a CDX Quality
Assurance Plan [Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Interim Central Data Exchange System.
Document number: EP005T7. Sept. 17, 2001] and the CDX Design Document v.3. Appendix K
registration procedures [Central Data Exchange Electronic Reporting Prototype System
Requirements: Version 3; Document number: EP005S3. December 2000]. Specifically, data are
reviewed for authenticity and integrity.  The CDX Quality Assurance Plan was updated in FY
2004 [Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Central Data Exchange," 10/8/2004; contact:
Wendy Timm, 202 566 0725] to incorporate new technology and policy requirements. Work is
underway to complete the revision of the Design Document.  Automated edit checking routines
are performed in accordance with program specifications and CDX quality assurance guidance
[Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Interim Central Data Exchange System. Document
number: EP005T7.  Sept.  17, 2001].

Data Quality Reviews: CDX successfully completed independent security risk assessment in the
summer 2001. In addition, routine audits of CDX data collection procedures and customer
service operations are provided weekly to CDX management and staff for review. Included in
these reports are performance measures such as the number of CDX new users,  number of
submissions to CDX, number of help desk calls, number of calls resolved, ranking of
errors/problems, and actions taken.  These  reports are reviewed and actions discussed at weekly
project meetings.

Data Limitations: The CDX system collects, reports, and tracks performance measures on data
quality and customer service. While its automated routines are sufficient to screen systemic
problems/issues, a more detailed assessment of data errors/problems generally requires a
secondary level of analysis that takes time  and human resources.

Error Estimate: CDX incorporates a number of features to reduce errors, such as pre-
populating data whenever possible, edit checks, etc. The possibility of an error in the number of
                                         186

-------
states registered for CDX, e.g., double-counting of some sort, is extremely remote (far less than 1
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: CDX coalesces the registration/submission
requirements of many different state-to-EPA, private sector-to-EPA, and local and tribal
governments-to-EPA data exchanges into a single web-based system. The system allows for a
more consistent and comprehensive management and performance tracking of many different
external customers. The creation of a centralized registration system, coupled with the use of
web forms and web-based approaches to submitting the data, invite opportunities to introduce
automated quality assurance procedures for the system and reduce human error.

References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•  Establish an improved suite of environmental indicators for use by EPA's programs
   and partners in the Agency's  strategic planning and performance measurement process

Performance Database:  Initial collection of indicators compiled during the drafting of EPA's
"Report on the  Environment," supplemented by indicators currently used in the Agency's
strategic planning and performance measurement process (e.g., EPA's Strategic Plan,  Annual
Performance Plan, Annual Performance Report, Annual Operating Plan, and National
Environmental Performance Partnership Agreements), will comprise an Agency baseline of
indicators (http ://www. epa. gov/indicators/roe/index. htm).

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Office of Environmental Information (OEI), the
Office of Research and Development (ORD), and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO) will review the planning documents and establish a baseline of indicators in
consultation with key Agency steering committees.

QA/QC Procedures: As  the baseline is established, protocols also will be developed to ensure
that the data supporting the indicators are accurate and complete.

Data Quality Reviews: To be determined and conducted once a baseline has been established.

Data Limitations: The challenge is to develop suitable indicators with sufficient data of known
quality.

Error Estimate: To be determined.

New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The baseline indicators and  supporting data are
in development.

References: EPA's "Draft Report on the Environment" and "Technical Support Document"
(EPA pub. no. 260-R-02-006).  Draft Report on the Environment Technical Document
(Publication # EPA 600-R-03-050). Both Dated June 2003
                                         187

-------
Web site:  http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/roePDF.htm
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•  Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB to assess Agency security programs
   reported annually to OMB under the Federal Information Security Management Act
   (FISMA)

Performance Database: Automated Security Self-Evaluation and Remediation Tracking
(ASSERT) database.

Data Source: Information technology (IT) system owners in Agency Program and Regional
offices.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Annual IT security assessments are conducted using
the methodology mandated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the National
Institute of Standards, and Technology (NIST) Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information
Technology Systems. ASSERT has automated and web-enabled this methodology.

QA/QC Procedures: Automated edit checking routines are performed in accordance with
ASSERT design specifications to ensure answers to questions in ASSERT are consistent.  The
Office of Inspector General consistent with ง3545 FISMA, and the Chief Information Officer's
information security  staff conduct independent evaluations of the assessments. The Agency
certifies results to OMB in the annual FISMA report.

Data Quality Reviews: Program offices are required to develop security action plans composed
of tasks and milestones to address security weaknesses. Program offices self-report progress
toward these milestones. EPA's information security staff review these self-reported data,
conduct independent validation of a sample, and discuss anomalies with the submitting office.

Data Limitations: Resources constrain the security staff's ability to validate all of the serf-
reported compliance  data submitted by program systems'  managers.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References:
Annual Information Security Reports to OMB: http://intanet.epa.gov/itsecurity/progreviews/;
OMB guidance memorandum: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/2003.html:
ASSERT web site: https://cfint.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/; NIST Special Publication 800-26, Security
Self Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems, November 2001:
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html: and, Federal Information Security
Management Act, PL107-347: http://csrc.nist.gov/policies/FISMA final.pdf
                                         188

-------
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Number of environmental risks reduced, environmental actions taken, and
    environmental recommendations/risks/best practices identified.

•   Number of actions taken for improved business practices and systems,
    criminal/civil/administrative actions, business recommendations/risks/best practices,
    and potential dollar return identified.

Performance Database: The OIG Performance Measurement and Results System captures and
aggregates information on an array of measures in a logic model format, linking immediate
outputs with long-term intermediate outcomes and results.  Because intermediate and long-term
results may not be realized for several years, only verifiable results are reported in the year
completed, while others remain prospective until completed and verified. Database measures
include numbers of: 1) recommendations for environmental and management improvement,
including management of assistance agreements; 2) legislative, regulatory policy, directive, or
process changes;  3) environmental, program, and security and resource integrity risks identified,
reduced, or eliminated; 4) best practices identified and implemented;  5) examples of
environmental and management improvements; 6) monetary value of funds questioned, saved,
fined, or recovered; and 7) public or congressional inquiries resolved.

Data Source:  Designated OIG staff enter data into the system. Data are from OIG performance
evaluations, audits, research, court records, EPA documents, data systems, and reports that track
environmental and management actions or improvements made and risks reduced or avoided.
OIG also collects independent data from EPA's partners and stakeholders.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: OIG performance results are a chain of linked events,
starting with OIG outputs (e.g.,  recommendations, reports of best practices, and identification of
risks). The subsequent actions taken by EPA or its stakeholders/partners, as a result of OIG's
outputs, to improve operational  efficiency and environmental program delivery are reported as
intermediate outcomes. The resulting improvements in operational efficiency, risks
reduced/eliminated, and conditions of environmental and human health are reported as outcomes.
By using common categories of performance measures, quantitative results can be summed and
reported. Each outcome is also qualitatively  described, supported, and linked to an OIG product
or output. The OIG can only control its outputs, and has no authority, beyond its influence, to
implement its recommendations that lead to environmental and management outcomes.

QA/QC Procedures: All performance data submitted to the database require at least one
verifiable source assuring data accuracy and reliability. Data quality assurance and control are
performed as an extension of OIG products and services, subject to rigorous compliance with the
Government Auditing Standards of the Comptroller General27, and regularly reviewed by OIG
management, an independent OIG Management Assessment Review  Team, and external
27
  Government Auditing Standards (2003 Revision), General Accounting Office,
GAO-03-673G, June 2003


                                          189

-------
independent peer reviews.  Each Assistant Inspector General certifies the completeness and
accuracy of performance data.

Data Quality Reviews: There have not been any previous audit findings or reports by external
groups on data or database weaknesses in the OIG Performance Measurement and Results
System.  All data reported are audited internally for accuracy and consistency.

Data Limitations: All OIG staff are responsible for data accuracy in their products and
services.  However, there is a possibility of incomplete, miscoded, or missing data in the system
due to human error or time lags. Data supporting achievement of results are often from indirect
or external sources, with their own methods or standards for data verification/validation.

Error Estimate: The error rate for outputs is estimated at +1-2%, while the  error rate for
reported long-term outcomes is presumably greater because of the longer period needed for
tracking results.  Errors tend to be those of omission.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The OIG developed the Performance Measurement and
Results System as a prototype in FY 2001 and anticipates replacing it in FY  2006 with a more
sophisticated system designed to integrate data collection and analysis. We also expect the
quality of the data to improve as staff gain greater familiarity with the system and measures. This
system is a best practice in government for linking an array of measures from outputs to eventual
results  and impacts. With enhanced linkages to customer satisfaction results  and resource
investments, it will provide a full-balanced scorecard with return on investment information for
accountability and decision making.

References: All OIG non-restricted performance results are  referenced in the OIG Performance
Measurement and Results System with supporting documentation available either through the
OIG Web Site or other Agency databases. The OIG Web Site is www.epa.gov/oig.28
28 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Evaluations, and Other Publications,
Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oig, last updated November 30, 2005
                                           190

-------
                        VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
                               GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Tons of SOi  emissions from electric power  generation  sources  (tons/yr from  1980
    baseline)  (PART measure)
•   Percent change  in average sulfur deposition and mean ambient sulfate concentrations
    reduced (% from baseline) (PART measure)
•   Percent   change  in  average   nitrogen  deposition  and  mean  ambient   nitrate
    concentrations reduced (% from baseline)  (PART measure)
•   Percent change  in number of chronically  acidic water bodies in acid-sensitive regions
    (PART measure)

Performance Databases:

•   Emissions Tracking System (ETS) - SC>2 and NOX emissions
•   Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) - dry deposition
•   National Atmospheric Deposition  Program (NADP) - wet deposition
•   Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems program (TIME) - surface water chemistry
•   Long-Term Monitoring Network program (LTM) - surface water chemistry

Data Sources: On a quarterly basis, ETS receives and processes hourly measurements of SO2,
NOX, volumetric flow, CO2, and other emission-related parameters from more than 3,400 fossil
fuel-fired utility units affected under the Title IV Acid Rain Program. These measurements are
collected by certified continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) or equivalent continuous
monitoring methods.

CASTNET measures particle and gas  acidic deposition chemistry.  Specifically, CASTNET
measures sulfate and nitrate dry deposition and meteorological information at approximately 88
monitoring sites, primarily in the East. Two additional sites are planned as part of a multi-year
network refurbishment and modernization project. These sites are  scheduled to be in operation
by 2007 and will help fill the coverage gap in the middle of country.  CASTNET is a long-term
dry deposition network funded, operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR).  The National Park Service operates approximately 30 of the monitoring stations in
cooperation with EPA.

NADP is a national long-term wet deposition network that measures precipitation chemistry and
provides long-term geographic and temporal trends in concentration and deposition of
precipitation components. Specifically, NADP provides measurements of sulfate and nitrate wet
deposition at approximately 255 monitoring sites. EPA, along with several other Federal
agencies, states, and private organizations, provide funding and support for NADP.  The Illinois
State Water Survey/University of Illinois maintains the NADP database.

-------
The deposition monitoring networks have been in operation for over 25 years.  They provide
invaluable measurements on long-term trends and episodes in acid deposition;  such data are
essential for assessing progress toward the program's intended environmental outcomes. These
networks need to be modernized to ensure the continued availability of these direct
environmental measures.  Maintaining a robust long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring
network is critical for the accountability of the Acid Rain and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
Programs (and/or Clear Skies if new legislation is enacted).

The TIME project measures surface  water chemistry and is based on the concept of a probability
sample, where each site is chosen to be statistically representative  of a target  population.  In the
Northeast (New England and the Adirondacks),  this target  population consists of lakes likely  to
be responsive to changes in rates of acidic deposition (i.e., those with Gran ANC < 100 ueq/L).
In the Mid-Atlantic, the target population is upland streams with a high probability of responding
to changes in  acidic deposition (i.e., Northern Appalachian Plateau  streams  with Gran ANC <
100 ueq/L). Each lake or  stream is sampled annually (in summer  for lakes, in spring for streams),
and results are extrapolated to the target population.   The most recent (2003) TIME trends
analysis reported data from 43 Adirondack lakes,  30 New England  lakes, and 31 Appalachian
Plateau streams.

The TIME project goals are to determine not only how a representative sample of water bodies is
changing through time, but also  whether the proportion  of the population  that is acidic has
changed. The  project is operated  cooperatively  with numerous  collaborators in state agencies,
academic institutions and other federal agencies.

The LTM project complements TIME's statistical approach to sampling lakes  and streams. LTM
samples a subset of sensitive lakes and streams with long-term data, most  dating back to the
early  1980s.  These  sites are  sampled 3  to  15 times per year.  This  information is used  to
characterize how the most sensitive aquatic systems in each region are responding to changing
deposition, as well as providing information on seasonal chemistry and episodic acidification.  In
most  regions,  a small number of  higher ANC (e.g., GranANC >100 ueq/L) sites are  also
sampled, and help separate temporal changes due to acidic deposition from those attributable  to
other  disturbances  such as  changes  in  land use. The most recent (2003) LTM trends analysis
reported data from 48 Adirondack lakes,  24 New England lakes, 9 Northern Appalachian Plateau
streams, and 69 streams in the Blue Ridge region of Virginia and West Virginia. The project is
operated cooperatively with numerous collaborators in state agencies, academic institutions and
other federal agencies.

Methods, Assumption, and Suitability Promulgated methods are used to aggregate emissions
data across all  United States' utilities for each pollutant and related  source operating parameters
such as heat input.

QA/QC Procedures:
Promulgated  QA/QC requirements  dictate performing  a  series of quality  assurance tests  of
CEMS  performance.  For these tests,  emissions data are collected under  highly structured,
carefully designed  testing  conditions, which involve either high  quality   standard  reference

-------
materials  or multiple instruments performing  simultaneous  emission  measurements.  The
resulting data are screened and analyzed using a battery of statistical procedures, including one
that tests for systematic bias.  If a CEM fails the bias test, indicating a potential for systematic
underestimation of emissions, the source of the error must be identified and corrected or the data
are adjusted to minimize the bias.  Each affected plant is required to maintain a written QA plan
documenting performance of these procedures  and tests.  Further information is available at:
http ://www. epa.gov/airmarkets/reporting/index.html.

CASTNET established a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in November 2001;   The
QAPP contains data quality objectives and quality control procedures for accuracy and precision.
(U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Clean Air Status and Trends Network
(CASTNet) Quality Assurance Project Plan (Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. EPA, November
2001). In addition, the program publishes annual quality assurance reports. Both the CASTNET
QAPP and 2003 Annual Quality Assurance Report may be found at
http ://www. epa.gov/castnet/library.html.

NADP has  established  data  quality objectives  and quality  control procedures for accuracy,
precision  and  representation,  available on the  Internet:  http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/OA/.   The
intended use of these data is to establish spatial and temporal trends  in  wet deposition and
precipitation chemistry.

For TIME and LTM, the field protocols, laboratory methods, and quality assurance  procedures
are specific to each research group.  QA/QC information is contained in the cited publications of
each research group and compiled in Newell et al. (1987). The EMAP and TIME protocols and
quality assurance methods are generally consistent with those of the LTM cooperators, and are
detailed in Peck (1992) and in Table 3 of Stoddard et al (2003).

Data Quality Review:
The ETS provides instant feedback to sources on data reporting problems, format errors, and
inconsistencies. The electronic data file QA checks are described at
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/reporting/index.html (see Electronic Data Report Review
Process,  ETS  Tolerance Tables, Active ETS Error Codes/Messages and Range Format Errors).
All quarterly reports are analyzed to detect deficiencies and to identify reports that must be
resubmitted to correct problems. EPA also identifies reports that were not submitted by the
appropriate reporting deadline. Revised quarterly reports, with corrected deficiencies found
during the data review process, must be obtained from sources by a specified deadline. All data
are reviewed, and preliminary and final emissions data reports  are prepared for public  release
and compliance determination.

CASTNET underwent formal peer review in 1997 by a panel of scientists from EPA and the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Findings are documented in
Examination of CASTNET:  Data, Results, Costs, and Implications (United States EPA, Office of
Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, February 1997).

The NADP methods of determining wet deposition values have undergone extensive peer
review; this process has been managed by NADP program office at the Illinois State Water

-------
Survey/University of Illinois. Assessments of changes in NADP methods are developed
primarily through the academic community and reviewed through the technical literature
process.

The  TIME  and LTM data used  in  EPA trends  analysis reports are screened for internal
consistency  among variables, including ion balance and conductance balance. Samples with
unexplained variation in these variables are deleted. Sites with mean Gran ANC greater than 200
ueq/L also are deleted. EPA trends analyses exclude sites with chloride values that are outliers in
their region, because high Cl- is typically associated with human development in the watershed.
The Cl- and associated Na+ would alter normal soil ion exchange relationships, thus obscuring
the response to acidic deposition.

Data Limitations: In order to improve the spatial resolution of CASTNET, additional
monitoring sites are needed, particularly in the middle of the country.

Error Estimate: None

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The program plans to modernize and enhance CASTNET to
ensure network viability and enhance the monitoring capacity to support ongoing and future
accountability needs, particularly relating to long range pollutant transport. The refurbishment of
CASTNET will result in more comprehensive air quality data and information, made available
faster by enabling real-time access to air quality information and promoting integration with
other networks through regional/rural monitoring strategies. Refurbishment activities to be
pursued in FY 2007 include: (1) completion of a pilot phase study to evaluate options for
upgrading CASTNET with new advanced measurement instrumentation; (2) selection and
procurement of advanced technology monitoring equipment for up to 10 sites; (3) establishment
of 2 new sites in the middle of the country to improve geographic coverage and spatial
resolution; and (4) implementation of new ecological indicators of air quality and atmospheric
deposition to expand the suite of environmental metrics available for measuring the performance
and efficiency of EPA's clean air programs.

References:  For additional information about CASTNET, see  http://www.epa.gov/castnet.html
and for NADP, see http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/.

For a description of EPA's Acid Rain program, see
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/arp/index.html/ and in the electronic Code of Federal Regulations
at http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-C.html (40 CFR parts 72-78.)

For TIME and LTM data quality and QA/QC  procedures, see
Newell, A. D., C. F. Powers, and S. J. Christie. 1987. Analysis of Data from Long-term   monitoring of
Lakes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Corvallis, OR.
Peck, D. V. 1992. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:  Integrated Quality Assurance
Project Plan for the Surface Waters Resource Group. EPA/600/X-91/080, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

-------
Stoddard, J. L., J. S. Kahl, F. A. Deviney, D. R. DeWalle, C. T. Driscoll, A. T. Herlihy, J. H. Kellogg, P.
S. Murdoch, J. R. Webb, and K. E. Webster. 2003. Response of surface water chemistry to the Clean Air
Act Amendments of  1990. EPA/620/R-03/001, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Oregon.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •  Reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine particulate matter
      (PM 2.5) in all monitored counties (PART measure)

    •  Reduction  in  population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in monitored
      counties (PART measure)

Performance Databases:

AQS —The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) stores ambient air quality data used to evaluate an
area's air quality levels relative to the NAAQS.

FREDS—The Findings and Required Elements Data System is used to track progress of states
and Regions in reviewing and approving the required data elements of the State Implementation
Plans (SIP).  SIPs are clean air plans and define what actions a state will take to improve the air
quality in areas that do not meet national ambient air quality standards

Data Sources:
AQS: State & local agency data from State and  Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS).

Population: Data from Census-Bureau/Department of Commerce

FREDS:    Data are provided by EPA's Regional offices.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  Design values are calculated for every county with
adequate monitoring data (for more information on and a definition for design values, see
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tl/memoranda/cdv.pdf).  Air quality levels are evaluated relative to the
baseline level and the design value. The change  in air quality concentrations is then multiplied
by the number of people living in the county. This analysis assumes that the populations of the
areas are held constant at 2000 Census levels.  Data comparisons over several years allow
assessment of the air program's success.

QA/QC Procedures: AQS: The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has several
major components: the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, reference and equivalent methods
program, EPA's National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), system audits, and network
reviews (Available on the Internet:  www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.html). To ensure quality
data, the SLAMS are required to meet the following: 1) each site must meet network design and
site criteria; 2) each site must provide adequate QA assessment, control, and corrective action
functions according to minimum program requirements; 3) all  sampling methods and equipment
must meet EPA reference or equivalent requirements; 4) acceptable data validation and record
keeping procedures must be followed; and 5) data from SLAMS must be summarized and

-------
reported annually to EPA. Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the overall air
quality data collection activity for any needed changes or corrections.  Further information
available on the Internet:  http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/programs/namslam.html and through
United States EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)

Populations:  No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department of
Commerce.

FREDS:      No formal QA/QC procedures.

Data Quality Review:
AQS:        No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal audits
             are regularly conducted.

Populations:  No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department of
             Commerce.

FREDS:      None

Data Limitations:
AQS:        None known

Populations:  Not known

FREDS:      None known

Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate.  There is still too
much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to meteorological
conditions for example) exist.

New/Improved Data or Systems:
AQS:  In January 2002, EPA completed the reengineering of AQS to make it a more user
friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data are more easily accessible via the
Internet. AQS has also been enhanced to comply with the Agency's data standards (e.g.,
latitude/longitude, chemical nomenclature). Beginning in July 2003, agencies submitted air
quality data to AQS thru the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX).  CDX is intended to be
the portal through which all environmental data coming to or leaving the Agency will pass.

Population:   None

FREDS:      None

References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and
other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

-------
   •  Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of
      receiving a complete permit application. (PART measure)
   •  Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a
      complete permit application. (PART measure)

Performance Databases:  TOPS (Title V Operating Permit System).

Data Sources:  Permitting Agencies (State and Local) via EPA Regional Offices

Methods,  Assumptions,  and  Suitability:    The performance measure  is  calculated  by
comparing the number of new permits or significant permit modifications issued during past 18
months to  the total number of new permits or significant permit modifications received during
the same period. Data are collected every 6 months.  There are no underlying assumptions in the
development of this measure.

QA/QC Procedures:  Some data quality checks include: 1) making sure  the number of permits
issued in 18 months is equal to or less than the total number of permits received. 2) ensuring the
percentages seem reasonable compared to previous reporting periods, and 3) making sure clock
does not restart when additional information is submitted after the application is received.

Data Quality Review: Same as QA procedures

Data Limitations: None

Error Estimate:   There  is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been made
during data entry.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  TOPS has  been revised and improved for 2006 to ensure
better consistency between states and to specifically track PART measures.

References:  For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and
other related  information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •  Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit
      application. (PART measure)

Performance Databases:  RBLC (RACT (Reasonably Available Control  Technology) BACT
(Best  Available  Control  Technology)  LAER  (Lowest  Achievable   Emissions  Rate)
Clearinghouse)

Data Sources:  Permitting Agencies (State and Local)

Methods,  Assumptions,  and  Suitability:    The performance measure  is calculated  by
determining  the time period between  the  date  of complete permit application and permit

-------
issuance. The percentage represents the number of major NSR permits issued within one year
of complete application to the total number of permits issued within that same period. There are
no underlying assumptions in the development of this performance measure.

QA/QC Procedures:   Some data quality checks include:  1) making sure the  permit issuance
dates are after the complete permit application dates and appear reasonable, 2) t ensuring the
permit processing times are similar for comparable permits in previous reporting periods and 3)
making sure the time period does not restart when additional information is submitted after the
application is received.

Data Quality Review: Same as QA procedures

Data Limitations: None

Error Estimate: There is no estimate on  the number of errors that could have been made during
data entry.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A

References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data,  non-attainment areas, and
other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •  Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with  Air Quality Index (AQI)
      values  over  100 since  2003, weighted by population  and  AQI value.   (PART
      measure)

Performance Databases:

AQS —The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) stores ambient air quality data used to evaluate  an
area's air quality levels relative to the NAAQS.

AIRNow PMC -The AIRNow Data Management System (DMC)  stores real-time ambient  air
quality data used for the sole purpose of reporting real-time AQI and air quality forecasting.

Data Sources:

AQS/DMC:   State & local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)
and National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:

Data are gathered from monitors using EPA-approved federal  reference and/or equivalent
methods, all of which  are published via the  Federal Register.  EPA assumes the collecting
agency has properly maintained each monitor and that the data sent to EPA have passed at least

-------
an automated QA/QC check.  The monitoring networks have been providing data for decades
and the data are considered highly reliable.   In addition these data form the basis of EPA's
attainment decisions, trend analysis, and health impact assessments.

QA/QC Procedures:

AQS: The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has several major components: the
Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, reference  and  equivalent methods program, EPA's
National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), system audits, and network reviews (Available on
the Internet:  www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.html). To  ensure quality  data, the SLAMS are
required to meet the following: 1) each site must meet network design and site criteria; 2) each
site must provide adequate QA assessment, control, and corrective action functions according to
minimum program  requirements; 3) all  sampling  methods and equipment must meet  EPA
reference  or  equivalent  requirements;  4)  acceptable  data validation  and  record  keeping
procedures must be followed; and 5) data from SLAMS  must be summarized and reported
annually to EPA. Finally,  there are system audits that regularly review the overall air quality data
collection activity for any needed  changes or corrections.  Further information available on the
Internet:   http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/programs/namslam.html  and through United States
EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)

PMC:  The QA/QC procedures at each State, local,  Tribal, or  Federal agency are the  same as
documented above. Because the DMC handles real-time data, additional QA/QC data checks are
built into the  data flow process to further guard  against erroneous values being passed through
the system.  Data  in the DMC are not considered  final and are not used for any regulatory
purpose.  Data in the AQS system are the official values used for regulatory analyses.

Data Quality Review:

AQS:        No external audits have been done in the last 3  years. However, internal audits
             are regularly conducted.

DMC:        No external audits have been done in the last 3  years. However, internal audits
             are regularly conducted and data are routinely processed by external users where
             applicable.

Data Limitations:

AQS:        None known

DMC:        None known

Error Estimate:  At this time it is not possible to develop  an error estimate.  There is still too
much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to meteorological
conditions for example) exist.

New/Improved Data or Systems:

-------
AQS:  In  January 2002, EPA completed the  reengineering of AQS to make it a more user
friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data are more easily accessible via the
Internet. AQS has also been  enhanced to comply  with the  Agency's data standards  (e.g.,
latitude/longitude, chemical nomenclature).  Beginning in July 2003,  agencies submitted  air
quality data to AQS thru the Agency's Central Data Exchange  (CDX).  CDX is intended to be
the portal through which all environmental data coming to or leaving the Agency will pass.

PMC:  AIRNow Data Management Center was  redesigned in  2004 to more efficiently handle
additional  pollutants  and provide for easier access to real-time data.   In addition, automated
QA/QC procedures were updated and increased flexibility for state/local agencies  to update
information was included.
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and
other related information, see:  http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.  For more information on the
monitoring network, as well as reference and equivalent methods, see the Ambient Monitoring
Technology Information Center (AMTIC) at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic . For information on
the AIRNow real-time program, see:  http://www.airnow.gov/.

FY 2007 Performance  Measures:

•  VOC reduced from mobile sources (PART measure)
•  NOx reduced from mobile sources (PART measure)
•  PM 10 reduced from mobile sources (PART measure)
•  PM 2.5 reduced from mobile sources (PART measure)
•  Limit the increase of CO Emissions (in tons) from mobile sources (PART measure)

Performance Database: National Emissions Inventory Database. See:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/

Data Source: Mobile source emissions inventories and Regulatory Impact Analyses

Estimates for on-road, off-road mobile source emissions are built from inventories fed into the
relevant models, which in turn provide input to the National Emissions Inventory Database.

The MOBILE vehicle emission factor model is a software tool for predicting gram per mile
emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, particulate
matter, and toxics from  cars, trucks, and motorcycles under various conditions. Inputs to the
model include fleet composition, activity, temporal information, and control program
characteristics.

The NONROAD emission inventory model is a software tool for predicting emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, parti culate matter, and sulfur dioxides from
small and large off road vehicles, equipment, and engines.  Inputs to the model include fleet
composition, activity and temporal information.
                                          10

-------
Certain mobile source information is updated annually. Inputs are updated annually only if there
is a rationale and readily available source of annual data. Generally, Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT), the mix of VMT by type of vehicle (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-types),
temperature, gasoline properties, and the designs of Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs are
updated each year. Emission factors for all mobile sources and activity estimates for non-road
sources are changed only when the Office of Transportation and Air Quality requests that this be
done and is able to provide the new information in a timely manner. The most recent models for
mobile sources are Mobile 6 and Nonroad 2002.  (Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm.)

EPA regulatory packages always include detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis which estimates
the costs industry is projected to accrue in meeting EPA regulations. These cost estimates will
form the basis of the numbers in the EPA performance measures. Also, costs for the EPA
mobile source program (including personnel costs)  will be included also.  Estimates will be made
for various years for tons/dollar for pollutants (the total of HC, CO,  NOx, and PM) removed.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: EPA issues emissions standards that set limits on how
much pollution can be emitted from a given mobile source.  Mobile sources include vehicles that
operate on roads and highways ("on road" or "highway" vehicles), as well as nonroad vehicles,
engines, and equipment. Examples of mobile sources are cars, trucks, buses, earthmoving
equipment, lawn and garden power tools, ships, railroad locomotives, and airplanes. Vehicle and
equipment manufacturers have responded to many mobile source emission standards by
redesigning vehicles and engines to reduce pollution.

EPA uses models to estimate mobile source emissions, for both past and future years. The
estimates are used in a variety of different settings.  The estimates are used for rulemaking.

The most complete and systematic process for making and recording such mobile source
emissions is the "Trends" inventory process executed each year by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards' (OAQPS) Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division (EMAD). The
Assessment and Standards Division, within the Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
provides EMAD information and methods for making the mobile source estimates.  In addition,
EMAD's contractors obtain necessary information directly from other sources; for example,
weather data and the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) estimates by state. EMAD creates and publishes the  emission inventory  estimate for the
most recent historical year, detailed down to the county level and with over 30 line items
representing mobile sources. At irregular intervals as required for regulatory analysis projects,
EMAD creates estimates of emissions for future years. When the method for estimating
emissions changes significantly, EMAD usually revises its older estimates of emissions in years
prior to the most recent year, to avoid a sudden discontinuity in the apparent emissions trend.
EMAD publishes  the national emission estimates in hardcopy; county-level estimates are
available electronically. Additional information about transportation and air quality related to
estimating, testing for, and measuring emissions, as well as research being conducted on
technologies for reducing emissions is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/research.htm
                                           11

-------
When major changes are made in the emission models or resulting inventories (and even the cost
estimates), the performance measures will be reviewed to determine if they should be updated.

QA/QC Procedures: The emissions inventories are continuously improved.

Data Quality Review: The emissions inventories are reviewed by both internal and external
parties, including the states, locals and industries.

Data Limitations: The limitations of the inventory estimates for mobile sources come from
limitations in the modeled emission  factors (based on emission factor testing and models
predicting overall fleet emission factors in g/mile) and also in the estimated vehicle miles
traveled for each vehicle class (derived from Department of Transportation
data).http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm. For nonroad emissions, the  estimates come from a
model using equipment populations, emission factors per hour or unit of work, and an estimate
of usage. This nonroad emissions model accounts for over 200 types of nonroad equipment. Any
limitations in the input data will carry over into limitations in the emission inventory estimates.

Error Estimate: Additional information about data integrity is available on the Internet:
http ://www. epa.gov/otaq/m6. htm.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  To keep pace with new analysis needs, new modeling
approaches, and new data, EPA is currently working on a new modeling system termed the
Multi-scale Motor Vehicles and Equipment Emission System (MOVES). This new system will
estimate emissions for on road and off road sources, cover a broad range of pollutants, and allow
multiple scale analysis, from fine scale analysis to national inventory estimation. When fully
implemented, MOVES will serve as the replacement for MOBILE6 and NONROAD. The new
system will not necessarily be a single piece of software, but instead will encompass the
necessary tools, algorithms, underlying data and guidance necessary for use in all official
analyses associated with  regulatory development, compliance with statutory requirements, and
national/regional inventory projections. Additional information is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ngm.htm

References: For additional information about mobile source programs see:
http ://www. epa.gov/otaq/.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Combined Stationary and Mobile Source Reductions in Air Toxics Emissions
•  Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
•  Stationary Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
•  All Other Air Toxics Emissions Reduced

Performance Database: National Emissions Inventory (NET) for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs)
                                          12

-------
Data Source: To calculate performance measures, the data source used is the NEI for HAPs
which includes emissions from large and small industrial sources inventoried as point sources,
smaller stationary area and other sources, such as fires inventoried as non-point sources, and
mobile sources.

Prior to the 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The baseline
NTI (for base years 1990 -  1993) includes emissions information for 188 hazardous air pollutants
from more than 900 stationary sources and from mobile sources. It is based on data collected
during the development of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, state
and local data, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, and emissions estimates using accepted
emission inventory methodologies.  The baseline NTI contains county level emissions data , not
facility-specific data.

The  1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs contain estimates of facility-specific HAP emissions and
their source specific parameters such as location (latitude and longitude) and facility
characteristics (stack height, exit velocity, temperature, etc.)

The primary source of data in the 1996 and 1999 NTI is state and local air pollution control
agencies  and Tribes. These data vary in completeness, format, and quality.  EPA evaluates these
data and supplements them with data gathered while developing MACT and residual risk
standards, industry data,  and TRI data.  To produce a complete national inventory, EPA
estimates emissions for approximately 30 non-point source categories such  as wildfires and
residential heating sources not included in the state, local and Tribal data. Mobile source data
are developed using data provided by state and local agencies and Tribes and the most current
onroad and nonroad models developed by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. The
draft 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPS underwent extensive review by state and local agencies,
Tribes, industry, EPA, and the public.

For more information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please go to the
following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/index.html#nti.  For more information and
references on the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs,  please go to the following web site:
http ://www. epa.gov/ttn/chi ef/net/index.html# 1999.

Methods, Assumptions  and Suitability: To produce a complete model-ready national
inventory, EPA estimates emissions for approximately 30 non-point source categories such as
wildfires and residential heating sources not included in the state, local and Tribal data.  Mobile
source data are developed using data provided by state and local agencies and Tribes and the
most current onroad and  nonroad models developed by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air
Quality.

Upon development of the inventory, the EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous
Air Pollutants) is used to estimate annual emissions of air toxics for the 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI
for HAPS (and for all years in-between). The EMS-HAP can project future emissions, by
adjusting stationary source emission data to account for growth and emission reductions resulting
from emission reduction  scenarios such as the implementation of the Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standards.
                                           13

-------
For more information and references on EMS-HAP, please go to the following web sites:
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htm#aspen and
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html.
The growth and reduction information used for the projections are further described on the
following website: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/proiection/emshap.html

QA/QC Procedures: The NTI and the NEI for HAPs are databases designed to house
information from other primary sources.  The EPA performs extensive quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) activities, including checking data provided by other organizations, to improve
the quality of the emission inventory. Some of these activities include: (1) the use of an
automated format QC tool to identify potential errors of data integrity, code values, and range
checks; (2) use of geographical information system (GIS) tools to verify facility locations; and
(3) automated content analysis by pollutant, source category and facility to identify potential
problems with emission estimates such as outliers, duplicate sites, duplicate emissions, coverage
of a source category, etc. The content analysis includes a variety of comparative and statistical
analyses. The comparative analyses help reviewers prioritize which source categories and
pollutants to review in more detail based on comparisons using current inventory data and prior
inventories.  The statistical analyses help reviewers identify potential outliers by providing the
minimum, maximum, average, standard deviation, and selected percentile values based on
current data. The EPA is currently developing an automated QC content tool for data providers
to use prior to submitting their data to EPA.  After investigating errors identified using the
automated QC format and GIS tools, the EPA follows specific guidance on augmenting data for
missing data fields.  This guidance is available at the following web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/invent/qaaugmementati onmemo_99nei_60603.pdf

The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and identifies
the augmentation method.  After performing the content analysis, the EPA contacts data
providers to reconcile potential errors. The draft NTI is posted for external review and includes
a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission of revisions, state-by-state
modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files to assist in the review of the data.
One of the summary files includes a comparison of point source data submitted by different
organizations.  During the external review of the data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and
industry provide external QA of the inventory. The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from
external reviewers and prepares memos for individual reviewers documenting incorporation of
revisions and explanations if revisions were not incorporated.  All revisions are tracked in the
database with the source of original data and sources of subsequent revision.

The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes in the
initial emission estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI for HAPs and its final
version. For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs, please refer to the following
web site for a paper presented at the 2002 Emission Inventory Conference in Atlanta. "QA/QC  -
An Integral Step in the Development of the 1999 National Emission Inventory for HAPs," Anne
Pope, et al. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei 11/qa/pope.pdf
                                           14

-------
EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or
elements, which provide "meta" information on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF) fields.
These standards were developed by teams representing states, Tribes, EPA and other Federal
agencies. The use of common data standards among partners fosters consistently defined and
formatted data elements and sets of data values, and provides public access to more meaningful
data. The standards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are the: SIC/NAICS, Latitude/Longitude,
Chemical Identification, Facility Identification, Date, Tribal and Contact Data Standards. The
1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all new data standards except the Facility Identification
Standard because OEI has not completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI for
HAPs facilities.

For more information on compliance of the NEI for HAPs with new OMB Information Quality
Guidelines and new EPA data standards, please refer to the following web site for a paper
presented at the 2003 Emission Inventory  Conference in San Diego: "The Challenge of Meeting
New EPA Data  Standards and Information Quality Guidelines in the Development of the 2002
NEI Point Source Data for HAPs," Anne Pope, et al.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/eil2/dm/pope.pdf

The 2002 NEI for HAPs will undergo scientific peer review in early 2005.

Data Quality Review:  EPA staff, state and local agencies,  Tribes, industry and the public
review the NTI and the NEI for HAPs.  To assist in the review of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, the
EPA provided a comparison of data from the three data sources (MACT/residual risk data, TRI,
and state, local and Tribal inventories) for each facility. For the 1999 NEI for HAPs, two periods
were available for external review - October 2001 - February 2002 and October 2002 - March
2003. . The final 1999 NEI was completed and posted on the Agency website in the fall of 2003.
Beginning in  2005, the NTI will undergo an external scientific peer review.

In 2001, EPA's  Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the EMS-HAP model as part of the
1996 national-scale assessment. The review was generally supportive of the assessment purpose,
methods, and presentation; the committee considers this an important step toward a better
understanding of air toxics. Additional information is available on the Internet:
www. epa. gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer. html.

Data Limitations:  While emissions estimating techniques have improved over the years, broad
assumptions about the behavior of sources and serious data limitations still exist.  The NTI and
the NEI for HAPs contain data from other primary references. Because of the different data
sources, not all information in the NTI and the NEI for HAPs has been developed using identical
methods. Also, for the same reason, there are likely some geographic areas with more detail and
accuracy than others. Because of the lesser level of detail in the baseline NTI, it is currently not
suitable for input to dispersion models.  For further discussion of the data limitations and the
error estimates in the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please refer to the discussion of Information Quality
Guidelines in the documentation at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.htmltfhaps99 .
                                          15

-------
In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a final evaluation report on "EPA's
Method for Calculating Air Toxics Emissions for Reporting Results Needs Improvement" (report
can be found at www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/2004033 l-2004-p-00012.pdf)  The report stated
that although the methods used have improved substantially, unvalidated assumptions and other
limitations underlying the NTI continue to impact its use as a GPRA performance measure.  As a
result of this evaluation and the OIG recommendations for improvement, EPA prepared an action
plan and is looking at way to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data.  EPA will meet bi-
annually with OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined in the action
plan.

Error Estimate: Error estimate cannot be tabulated on account of data limitations as described
above.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs are a significant
improvement over the baseline 1993 NTI because of the added facility-level detail (e.g., stack
heights, latitude/longitude locations), making it more useful for dispersion model input. Future
inventories (2002 and later years)  are expected to improve significantly because of increased
interest in the NEI for HAPs by regulatory agencies, environmental interests, and industry, and
the greater potential for modeling  and trend analysis. During the development of the 1999 NEI
for HAPs, all primary data submitters and reviewers were required to submit their data and
revisions to EPA in a standardized format using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX).
For more information on CDX, please  go the following web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html

References: The NTI and NEI data and documentation are available at the following sites:
ftp site:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:

NEON:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:

CHIEF:
ftp://ftp. epa.gov/Emi slnventory/
1996 NTI, 1999 NEI for HAPs
Modeling data files for each state
Summary data files for nation
Documentation
README file
individuals who want full access to NTI files

http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Summary data files
EPA staff

www. epa. gov/ttn/chief
1999 NEI for HAPs data development materials
1999 Data Incorporation Plan - describes how EPA compiled the
    1999 NEI for HAPs
QC tool for data submitters
Data Augmentation Memo describes procedures EPA will use to
    augment data
                                          16

-------
                           99 NTI  Q's and  A's  provides  answers  to  frequently asked
                              questions
                           NIF (Input Format) files and descriptions
                           CDX Data Submittal Procedures - instructions on how to submit
                              data using CDX
                           Training materials on development of HAP emission inventories
                           Emission factor documents, databases,  and models
Audience:                  State and local agencies, Tribes, industry, EPA, and the public

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Cumulative  percentage reduction  in  tons  of toxicity-weighted (for  cancer risk)
   emissions of air toxics (PART measure)
•  Cumulative percentage reduction in tons  of toxicity-weighted (for  noncancer risk)
   emissions of air toxics (PART measure)

Performance Databases:
   •   National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
   •   EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization

Data Source:
To better measure the percentage change in cancer and noncancer risk to the public, a toxicity-
weighted emission inventory performance measure has been developed.  This measure utilizes
data from the NEI for air toxics along with data from EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk
Characterization (found at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html), which is a
compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria used to develop a risk metric. This
compendium includes tabulated values for long-term (chronic) inhalation for many of the 188
hazardous air pollutants.  These health risk data were obtained from various data sources
including EPA, the U.S. Agency for Toxic  Substances and Disease Registry, California
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.  The
numbers from the health risk database are used for estimating the risk of contracting cancer and
the level of hazard associated with adverse health effects other than cancer.

The NEI for HAPs includes emissions from large and small industrial sources inventoried as
point sources, smaller stationary area and other sources, such as fires inventoried as non-point
sources, and mobile  sources. Prior to 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was the National Toxics
Inventory (NTI). The baseline NTI (for base years 1990 - 1993) includes emissions information
for 188 hazardous air pollutants from more than 900 stationary sources and  from mobile sources.
It is based on data collected during the development of Maximum Achievable Control
Technology  (MACT) standards, state and local data, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, and
emissions estimates using accepted emission inventory methodologies.  The baseline NTI
contains county level emissions data and cannot be used for modeling because it does not contain
facility specific data.

The 1996 NTI  and the 1999 NEI for HAPs contain stationary and mobile source estimates.
These inventories also contain estimates of facility-specific HAP emissions and  their source
                                          17

-------
specific parameters such as location (latitude and longitude) and facility characteristics (stack
height, exit velocity, temperature, etc.

The primary source of data in the 1996 and 1999 inventories are state and local air pollution
control agencies and Tribes.  These data vary in completeness, format, and quality.  EPA
evaluates these data and supplements them with data gathered while developing MACT and
residual risk standards, industry data, and TRI data.

For more information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please go to the
following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/index.html#nti. For more information and
references on the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please go to the following web  site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.htmltfl999.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: As the NEI is only developed  every three years, EPA
utilizes an emissions modeling system to project inventories for "off-years" and to project the
inventory into the future. This model, the EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for
Hazardous Air Pollutants), can project future emissions, by adjusting stationary source emission
data to account for growth  and emission reductions resulting from emission reduction scenarios
such as the implementation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards.

Once the EMS-HAP process has been performed, the EPA would tox-weight the inventory by
"weighting" the emissions  for each pollutant with the appropriate health risk criteria.  This would
be accomplished through a multi-step process.  Initially, pollutant by pollutant values would be
obtained from the NEI for the current year and the baseline year (1990/93). Conversion of actual
tons for each pollutant for the current year and the baseline year to "toxicity-weighted" tons
would be accomplished by multiplying the appropriate values from the health criteria database
such as the unit risk estimate (URE) or lifetime cancer risk (defined at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/gloss.htmtfrfc) to get the noncancer tons. These toxicity-weighted
values act as a surrogate for risk and allow EPA to compare the toxicity-weighted values against
a 1990/1993 baseline of toxicity-weighted values to determine the percentage reduction in risk
on an annual basis

Complete documentation on development of the NEI for HAPs can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html. For more information and references on EMS-
HAP, go to the following web sites: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htmtfaspen and
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html. The growth and reduction
information used for the projections are further described at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.htmL

QA/QC Procedures: The  NTI and the NEI for HAPs are databases designed to house
information from other primary sources. The EPA performs extensive quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) activities, including checking data provided by other organizations, to improve
the quality of the emission inventory.  Some of these activities include: (1) the use of an
automated format QC tool  to identify potential errors of data integrity, code values, and range
checks; (2) use of geographical information system (GIS) tools to verify facility locations; and
                                           18

-------
(3) automated content analysis by pollutant, source category and facility to identify potential
problems with emission estimates such as outliers, duplicate sites, duplicate emissions, coverage
of a source category, etc.  The content analysis includes a variety of comparative and statistical
analyses. The comparative analyses help reviewers prioritize which source categories and
pollutants to review in more detail based on comparisons using current inventory data and prior
inventories.  The statistical analyses help reviewers identify potential outliers by providing the
minimum, maximum, average, standard deviation, and selected percentile values based on
current data. The EPA has developed an automated QC content tool for data providers to use
prior to submitting their data to EPA.  After investigating errors identified using the automated
QC format and GIS tools, the EPA follows specific guidance on augmenting data for missing
data fields. This guidance is available at the following web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/invent/qaaugmementationmemo 99nei 60603.pdf

The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and identifies
the augmentation method. After performing the content analysis, the EPA contacts data
providers to reconcile potential errors.  The draft NTI is posted for external review and includes
a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission of revisions, state-by-state
modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files to assist in the review of the data.
One of the summary files includes a comparison of point source data submitted by different
organizations. During the external review of the data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and
industry provide external QA of the inventory. The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from
external reviewers and prepares memos for individual reviewers documenting incorporation of
revisions and explanations if revisions were not incorporated.  All revisions are tracked in the
database with the source of original data and sources of subsequent revision.

The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes in the
initial emission  estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial  draft NEI for HAPs  and its final
version. For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs, please refer to the following
web site for a paper presented at the 2002 Emission Inventory  Conference in Atlanta. "QA/QC -
An Integral Step in the Development of the 1999 National Emission Inventory for HAPs", Anne
Pope, et al. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei 11/qa/pope.pdf

EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or
elements, which provide "meta" information on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF) fields.
These standards were developed by teams representing states, Tribes, EPA and other Federal
agencies.  The use of common data standards among partners fosters consistently defined and
formatted data elements and sets of data values, and provides public access to more meaningful
data.  The standards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are the: SIC/NAICS, Latitude/Longitude,
Chemical Identification, Facility Identification, Date, Tribal and Contact Data Standards. The
1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all new data standards except the Facility Identification
Standard because OEI has not completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI for
HAPs facilities.

For more information on compliance of the NEI for HAPs with new OMB Information Quality
Guidelines and new EPA data standards, please refer to the following web  site for a paper
presented at the 2003 Emission Inventory Conference in San Diego. "The Challenge of Meeting
                                           19

-------
New EPA Data Standards and Information Quality Guidelines in the Development of the 2002
NEI Point Source Data for HAPs", Anne Pope, et al.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei 12/dm/pope.pdf The 2002 NEI for HAPs will undergo
scientific peer review in early 2005.

The tables used in the EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are compiled assessments from various sources
for many of the 188 substances listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act of
1990. Because different sources developed these assessments at different times for purposes that
were similar but not identical, results are not totally consistent.  To resolve these discrepancies
and ensure the validity of the data, EPA applied a consistent priority scheme consistent with EPA
risk assessment guidelines and various levels of scientific peer review.  These risk assessment
guidelines can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/car2sab/preamble.pdf.

Data Quality Review: EPA staff, state and local agencies, Tribes, industry and the public
review the NTI and the NEI for HAPs. To assist in the review of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, the
EPA provided a comparison of data from the three data sources  (MACT/residual risk data, TRI,
and state, local and Tribal inventories) for each facility. For the  1999 NEI for HAPs, two periods
were available for external review - October 2001 - February 2002 and October 2002 - March
2003. The final 1999 NEI was completed and posted on the Agency website in the fall of 2003.
Beginning in 2005, the NTI will undergo an external scientific peer review.

The EMS-HAP has been subjected to the scrutiny of leading scientists throughout the country in
a process called "scientific peer review". This ensures that EPA uses the best available scientific
methods and information. In 2001, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the EMS-
HAP model as part of the 1996 national-scale assessment. The review was generally supportive
of the assessment purpose, methods, and presentation; the committee considers this an important
step toward a better understanding of air toxics.  Additional information is available on the
Internet: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer.html.

The data compiled in the Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are reviewed to make sure they support hazard
identification and dose-response assessment for chronic exposures as defined in the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) risk assessment paradigm
(www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/paradigm.html).  Because the health criteria data were obtained
from various  sources they are prioritized for use (in developing the performance measure, for
example) according to 1) conceptual consistency with EPA risk assessment guidelines and 2)
various levels of scientific peer review.  The prioritization process is aimed at incorporating the
best available scientific data.

Data Limitations and Error Estimates: While emissions estimating techniques have improved
over the years, broad assumptions about the behavior of sources and serious data limitations still
exist. The NTI and the NEI for HAPs contain data from other primary references. Because of
the different data sources, not all information in the NTI and the NEI for HAPs has been
developed using identical methods.  Also, for the same reason, there are likely some geographic
areas with more detail and accuracy than others.  Because of the lesser level of detail in the
                                           20

-------
baseline NTI, it is currently not suitable for input to dispersion models. For further discussion of
the data limitations and the error estimates in the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please refer to the
discussion of Information Quality Guidelines in the documentation at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.htmltfhaps99 .

In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a final evaluation report on "EPA's
Method for Calculating Air Toxics Emissions for Reporting Results Needs Improvement" (report
can be found  atwww.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040331-2004-p-00012.pdf). The report stated
that although  the methods used have improved substantially, unvalidated assumptions and other
limitations underlying the NTI continue to impact its use as a GPRA performance measure.  As a
result of this evaluation and the OIG recommendations for improvement, EPA prepared an action
plan  and is looking at ways to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data.  EPA will meet
bi-annually with OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined in the
action plan.

While the Agency has made every effort to utilize the best available science in selecting
appropriate health criteria data for toxicity-weighting calculations there are inherent limitations
and errors (uncertainties) associated with this type of data. While it is not practical to expose
humans to chemicals at target doses and observe subsequent health implications over long
periods of time, most of the agencies health criteria is derived from response models and
laboratory experiments  involving animals.  The parameter used to convert from exposure to
cancer risk (i.e. the Unit Risk Estimate or URE) is based on default science policy processes used
routinely in EPA assessments. First, some air toxics are known to be carcinogens in animals but
lack  data in humans. These have been assumed to be human carcinogens. Second, all the air
toxics in this  assessment were assumed to have linear relationships between exposure and the
probability of cancer (i.e.  effects at low exposures were extrapolated from higher, measurable,
exposures by  a straight line).  Third, the URE used for some air toxics compounds represents a
maximum likelihood estimate, which might be taken to mean the best scientific estimate. For
other air toxics compounds, however, the URE used was an "upper bound" estimate, meaning
that it probably leads to an overestimation of risk if it is incorrect. For these upper bound
estimates, it is assumed that the URE continues to apply even at low exposures. It is likely,
therefore, that this linear model over-predicts the risk at exposures encountered in the
environment.  The cancer weighting-values for this approach should be considered "upper bound"
in the science policy sense.

All of the noncancer risk estimates have a built-in margin of safety.  All of the Reference
Concentrations (RfCs) used in toxicity-weighting of noncancer  are conservative,  meaning that
they  represent exposures which probably do not result  in any health effects, with  a margin of
safety built into the RfC to account for sources of uncertainty and variability. Like the URE used
in cancer weighting the values are, therefore, considered "upper bound" in the science policy
sense. Further details on limitations and uncertainties associated with the agencies health data
can be found  at:  www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page9.htmltfL10

New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTI and  1999 NEI for HAPs are a significant
improvement over the baseline NTI because of the added facility-level detail (e.g., stack heights,
latitude/longitude locations),  making it more useful for dispersion model input. Future
                                           21

-------
inventories (2002 and later years) are expected to improve significantly because of increased
interest in the NEI for HAPs by regulatory agencies, environmental interests, and industry, and
the greater potential for modeling and trend analysis. During the development of the 1999 NEI
for HAPs, all primary data submitters and reviewers were required to submit their data and
revisions to EPA in a standardized format using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX).
For more information on CDX, please go the following web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html

Beginning in 2006, the toxicity-weighted emission inventory data will also be used as a
measurement to predict exposure and risk to the public. This measure will utilize ambient
monitoring of air toxics as a surrogate for population exposure and compare these values with
health benchmarks to predict risks.

References:

The NTI and NEI data and documentation are available at the following sites:
Emissions Inventory Data:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:

NEON:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:

CHIEF:
Audience:
ftp://ftp. epa.gov/Emi slnventory/
1996 NTI, 1999 NEI for HAPs
Modeling data files for each state
Summary data files for nation
Documentation
README file
individuals who want full access to NTI files

http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Summary data files
EPA staff

www. epa. gov/ttn/chief
1999 NEI for HAPs data development materials
1999 Data Incorporation Plan - describes how EPA compiled the
    1999  NEI for HAPs
QC tool for data submitters
Data Augmentation Memo describes procedures EPA will use to
    augment data
99  NTI  Q's and A's provides  answers  to  frequently  asked
    questions
NIF (Input Format) files and descriptions
CDX Data Submittal Procedures - instructions on  how to submit
    data using CDX
Training  materials on development of HAP emission inventories
Emission factor documents, databases, and models
State/1 ocal/Tribal agencies, industry, EPA, and the public
                                          22

-------
Information on the Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
EMS-HAP:                 http://epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htmtfaspen
                           http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html
Contents:                   1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Audience:                  public

Information on EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization:
Health Criteria Data:         http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html
Contents:                   Tabulated dose response values for long-term (chronic)
                           inhalation and oral exposures; and values for short-term
                           (acute) inhalation  exposure
Audience:                  public

                               GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2007 Overarching Performance Measure:

    •   People Living in Healthier Indoor Air

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   People Living in Radon Resistant Homes
    •   Annual additional homes with radon reducing features (PART measure)

Performance Database: Annual industry survey data of home builders provided by the
National Association of Home Builders.

Data  Source: The survey is an  annual  sample of home builders  in the United States most of
whom are members of the National Association  of Home Builders (NAHB). NAHB  members
construct 80% of the homes built in the United States each year.  Using a survey methodology
reviewed by EPA, NAHB  Research Center estimates the percentage of these homes that are built
radon resistant.   The percentage built radon resistant  from  the sample is then used to estimate
what  percent  of all homes built nationwide are  radon resistant.  To calculate the number of
people living in radon resistant homes, EPA assumes  an average of 2.67 people per household.
NAHB Research Center has been conducting this annual  builder practices survey for over a
decade, and has developed substantial expertise in the survey's  design, implementation,  and
analysis. The statistical estimates are typically reported with a 95 percent confidence interval.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: NAHB Research Center conducts an annual  survey of
home builders in the United States to assess a wide range of builder practices. NAHB  Research
Center voluntarily conducts this  survey to maintain an awareness  of industry trends in order to
improve American housing and to be responsive to the needs of the home building industry. The
annual survey gathers information such  as types  of houses built,  lot  sizes, foundation designs,
types  of lumber used, types of doors and windows  used, etc.   The NAHB Research Center
                                          23

-------
Builder Survey also gathers information on the use of radon-resistant design features in new
houses, and these questions comprise about two percent of the survey questionnaire.

In January of each year,  the survey of building  practices  for the preceding calendar year is
typically mailed out to home builders.  For the most-recently completed survey, for building
practices during calendar  year 2003, NAHB Research Center reported mailing the survey to
about 45,000 active United States home building companies,  and received about 2,300 responses,
which translates to a response rate of about 5 percent.  The survey responses are analyzed, with
respect to State market areas and Census Divisions in the United States, to assess the percentage
and number of homes built each year that incorporate radon-reducing features. The data are also
used to assess the  percentage and number of homes built with radon-reducing features in high
radon potential areas in the United States (high  risk areas).  Other analyses include radon-
reducing features as a function of housing type, foundation type, and different techniques for
radon-resistant new home construction.  The data are suitable for year-to-year comparisons.

QA/QC  Procedures:  Because  data are  obtained from  an  external  organization,  QA/QC
procedures are not entirely known.  According to  NAHB Research Center, QA/QC procedures
have been established, which includes QA/QC by the vendor that is utilized for key entry of data.

Data Quality  Review: Because  data are obtained from an  external organization, Data Quality
Review procedures are not entirely known. NAHB Research Center indicates that each survey is
manually reviewed, a process that requires several months to complete.  The review includes
data quality  checks to ensure that the respondents understood the survey questions  and answered
the questions  appropriately.   NAHB Research  Center  also applies checks for open-ended
questions  to verify the appropriateness of the answers.   In some  cases,  where open-ended
questions request numerical information, the data are capped between  the upper and lower  three
percent of the values provided in the survey responses.  Also, a quality review of each year's
draft report from NAHB Research Center is conducted by the EPA project officer.

Data Limitations:  The majority of home builders surveyed are NAHB members. The NAHB
Research Center survey also attempts to capture the activities of builders that are not members of
NAHB. Home builders that are not members of NAHB are typically  smaller, sporadic builders
that  in some cases build  homes as a secondary  profession.   To  augment the list of NAHB
members in the survey sample, NAHB Research Center sends the  survey to home  builders
identified from mailing lists of builder trade publications,  such as Professional Builder magazine.
There is some uncertainty as to whether the survey adequately characterizes the practices of
builders who are not members of NAHB. The effects on the findings are not known.

Although an overall response rate of 5 percent could be considered low, it is the response rate for
the entire survey, of which the radon-resistant new construction questions are only a very small
portion. Builders responding to the survey would not be doing so principally due to their radon
activities.  Thus, a low response rate  does not necessarily indicate a strong potential for a positive
bias  under the speculation that builders using radon-resistant construction would be more likely
to respond to the survey.  NAHB Research Center also makes efforts to reduce the potential for
positive bias in the way the radon-related survey questions are presented.
                                           24

-------
Error Estimate:  See Data Limitations

New/Improved Data or Systems: None

References:  The results are published by the NAHB Research Center in annual reports of
radon-resistant home building practices. See http://www.nahbrc.org/ last accessed 12/21/2005 for
more information about NAHB.  The  most recent report,  "Builder Practices Report: Radon
Reducing Features in New Construction 2003,"Annual Builder and Consumer Practices Surveys
by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., November, 2004. Similar report titles exist for prior years.


FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   People Living in Radon Mitigated Homes

Performance Database: External

Data Source: Radon fan manufacturers report fan sales to the Agency. EPA assumes one fan per
radon mitigated home, assumes a fan life of 10 years, and then multiplies the assumed number of
working fans by the assumed average of 2.67 people per household.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures: Because data are obtained from an external organization, EPA relies on the
business practices for reporting data of the radon fan manufacturers.

Data Quality Review: Data are obtained  from  an external organization.  EPA reviews the  data
to ascertain their reliability and discusses any irregularities with the relevant manufacturer.

Data Limitations: Reporting by radon fan manufacturers is voluntary and may underestimate
the number of radon fans sold. Nevertheless, these  are the best available data to determine the
number of homes mitigated.  There are  other methods to mitigate radon including:  passive
mitigation techniques of sealing holes and  cracks in floors and foundation walls, installing sealed
covers over sump pits,  installing one-way drain valves in untrapped  drains,  and installing static
venting and ground covers in areas like crawl  spaces.   Because  there are no  data on the
occurrence of these methods, there is again the possibility  that the number of radon mitigated
homes has been underestimated.
No radon vent fan manufacturer,  vent fan motor maker or distributor is required to report to
EPA; they provide data/information voluntarily  to EPA.  There are only four (4) radon vent fan
manufacturers  of  any significance; one  of these accounts for an estimated 70% of the market.
Radon vent fans are unlikely to be used for non-radon applications. However, vent fans typically
used for non-radon applications are perhaps being installed  as substitutes for radon vent fans in
some instances; estimated to be less than 1% of the total market.  Ascertaining the actual number
of radon vent  fans  used for  other  applications, and  the  number of  non-radon fans being
substituted in radon applications, would be difficult and expensive  at this time relative to the
benefit of having such data.
                                          25

-------
Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  None

References: See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html last accessed 12/21/2005  for
National performance/progress reporting (National Radon Results: 1985 to 2003*) on radon,
measurement, mitigation and radon-resistant new construction. Data through 2004 are available
from the Indoor Environments Division of the Office of Air and Radiation.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Number of people with asthma who have taken  steps to reduce their exposure to
       indoor environmental asthma triggers (PART measure)

Performance  Database:  The national telephone  survey (National Survey on Environmental
Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS) seeks information about the measures
taken by people with asthma, and parents of children with asthma to  minimize exposure to
indoor environmental  asthma triggers.  Additional  information about  asthma morbidity and
mortality in the US is obtained  from the Centers  for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Annual  expenditures for  health and lost  productivity  due to asthma are obtained from the
National     Heart     Lung     and    Blood     Institute     (NHLBI)     Chartbook
www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/02_chtbk.pdf last accessed 12/21/2005.

EPA also collects data on children  exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in the home. This
information is used in supporting the asthma goals of the program. EPA focuses its work on ETS
on children in low income and minority populations, and on children with asthma. The National
Survey on  Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to  ETS,  which
includes a series of questions about whether respondents allow smoking in their home, whether
young children are in the  home,  what resident family members smoke and how often, and how
much visitors contribute to exposure, is used to track progress toward reducing childhood ETS
exposure.  Information about ETS is obtained periodically from the Centers for Disease Control
and  Prevention  (CDC) including  the National Health Interview, the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (for cotinine data),  and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
Survey (for state tobacco/ETS exposure data).

Data Source:  The National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's
Exposure to ETS (OMB control number 2060-0490) source is EPA.  Data on asthma morbidity
and  mortality  is available  from  the National  Center for  Health Statistics  at  the  CDC
(www.cdc.gov/nchs last accessed 12/21/2005).  Data on annual expenditures for health and lost
productivity due to asthma are obtained from the NHLBI Chartbook.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: End-of-year performance for the asthma program is a
best professional estimate  using  all  data sources (including  annual  measures  on partner
performance and advertising awareness outlined below).  The survey provides statistically sound
results every three years for one period of time; Scheduled surveys will provide performance
results for years 2006 and 2009. The estimate of the number of people with asthma who have
                                          26

-------
taken steps to reduce their exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers as of 2007 will be
based on a projection from previous surveys, and this estimate will be verified using the 2009
survey data.  Data on annual measures is also used to support progress towards the long term
performance measure.

National Survey on Environmental Management  of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS
(OMB control number 2060-0490):  This survey is the most robust data set for this performance
measure, but it  is not administered annually.  The first survey, administered in 2003,  was
designed in consultation with staff from EPA and the CDC National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS) to ensure that respondents will understand the questions asked and will provide the type
of data necessary to measure the Agency's objectives. In addition, care has been taken to ensure
that the survey questions target the population with asthma by using the same qualifier question
that appears on other national surveys on asthma collected by the CDC.

From an initial  sampling frame of 124,994  phone numbers, 14,685 households were contacted
successfully and agreed to  participate in the screening survey.   Of the  14,685  individuals
screened,  approximately 18  percent, or 2,637 individuals,  either have asthma or live with
someone who does.  Only those individuals who  have asthma  or live with someone who does
were considered  to be eligible respondents.
Respondents were asked to provide primarily yes/no responses.  In some cases, respondents were
given a range of responses in the form of multiple choice questions and were asked to indicate
the one which best defined their response.  The survey seeks information on those environmental
management measures that the Agency considers important in reducing an individual's exposure
to known indoor environmental asthma triggers.  By using yes/no and multiple choice questions,
the Agency has substantially reduced the  amount of time necessary  for  the  respondent to
complete the survey and has ensured consistency in data response and interpretation.

The information collected has been used to establish a baseline to reflect the characteristics of
our nation's  asthma population  and future  iterations of this  survey will measure additional
progress toward achieving performance goals.  The next survey will take place in 2006.

QA/QC Procedures: The National Survey is designed  in accordance with approved Agency
procedures.      Additional     information    is     available     on     the     Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/icr/players.html last accessed  12/21/2005. The computer assisted telephone
interview methodology used for this survey  helps to limit errors in data collection.  In addition,
the QA/QC procedures associated with  conducting the survey include pilot testing  of interview
questions, interviewer training to ensure consistent gathering of information, and random  data
review to reduce the possibility of data entry error.

Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from  all sources to ascertain reliability.

Data Limitations: Asthma:  Random digit dialing methodology is used to ensure  that  a
representative sample of households has been contacted; however,  the  survey is  subject to
inherent limitations of voluntary telephone  surveys of representative samples.  For example, 1)
survey is limited to those households with current telephone service; 2) interviewers may follow
survey  directions  inconsistently.  An  interviewer  might  ask the questions  incorrectly  or
                                           27

-------
inadvertently lead the  interviewee to  a response;  or 3)   the  interviewer may  call at an
inconvenient time (i.e., the respondent might not want to be interrupted at the time of the call and
may resent the intrusion of the phone call; the answers will reflect this attitude.).

ETS: Currently available cotinine (a chemical in environmental tobacco smoke) survey  data do
not address 50% of the age  specific portion of EPA's target population.  It does not include birth
to three years old, the portion of children most susceptible to the effects of ETS.

Error Estimate:   In its first data collection with this instrument, the Agency achieved results
within the following percentage points of the  true value  at the 95 percent confidence level
(survey instrument):
       Adult Asthmatics               plus or minus   2.4%
       Child Asthmatics               plus or minus   3.7%
       Low Income Adult Asthmatics   plus or minus   6.1%

These precision rates are sufficient to characterize the extent to which the results  measured by
the survey accurately reflect the characteristics of our nation's asthmatic population.

New/Improved Data  or   Systems:  Data from  the National  Survey  on  Environmental
Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS (OMB control number 2060-0490)
were collected  from  August 4-September 17, 2003 and represent the first data  collection with
this instrument.

References:

Asthma
National  Center  for  Health  Statistics, Centers   for  Disease  Control  and   Prevention
(www.cdc.gov/nchs/ last accessed 7/27/2005)

EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iaq/ last accessed  12/21/2005)

ETS
National Health Interview  Survey and National  Health and Nutrition Examination  Survey are
part of the National  Center for Health  Statistics, Centers for Disease  Control and  Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs last accessed 12/21/2005)

Behavioral  Risk  Factor Surveillance  Survey,  Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm last accessed 12/21/2005),

US  Surgeon  General's report  on  tobacco (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/index.htm/  last
accessed 7/27/2005),
National      Cancer      Institute's      (NCI)      Tobacco      Monograph      Series
(http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/ last accessed 12/21/2005),

NCI funded Tobacco Use Supplement portion  of the US Census Bureau's Current Population
Survey (http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/studies/tus-cps/ last accessed 12/21/2005),
                                           28

-------
Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/ last accessed 12/21/2005).


FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Additional health care professionals trained annually  by EPA and its partners on
       the environmental management of asthma triggers (PART measure)

Performance Database: The performance database consists of quarterly Partner status reports
used to document the outcomes of individual projects.

Data Source: Partner status reports are generated by those organizations receiving funding from
EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers.

Methods,  Assumptions and Suitability: On an annual basis, EPA requires (programmatic terms
and conditions of the award) all funded organizations to provide  reports identifying how many
health care professionals are educated about indoor asthma triggers.

QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that  organizations report data as accurately and completely
as possible; site-visits are conducted by EPA project officers.

Data Quality Review: Project officers review data quality.

Data Limitations: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is exploring the development of a centralized data base.

References: N/A

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Percent of public that  is aware  of the asthma program's media campaign (PART
       measure)
Performance Database: A media tracking study used to assess behavior change within that
sector of the public viewing the public service announcements.

Data Source: An independent initiative of the Advertising Council provides media tracking of
outcomes of all their public service campaigns and this is publicly available information.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not
controlled by EPA.

QA/QC Procedures: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled by EPA.
                                          29

-------
Data  Quality Review: Methods are those of the Advertising Council,  and not controlled by
EPA.

Data Limitations: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled by EPA.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not
controlled by EPA.

References: Advertising Council Reporting. EPA Assistance Agreement number X-82820301.
For additional information see the Ad Council web site http://www.adcouncil.org/  last accessed
12/21/05.
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •   Students, faculty and staff experiencing improved indoor air quality in their schools
   •   Estimated annual number of schools establishing Indoor Air Quality programs
       based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance (PART measure)

Performance Database:

EPA collects national data by conducting a survey of indoor air quality management practices in
schools approximately every three years. The first survey was administered in 2002. EPA is
partnering with CDC to incorporate IAQ management practice indicators, consistent with the
benchmark survey, into the School Health Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS) to be
administered in 2006. EPA will implement this IAQ module as a smaller survey in 2009, as the
SHPSS survey is only conducted at 6 year intervals.

To measure annual progress, EPA estimates the number of schools who establish IAQ Tools for
Schools (TfS) programs each year from reports from partner organizations and regional
recruiters, supplemented by tracking the volume of guidances distributed and number of people
trained by EPA and its partners.  EPA also collects information on program benefits such as
reduced school nurse visits, improved workplace satisfaction among staff, reduced absenteeism,
and cost savings experienced by schools.

Data Source:  The sources of the data include cooperative partners, USEPA and the statistical
sample of all the public and private schools in the  nation during the 1999 - 2000 school year
(118,000); data are from  the  United States Department of  Education National  Center  for
Education Statistics.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Calculations for the number of people experiencing
improved IAQ are based upon  an average 525 students, staff and faculty per school (data  are
from the United States Department of  Education National Center for Education Statistics). That
                                          30

-------
number, along with the number of schools that are adopting/implementing TfS,  are used to
estimate the performance result.

End-of-year performance is  a best professional estimate using all data sources.  The survey
provides more statistically sound results for one period of time; the next scheduled survey will
provide performance results  for year 2006.   EPA's 2006 survey will be included as part of
CDC's 2006 School Health Policies and Programs Study, which is conducted every six years.

QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately and
completely as possible; site visits and regular communication with grantees are conducted by
EPA projects officers.

Data Quality Review:  EPA reviews the data from all sources in the performance database to
ascertain reliability and to resolve any discrepancies.

Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Cooperative Agreement Partner status
reporting is the error introduced as a result of self-reporting.

Error Estimate: Not relevant for this year.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Prior to the 2002  survey, EPA tracked the number of schools
receiving the TfS guidance and estimated the  population of the school to determine the number
of students/staff experiencing improved  indoor air quality.  The  survey was administered to
establish a baseline for  schools implementing IAQ management practices. EPA queried  a
statistically representative sample of schools to estimate the number of schools that have actually
adopted and implemented good IAQ management practices consistent with the  TfS guidance.
EPA plans to re-administer the  survey as a component of CDC's School Health Policies and
Programs Study, which will show progress from  the baseline.

References:  See  the United States Department of Education National  Center  for Education
Statistics,  http://nces.ed.gov/  last accessed 12/21/2005. See also Indoor Air Quality Tools for
Schools Kit (402-K-95-001)  at   http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools last accessed 12/21/2005 and
see www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/shpps/ For additional information  about the School Health
Policies and Programs Study  (SHPPS), a national survey periodically conducted to assess school
health policies and programs at the state, district, school, and classroom levels.
                                GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 3

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Remaining US  consumption of HCFCs, measured  in tons of  ozone depleting
       potential (OOP) (PART measure)
    •   Restrict Domestic Exempted Production and  Import of Newly Produced Class I
       CFCs and Halons

-------
Performance Database: The Allowance Tracking System (ATS) database is maintained by the
Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD). ATS is used to compile and analyze quarterly
information on U.S. production, imports, exports, transformations, and allowance trades of
ozone-depleting substances (ODS).

Data Source: Progress on restricting domestic exempted consumption of Class II HCFCs is
tracked by monitoring industry reports of compliance with EPA's phase-out regulations. Data are
provided by U.S. companies producing, importing, and exporting ODS.  Corporate data are
typically submitted as quarterly reports. Specific requirements as outlined in the Clean Air Act
are available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caa603.txt. Monthly information on
domestic production,  imports, and exports from the International Trade Commission is
maintained in the ATS.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Data are aggregated across all U.S. companies for
each individual ODS to analyze U.S. total consumption and production.

QA/QC Procedures: Reporting  and record-keeping requirements are published in 40 CFR Part
82, Subpart A, Sections 82.9 through 82.13. These sections of the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Rule specify the required data and accompanying documentation that companies must
submit or maintain on-site to demonstrate their compliance with the regulation.

The ATS data are subject to a Quality Assurance Plan (Quality Assurance Plan, USEPA Office
of Atmospheric Programs, July  2002).  In addition, the  data are subject to  an  annual quality
assurance review, coordinated by Office of Air and Radiation  (OAR) staff separate from those
on the team normally responsible for data collection and maintenance. The ATS is programmed
to ensure consistency of the data elements reported by companies.  The tracking system flags
inconsistent data for review  and  resolution by the tracking system manager. This information is
then cross-checked with compliance data submitted by reporting companies.   SPD maintains a
user's manual for the ATS  that  specifies the standard operating  procedures for  data entry and
data analysis.  Regional inspectors perform inspections  and audits on-site at the  producers',
importers', and  exporters'  facilities.  These audits  verify the accuracy of  compliance  data
submitted to EPA through examination of company records.

Data Quality Reviews: The Government Accounting Office (GAO) completed a review of U.S.
participation in five international environmental agreements, and analyzed data submissions
from the U.S. under the Montreal Protocol on Substances the Deplete the Ozone Layer.  No
deficiencies were identified in their January 2003 report.

Data Limitations: None, since companies are required by the Clean Air Act to report data.
EPA's regulations specify a quarterly reporting system.

Error Estimate: None.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The Stratospheric Protection Division is developing a system
to allow direct electronic reporting.
                                          32

-------
References:  See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/desc.httnl for additional information on ODSs.  See
http://www.unep.ch/ozone/tnontreal.shttnl for additional information about the Montreal
Protocol.  See http://www.unmfs.org/ for more information about the Multilateral Fund. Quality
Assurance Plan, USEPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, July 2002
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Cumulative federal dollars spent per cumulative number of schools joining the
       SunWise program

Performance Database: Not applicable

Data Source:  Cumulative federal dollars spent is estimated from annual program budget
tracking documents. The number of schools joining the SunWise program is measured by
counting the number of schools that register to join the SunWise program in each year, which is
collected at http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html.  Schools also have the option of
sending in a paper registration, which EPA then enters at this website. EPA tracks the data at
http ://intranet. epa. gov/sunwi se/track/trac_teacher. html.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The cumulative number of schools joining the
SunWise program is measured by counting the number of schools that register to join the
SunWise program in each year, which is collected at
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html., and adding the incremental number of schools
joining the program to the prior year's cumulative total. The efficiency measure is calculated by
dividing the cumulative number of dollars EPA has spent on the SunWise program by the
cumulative number of schools that have joined the program.

QA/QC Procedures:  All registrations by schools  are reviewed by EPA staff for completeness
and to assure there is  no double counting of entries.  EPA updates the registration information
during the course of program implementation.

Data Quality Reviews: Each year researchers at an independent contractor contact a statistical
sample of schools in the program database in order to  evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
EPA updates the website based on the contractor's findings as appropriate.

Data Limitations: The number of participating schools is probably underestimated since
schools that fail to provide full registration information are not entered into the database, even if
they participate in the program. Note that additional organizations besides schools may also
register and provide the SunWise curriculum.  These organizations include scout troupes,
camps, and 4-H groups, for example.  Therefore, counting only schools underestimates the
program's reach and efficiency.

Error Estimate: None

New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A
                                          33

-------
References:
For more information about the Sun Wise School program, see:
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/ and
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html Data collection regarding schools that participate in
SunWise is authorized by OMB Control No. 2060-0439.

                                GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 4

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Purchase and Deploy State-of-Art Monitoring Units

Performance Data: Data from the near real-time gamma component of the RadNet, formerly
known as the Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS), will be stored in
an internal EPA database at the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL)
in Montgomery, Alabama. Data from filters are housed in the Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS) which are physically located in Montgomery, Alabama.

Data Source: RadNet

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Assuming that funding is continued in future years
and the project receives all necessary approvals, the existing air sampling equipment will be
supplemented with state-of-the art air monitors that include near real-time gamma radiation
detection capability. Addition of detectors and communication systems will provide information
about significant radioactive contamination events to decision- makers within hours

QA/QC Procedures:  Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow the
Agency guidelines and be consistent with a specific initial operational Quality Assurance Plan
that will be completed. All monitoring equipment will be periodically calibrated with reliable
standards and routinely checked for accuracy with onsite testing devices. Laboratory analyses
of air filters and other environmental media are closely controlled in compliance with the
NAREL Quality Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating Procedures.

Data Quality Reviews:  The database will screen all incoming data from the monitoring systems
for abnormalities as an indicator of either a contamination event or an instrument malfunction.
Data will be held in a secure portion of the database until verified by trained personnel. Copies
of quality assurance and quality control testing will also be maintained to assure the quality of
the data.

Data Limitations: Data are limited in near-real-time to gamma emitting radionuclide
identification and quantification. Radiation levels from gamma-emitting nuclides that will be so
low as to be "undetectable" will be significantly below health concerns that require immediate
action. Lower levels of radioactive materials in the samples will  be measured through
laboratory-based analyses and data.
                                           34

-------
Error Estimate: The overall error in detection capability is estimated to be within 50% of the
actual concentration based on previous experience with similar measurement systems.  An error
analysis will be performed on the prototype systems during the process of detector selection.

New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: New air samplers will maintain steady flow
rates that are measured during operation and corrected for varying environmental conditions.
Addition of gamma spectrometric detectors and computer-based multi-channel analyzers to the
air samplers provide near real-time analyses of radioactive content in particles captured by the
filter. In addition to data collection, the onboard computer systems can communicate results of
analyses back to a central database and even identify abnormal conditions that might require
action.   These improvements not only include higher quality data, but also will provide
information regarding contamination events to decision-makers within hours instead of days.
The number and location of monitoring sites will be improved to provide greater coverage of
more of the nation's population.

The plan for upgrading and expanding the RadNet air monitoring network was reviewed in FY05
by an EPA Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) and will be reviewed in  FY06  by the Radiation
Advisory Committee (RAC) of EPA's  Science Advisory  Board (SAB) .   The TEP review
provided a number of comments that were incorporated in the RadNet  plan,  especially  those
addressing the refinement  of the overall system objectives.   The SAB  review is expected to
provide discussion and guidance from a team of national experts that will address key aspects of
the  science and technology of the  new network, including fundamental concerns such as  the
appropriateness and potential effectiveness of the plan for  siting near-real-time air monitors
across the nation.

References:  For additional information about the continuous monitoring system, ERAMS see:
http://www.epa.gov/narel/radnet last accessed 7/27/2005.

NAREL Quality Management Plan, Revision 1, March 15, 2001.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Percentage of EPA RERT members that meet criteria

Performance Data:  To determine the effectiveness of RERT performance, an output measure
has been developed that scores RERT members on a scale of one (1) to 100 against criteria
developed based on the RERT's responsibilities under the National Response Plan's
Nuclear/Radiological  Incident Annex (formerly the Federal Radiological Emergency Response
Plan) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (the NCP).  A
baseline evaluation was performed in FY03, based on the effectiveness of the RERT in responses
to actual incidents and a major national exercise (TOPOFF2).  RERT members were evaluated in
their ability to: (1) provide effective field response, (2) support coordination centers, and (3)
provide analytical capabilities and to support a single small-to-medium scale incident, as needed.
Overall RERT effectiveness in this baseline analysis was measured at approximately 13 percent.
In FY 2004, RERT members were re-evaluated, through a major exercise, in the ability factors
listed above. In FY 2005, the evaluation criteria have been reevaluated and revised in response
                                          35

-------
to the results of the FY 2004 exercise as well as changes necessitated by the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 and DHS' issuance of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the
National Response Plan.

Data Source: Based on the requirements of EPA set forth in the NRP's Nuclear/Radiological
Incident Annex and the NCP, EPA has developed criteria against which the capabilities of the
RERT are judged. This evaluation has been performed by members of the Radiation Protection
Division, including representatives both within and outside the RERT itself.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures:  N/A

Data Quality Reviews:  N/A

Data Limitations: The evaluation criteria were modified between FY2003 and FY2005 to
reflect the changing requirements of the RERT, based on DHS' issuance of both NEVIS and the
NRP during this time period.  While the broad outline of the RERT's role has remained the
same, additional requirements have been imposed by the issuance of these documents, which are
now reflected in the RERT evaluation criteria.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: None

References:  The Homeland Security Act of 2002, the National Incident Management
System, and the National Response Plan

FY 2007  Performance Measure:

    •   Drums of Radioactive Waste Disposed of according to EPA Standards

Performance Data: The Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
database contains the number of drums shipped by DOE waste generator facilities and placed in
the DOE WIPP. The WIPP is a DOE facility located in southeastern New Mexico,  26 miles from
Carlsbad, New Mexico.  The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act was passed by Congress in October
1992 and amended in September 1996. The act transferred the land occupied by the WIPP to
DOE and gave EPA, regulatory responsibility for determining whether the facility complies with
radioactive waste disposal standards.  Through July 2005, EPA has completed over 97 on-site
inspections to evaluate waste prior to  shipment to the WIPP facility.

Data Source: Department of Energy

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
                                         36

-------
QA/QC Procedures: The performance data used by EPA are collected and maintained by DOE.
Under EPA's WIPP regulations (available on the Internet:
 http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/background.htm (last accessed 7/18/200), all DOE WIPP-
related data must be collected and maintained under a comprehensive quality assurance program
meeting consensus standards developed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) (available on the Internet: http://www.asme.org/codes  (last accessed 7/18/2005)).
EPA conducts regular inspections to ensure that these quality assurance systems are in place and
functioning properly; no additional QA/QC of the DOE data is conducted by EPA.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: The DOE WIPP database contains the number of drums shipped by DOE
waste generator facilities and placed in the DOE WIPP.  Currently, there are five DOE waste
generator facilities that are approved to generate and ship waste: Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Hanford Site, Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory,  Savannah River Site.

Before DOE waste generator facilities can ship waste to the WIPP, EPA must approve the waste
characterization controls and quality assurance procedures for waste identification at these sites.
EPA conducts frequent independent inspections and audits at these sites to verify continued
compliance with radioactive waste disposal standards and to determine  if DOE is properly
tracking the waste and adhering to specific waste component limits. Once EPA gives its
approval, the number of drums shipped to the WIPP facility on an annual basis is dependent on
DOE priorities  and funding. EPA volume estimates are based on projecting the average shipment
volumes over 40 years with an initial start up.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: None

References: The Department of Energy National TRU Waste Management Plan
Quarterly Supplement http://www.wipp.ws/library/caolib.htm#Controlled_ (last accessed
7/18/2005) contains information on the monthly volumes of waste that  are received at the
DOE WIPP.

                            GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 5

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •   Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions overall and by Sector
   •   Million metric  tons  of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse  gas emissions
       reduced in the building sector (PART measure)
   •   Million metric  tons  of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse  gas emissions
       reduced in the industry sector (PART measure)
   •   Million metric  tons  of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse  gas emissions
       reduced in the transportation sector (PART measure)
                                         37

-------
Performance  Database:  Climate Protection  Partnerships Division  Tracking System.  The
tracking  system's  primary purpose is to maintain a record of the  annual  greenhouse gas
emissions reduction goals and  accomplishments  for the voluntary  climate  program using
information  from partners  and other  sources.   It also  measures the electricity savings and
contribution towards the President's greenhouse gas intensity goal.

Data Source:  EPA develops carbon and non-CC>2  emissions baselines. A  baseline is the
"business-as-usual"  case" without the  impact of EPA's voluntary climate programs.  Baseline
data for carbon emissions related to energy use  comes from the Energy Information Agency
(EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model (TPM) of the U.S. electric power sector. These
data are used for  both  historical and projected  greenhouse   gas  emissions  and electricity
generation, independent of partners'  information to  compute emissions  reductions  from the
baseline  and progress toward  annual goals.  The projections  use a "Reference Case" for
assumptions about growth, the economy, and regulatory conditions. Baseline data for non-carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases,
are maintained by  EPA.  The  non-CO2 data are compiled with input from industry and also
independently from partners' information.

Data  collected  by  EPA's  voluntary  programs include partner reports  on  facility- specific
improvements (e.g.  space upgraded, kilowatt-hours (kWh) reduced), national market data on
shipments of efficient products, and engineering measurements of equipment power levels and
usage patterns

Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. The report
includes a complete chapter dedicated to the U.S.  greenhouse gas inventory (sources, industries,
emissions, volumes,  changes, trends,  etc.).  A  second chapter addresses projected greenhouse
gases in the future (model assumptions, growth,  sources, gases, sectors, etc.)

U.S.  Department  of State. 2002.  "U.S. Climate Action Report—2002.    Third  National
    Communication of the United States of America under the United Nations  Framework
    Convention on Climate Change."

Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific improvements
but these  emissions data are not used  in tracking the performance measure.  EPA,  however,
validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based on the actual emissions data received.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Most of the voluntary climate programs' focus is on
energy efficiency.  For these programs, EPA  estimates the expected reduction in electricity
consumption in kilowatt-hours  (kWh).  Emissions  prevented are calculated  as the product of the
kWh  of electricity saved and  an annual  emission factor (e.g.,  metric tons carbon equivalent
(MMTCE) prevented per  kWh). Other programs focus on directly lowering greenhouse gas
emissions (e.g.,  Natural  Gas  STAR, Landfill  Methane Outreach,  and Coalbed  Methane
Outreach); for these, greenhouse gas emission  reductions are estimated on a project-by-project
basis. EPA maintains a Atracking system@ for emissions reductions.
                                          38

-------
The Integrated Planning Model, used  to  develop  baseline data for  carbon emissions, is an
important analytical tool for evaluating emission scenarios affecting the U.S. power sector.  The
IPM has an approved quality assurance project plan that is available from EPA's program office.

QA/QC Procedures: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the  best possible information
on  which to evaluate emissions reductions from voluntary programs. Peer-reviewed carbon-
conversion factors  are used  to  ensure consistency  with generally accepted  measures of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and peer-reviewed methodologies are used to calculate GHG
reductions from these programs.

Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific improvements
but these  emissions data are not used  in tracking the performance measure.  EPA, however,
validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based on the actual emissions data received.

Data Quality  Review:  The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its  climate
programs  through interagency evaluations. The second such interagency evaluation,  led by the
White House Council on Environmental Quality, examined the status of U.S.  climate  change
programs. The review included participants from EPA and the Departments of State, Energy,
Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. The  results  were published in the  U.S. Climate
Action Report-2002 as  part of the United States' submission to the Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC).  The previous evaluation was published in  the  U.S.  Climate Action
Report-1997'. A 1997 audit by EPA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that the  climate
programs  examined "used good management practices" and "effectively estimated the impact
their activities  had on reducing risks to health and the environment..."

Data Limitations: These are indirect measures of GHG emissions (carbon conversion factors
and methods to convert material-specific reductions to GHG  emissions reductions). Also, the
voluntary  nature of the programs may  affect reporting. Further research  will  be necessary in
order to fully  understand the links  between GHG concentrations and specific environmental
impacts, such as impacts on health, ecosystems, crops, weather events, and so forth.

Error Estimate: These are indirect measures of GHG  emissions.  Although EPA devotes
considerable effort to obtaining the  best possible information on which to evaluate emissions
reductions from its voluntary  programs, errors in the performance data  could be  introduced
through uncertainties in carbon conversion factors, engineering analyses, and econometric
analyses.  The  only programs at this time aimed at avoiding GHG emissions are voluntary.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of
its climate programs through interagency evaluations. EPA continues to update inventories and
methodologies as new information becomes available.

References:       The   U.S.    Climate   Action   Report   2002    is    available    at:
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html.   The accomplishments of many of
EPA's voluntary programs are documented in the Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Annual  Report. The most recent version  is Protecting the Environment Together: ENERGY
                                           39

-------
STAR and other Voluntary Programs, Climate Protection Partnerships Division 2003 Annual
Report.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Annual Energy Savings

Performance Database: Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System

Data Source: Data collected by EPA's voluntary programs include partner reports on facility
specific improvements (e.g. space upgraded, kilowatt-hours (kWh) reduced), national market
data on shipments of efficient products, and engineering measurements of equipment power
levels and usage patterns.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  Most of the voluntary climate programs' focus is on
energy efficiency. For these programs, EPA estimates the expected reduction in electricity
consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Emissions prevented are calculated as the product of the
kWh of electricity saved and an annual emission factor (e.g., MMTCE prevented per kWh).
Other programs focus on directly lowering greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Natural Gas STAR,
Landfill Methane Outreach, and Coalbed Methane Outreach); for these, greenhouse gas emission
reductions are estimated on a project-by-project basis. EPA maintains a Atracking  system@ for
energy reductions.

Energy bill savings are calculated as the product of the kWh of energy saved and the cost of
electricity for the affected market segment (residential, commercial, or industrial) taken from the
Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook and Annual Energy Review
for each year in the analysis (1993-2013). Energy bill savings also include revenue from the sale
of methane and/or the sale of electricity made from captured methane. The net present value
(NPV) of these savings was calculated using a 4-percent discount rate and a 2001 perspective.

QA/QC Procedures: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible
information on which to evaluate energy savings from its voluntary programs.

Data Quality Review: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate
programs through interagency evaluations. The second such interagency evaluation, led by the
White House Council on Environmental Quality, examined the status of U.S. climate change
programs. The review included participants from EPA and the Departments of State, Energy,
Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. The results were published in the U.S. Climate
Action Report-2002 as part of the United States' submission to the Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC).  The previous evaluation was published in the U.S.  Climate Action
Report-1997. A 1997 audit by EPA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that the climate
programs examined "used good management practices" and "effectively estimated the impact
their activities had on reducing risks to health and the environment...@
                                          40

-------
Data Limitations: The voluntary nature of programs may affect reporting. In addition, errors in
the performance data could be introduced through uncertainties in engineering analyses and
econometric analyses.

Error Estimate: Although EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible
information on which to evaluate emissions reductions from voluntary programs, errors in the
performance data could be introduced through uncertainties in engineering analyses and
econometric analyses.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of
its climate programs through interagency evaluations.  EPA continues to update inventories and
methodologies as new information becomes available.

References:    The    U.S.    Climate   Action    Report   2002    is   available    at:
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html.  The accomplishments of many of
EPA=s voluntary programs are documented in the  Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Annual Report. The most recent version is Protecting the Environment Together: Energy Star
and Other Voluntary Programs, Climate Protection Partnerships Division 2003 Annual Report.

                               GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 6

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •  Measure Fuel  Economy  of specific test  vehicles  with  EPA-Developed  Hybrid
      Technology Tested over EPA Driving Cycles

   •  Fuel Economy  of EPA-developed hybrid package delivery vehicle over EPA city
      cycle
Performance Database: Fuel economy test data for both urban and highway test cycles under
the EPA Federal Test Procedure for passenger cars. The Clean Automotive Technology program
commits EPA to develop technology by the end of the decade to satisfy stringent criteria
emissions requirements and up to a doubling of fuel efficiency in personal vehicles such as
SUVs, pickups, and urban delivery vehicles — while simultaneously meeting the more
demanding size, performance, durability, and power requirements of these vehicles.

Data Source: EPA fuel economy tests performed at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions
Laboratory (NVFEL), Ann Arbor, Michigan

QA/QC Procedures: EPA fuel economy tests are performed in accordance with the EPA
Federal Test Procedure and all  applicable QA/QC procedures. Available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
                                         41

-------
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's NVFEL laboratory is recognized as a national and international
facility for fuel economy and emissions testing.  NVFEL is also the reference point for private
industry.

Data Limitations: Primarily due to EPA regulations, vehicle fuel economy testing is a well
established and precise exercise with extremely low test to test variability (well less than 5%).
Additional information is available on the Internet:  http://www.epa.gov/otaq/testdata.html  One
challenge relates to fuel economy testing of hybrid vehicles (i.e., more than one source of
onboard power), which is more complex than testing of conventional vehicles. EPA has not yet
published formal regulations to cover hybrid vehicles. Relevant information is available on the
Internet: http://www.ctts.nrel.gov/analysis/hev_test/procedures.shtml

Error Estimate:  N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is using solid engineering judgment and consultations
with other expert organizations (including major auto companies) to develop internal procedures
for testing hybrid vehicles.

References: See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/testproc.htm for additional information about testing
and measuring emissions at the NVFEL.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Percentage of  NAAQS research program publications rated as highly cited papers
       (PART Measure)

Performance Database: No internal tracking system

Data Source: The source of data will be a contractor-produced bibliometric analysis of NAAQS
program publications.

Methods,  Assumptions and Suitability:   The analysis will be completed using Thomson's
Essential Science  Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI  are a
comprehensive compilation of essential science performance statistics  and  science trends data
derived from Thomson's databases. The chief indicator of output, or productivity, is journal
article publication counts.  For influence and impact measures, ESI employs both total citation
counts  and cites per paper scores. The former reveals gross influence while the latter shows
weighted influence, also called impact.  JCR presents quantifiable statistical data, which provide
a systematic, objective  way  to evaluate the world's leading journals and their  impact and
influence in the global  research community.

QA/QC Procedures:  Source data will be used in comparing  program publications to field
benchmarks, Essential  Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Report (JCR).

Data Quality Reviews:  Additional benchmarks will  be used to determine the number of self-
citations of articles by  the same author in order to reduce the self-citation rate.
                                          42

-------
Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate:  N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References:

Essential Science Indicatorsฎ- Thomson Scientific. 2003.

Journal Citation Reportsฎ. Thomson Scientific. 2003.

Citation Analysis. EPA's Endocrine Disrupters Chemicals (EDCs) Research Program,
publication list. BOSC Program Review. December 2004.



FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •  Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant sources based on
      the risk they pose to human health  (PART Measure)

   •  Percent planned actions accomplished toward the long-term goal of reducing
      uncertainty in the science that supports the standard-setting and air quality
      management decisions  (PART Measure)

Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system.

Data Source: N/A

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures: N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate:  N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

                              GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 1
                                        43

-------
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive
   drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through
   effective treatment and source water protection
•  The percentage of population served by community water systems in Indian country that
   receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards
   (PART measure)
•  The percentage of community water systems in compliance with drinking water
   standards (PART measure)
•  Dollars per community  water system in compliance with health-based drinking water
   standards (PART measure)

Performance Database:  Safe Drinking Water Information System - Federal Version (SDWIS or
SDWIS/FED).  SDWIS contains basic water system information, population served, and detailed
records of violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the statute's implementing regulations.
The performance measure is based on the population served by community water systems that
were active during any part of the performance year and did not have any violations designated as
"health based." Exceedances of a maximum contaminant level (MCL) and violations of a
treatment technique are health-based violations.  SDWIS has provided annual results for ten years
and reports on a fiscal year basis.

Data Source: Data are provided by agencies with primacy (primary enforcement authority) for
the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program. These agencies are either: States, EPA for
non-delegated states or territories, and the Navajo Nation Indian tribe, the only tribe with primacy.
Primacy agencies collect the data from the regulated water systems, determine compliance, and
report a subset of the data to EPA (primarily inventory and summary violations).

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Under the drinking water regulations, water systems
must use approved analytical methods for testing for contaminants. State certified laboratories
report contaminant occurrence to states that, in turn, determine exceedances of maximum
contaminant levels or non-compliance with treatment techniques and report these violations to
EPA. These results are subject to periodic performance audits and compared to results that states
report to SDWIS. Primacy agencies' information systems and compliance determinations are
audited  on an average schedule of once every 3 years,  according to a protocol.  To measure
program performance, EPA aggregates the SDWIS data into national statistics on overall
compliance with health-based drinking water standards using the measures identified above.

QA/QC Procedures: EPA conducts a number of Quality Assurance/Quality Control steps to
provide high quality data for program use, including:
   (1) SDWIS/FED edit checks built into the software to reject erroneous data.
   (2) Quality assurance manuals for states and Regions, which provide standard operating
       procedures for conducting routine assessments of the quality of the data, including timely
       corrective action(s).
   (3) Training to states on reporting requirements, data entry, data retrieval, and error
       correction.
                                          44

-------
    (4) User and system documentation produced with each software release and  maintained on
       EPA's web site. System, user, and reporting requirements documents can be found on the
       EPA web site, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/.  System and user documents are accessed
       via the database link http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html, and specific rule
       reporting requirements documents are accessed via the regulations, guidance, and policy
       documents link http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html.
    (5) Specific error correction and reconciliation support through a troubleshooter's guide, a
       system-generated summary with detailed reports documenting the results of each data
       submission, and an error code database for states to use when they have questions on how
       to enter or correct data.
    (6) User support hotline available 5 days a week.
The SDWIS/FED equivalent of a quality assurance plan is the data reliability action plan1
(DRAP).  The DRAP contains the processes and procedures and major activities to be employed
and undertaken for assuring the data in SDWIS meet required data quality standards. This plan
has three major components: assurance, assessment, and control.

Data Quality Review:  SDWIS data quality was identified as an Agency weakness in 1999 and
has a corrective action completion target date that extends to 2007.  SDWIS' weaknesses centered
around five major issues: 1) completeness of the data (e.g., the inventory of public water systems,
violations of maximum contaminant levels, enforcement actions) submitted by the states, 2)
timeliness of the data sent by the states, i.e., if states do not report at specified times, then
enforcement and oversight actions suffer, 3) difficulty receiving data from the states, 4) both cost
and difficulty processing and storing data in SDWIS after it has been received, and 5) difficulty
getting SDWIS data for reporting and analysis.

The first two issues are being addressed over a three-year period (2004-2007) through two (2000
and 2003) Data Reliability Action Plans. An information strategic plan2 (ISP) was developed and
implemented to address the last three  issues, which deal primarily with technology (hardware and
software) concerns. Implementation of the ISP, which ended in 2005, documents ways to improve
tools  and processes  for  creating  and transferring data to   EPA and incorporates newer
technologies  and adapts the Agency's Enterprise Architecture Plan to integrate data and allow
the flow of data from  reporting entities to EPA via the Agency's secure central data exchange
(CDX) environment.

Routine data quality assurance  and quality control (QA/QC) analyses of the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) by the Office Water (OW) have revealed a degree of non-
reporting of violations  of health-based drinking water standards, and of violations of regulatory
monitoring and reporting requirements (discussed further under Data Limitations). As a result of
these data quality problems, the baseline statistic of national compliance  with health-based
1 Data Reliability Action Plan. U.S. EPA, October 2002. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water internal work plan
document. Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan (2003) For State Reported Public Water System Data In
the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version (SDWIS/FED)

2 U. S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Information Strategy (under revision). See Options for
OGWDWInformation Strategy (Working Draft), EPA 816-P-01-001. Washington, DC, February 2001.  Available on the Internet
at http://www. epa.gov/safewater/data/informationstrategy.html
                                            45

-------
drinking water standards likely is lower than previously reported.  The Agency is engaged in
discussions with states to more accurately quantify the impact of these data quality problems on
the estimate of national compliance with health-based drinking water standards. Even as
improvements are made, SDWIS serves as the best source of national information on compliance
with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements for program management, the development of
drinking water regulations, trends analyses, and public information.

Data Limitations: Recent state data verification and other quality assurance analyses indicate
that the most significant data quality problem is under-reporting by the states of monitoring and
health-based standards violations and inventory characteristics.  The most significant under-
reporting occurs in monitoring violations.  Even though those are not covered in the health based
violation category, which is covered by the performance measure, failures to monitor could mask
treatment technique and MCL violations. Such under-reporting of violations limits EPA's ability
to:  1) accurately portray the amount of people affected by health-based violations, 2) undertake
geo-spatial analysis, 3) integrate and share data with other data systems, and 4) precisely
quantify the population served by systems, which are meeting the health-based standards.
Therefore, the estimates of population-served could be high or low. As described in the Data
Quality Review section above, EPA is currently changing the protocol to  enhance the results of
data audits as the best near-term  option to improve these estimates, while  continuing to explore
other approaches, including use of contaminant occurrence data.

Error Estimate:  EPA will be analyzing data, derived from the improved data audit protocol, with
a robust statistical basis from which to extrapolate national results, and better aligned with
requirements of the Data Quality Act. The long-term value of the improved audit process is that
each year's results will be statistically representative and provide information closer in time to
the needed performance reporting; for example, 2006 results, the first year of the improved audit
process will be reported in 2007.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  Several approaches are underway.

First, EPA will continue to work with states to implement the DRAP and ISP, which have already
improved the completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency of the data in SDWIS/FED
through: 1) training courses for specific compliance determination and reporting requirements, 2)
state-specific technical assistance, 3) increased number of data audits conducted each year, and 4)
assistance to regions and states in the identification and reconciliation of missing, incomplete, or
conflicting data.

Second, more states (from 30 to 40 by year-end 2005) will use SDWIS/STATE,3 a software
information system jointly designed by states and EPA, to support states as they implement the
drinking water program.
3 SDWIS/STATE (Version 8.1) is an optional Oracle data base application available for use by states and EPA regions to support
implementation of their drinking water programs.
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Data and Databases. Drinking Water Data & Databases -
SDWIS/STATE, July 2002. Information available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwis_st/current.html
                                            46

-------
Third, EPA has modified SDWIS/FED to (1) simplify the database, (2) minimize data entry
options resulting in complex software, (3) enforce Agency data standards, and (4) ease the flow
of data to EPA through a secure data exchange environment incorporating modern technologies,
all of which will improve the accuracy of the data.  In 2006, full use of SDWIS/FED for
receiving state reports will be implemented.  Data will be stored in a data warehouse system that
is optimized for analysis, data retrieval, and data integration from other data sources. It will
improve the program's ability to more efficiently use information to support decision-making
and effectively manage the program.

Finally, EPA, in partnership with the states, is developing information modules on other drinking
water programs: the Source Water Protection Program, the Underground Injection Control
Program (UIC), and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. These modules will be
integrated with  SDWIS to provide a more comprehensive data set with which to assess the
nation's drinking water supplies, a key component of the goal. In 2006, agreement is expected to
be reached on the data elements for reporting source water and UIC data.  Plans have now been
developed for design of systems to address these data flows. Developing the systems to receive
the data is scheduled for 2007.

References:
Plans*

   •   SDWIS/FED does not have a Quality Assurance Project Plan - it is a legacy system which
       has "evolved" since the early 80s prior to the requirement for a Plan.  The SDWIS/FED
       equivalent is the Data Reliability Action Plan
   •   Information Strategy Plan - SDWIS/FED (see footnote 2)
   •   Office of Water Quality Management Plan, available at
       http://www.epa.gov/water/info.html
   •   Enterprise Architecture Plan

Reports*

   •   1999 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability
   •   2003 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability Report - contains the Data Reliability Action Plan and
       status report

Guidance Manuals, and Tools

   •   PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance Manual
   •   Various SDWIS/FED User and System Guidance Manuals (includes data entry
       instructions,  data On-line Data Element Dictionary-a database application, Error Code
       Data Base (ECDB) - a database application, users guide, release notes, etc.) Available on
       the Internet at 
* These are internal documents maintained by EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Please call 202-564-3751 for
further information.
                                           47

-------
   •   Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet at
       

Web site addresses

   •   OGWDW Internet Site  and contains
       access to the information systems and various guidance, manuals, tools, and reports.
   •   Sites of particular interest are:
        contains information for users to
       better analyze the data, and
 contains reporting guidance, system and
user documentation and reporting tools for the SDWIS/FED system.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

       •  Fund Utilization Rate for the DWSRF.
       •  Number of additional projects initiating operations

Performance  Database:  Drinking  Water  State Revolving  Fund National  Information
Management System (DWNIMS.)

Data Sources: Data are entered by state regulatory agency personnel and by EPA's Regional
staff; they are collected and reported once yearly.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Data entered into DWNIMS  directly represent the
units  of performance for  the performance measure. These data are suitable  for  year-to-year
comparison and trend indication.

QA/QC Procedures: EPA's headquarters and Regional offices are responsible for compiling the
data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance with expected trends.
States receive  data entry guidance from EPA headquarters in the form of annual memoranda
(e.g., "2005 DWNIMS Data Collection.")

Data Quality Reviews:  EPA's  headquarters and  Regional  offices annually  review the data
submitted     by     the     states.     State    data     are     publicly     available    at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html  in individual   state reports.  Headquarters
addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through the appropriate EPA
Regional office. Additionally, EPA's contractor tests the data for logical consistency. An annual
EPA headquarters' "DWNIMS Analysis" provides detailed data categorization and comparison.
This analysis is used during:

1.  Annual EPA Regional office and  state reviews to identify potential problems with the
program's pace which might affect the performance measure.
2. Reviews by  EPA's headquarters of regional oversight of state revolving funds.
3. Annual reviews by EPA's Regional offices of their states' revolving funds operations.
                                           48

-------
State data quality is also evaluated during annual reviews performed by EPA Regions. Any
inconsistencies that are  found in need of correction are  incorporated into future  DWNEVIS
reports. These adjustments are historically rare and very minor.

Data Limitations:  There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states submit
voluntarily. Erroneous data can be introduced  into the DWNEVIS database by typographic or
definitional error.  Typographic errors  are controlled  and  corrected  through  data  testing
performed by EPA's contractor.  Definitional errors due to varying interpretations of information
requested for  specific data fields have been largely reduced. These definitions  are publicly
available at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/nims/dwdatadefs.pdf . There is typically a lag
of approximately two months from the date EPA asks states to enter their data into the DWNEVIS
database, and when the data are quality-checked and available for public use.

New/Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since DWSRF inception. It is
updated annually, and data fields are changed or added as needed.

References:
State performance data as shown in NEVIS are available by state at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NEVIS is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/nims/dwdatadefs.pdf
2005 DWNEVIS Data Collection - memo from Jeff Bryan, 7/12/05
DWNEVIS analysis

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •  Percent of states conducting sanitary surveys at community water systems once
       every three years.

Performance Database: Primary enforcement responsibility (e.g. primacy) for the Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) program is authorized under ง1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA).  States and Indian Tribes are given primacy for public water systems in their
jurisdiction if they meet certain requirements. A critical component of primacy is the
requirement that a state must have a program to conduct sanitary surveys of the systems in its
jurisdiction. A sanitary survey is an on-site review of the water sources, facilities, equipment,
operation, and maintenance of a public water system for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy
of the facilities for producing and distributing safe drinking water. Inspectors conducting
sanitary surveys must apply basic scientific information and have a working knowledge of the
operation, maintenance, management, and technology of a water system to identify sanitary risks
that may interrupt the multiple barriers of protection at a water system. There are eight essential
elements of a sanitary survey as defined by the EPA/State Joint Guidance on Sanitary Surveys4
and the interim enhanced surface water treatment rule: water source; treatment; distribution
4 Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the
Direct         Influence        (GWUDI),        (EPA        815-R-99-016,        April        1999)
http: //www. epa. go v/safewater/mdbp/pdf/sansurv/sansurv .pdf
                                            49

-------
system; finished water storage; pumps, pump facilities and controls; monitoring, reporting and
data verification; water system management and operations; and operator compliance with state
requirements.

Performance data for this measure will be complied from information collected during file audits
of randomly selected community water systems (data verification or DV).  The purpose of a DV
is two-fold: (1) to detect discrepancies between the PWS data in the state files  or database and
the data reported to SDWIS/FED and (2) to ensure that the State is determining compliance in
accordance with EPA  approved state regulations.  After the conduct  of each DV, a report is
generated which includes the findings for compliance with sanitary survey requirements.  DVs
are conducted on a cycle in order to visit each state at  a frequency of  every three years.  Final
reports for each state  serve  as the official data  source  for this measure until a new DV is
conducted. Information derived for the DV reports will be calculated annually for this measure.

Data Source:  State specific Final Data Verification Reports provide information on compliance
with sanitary survey requirements. Information from DV reports for states will be calculated to
measure performance.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:   To  assure that  data  collected during  a DV is
consistently captured and analyzed, the DV team follows the "EPA Protocol for Participation in
a PWSS Program  Data Verification" which  includes  revisions through  April 4, 2005.   The
protocol  provides guidance on statistical methodology for defining variables, calculating the
statistical proportion (P), determining the appropriate sample size and selecting the  systems for
file review. Before selecting a sample of systems, the DV team must decide whether it wishes to
stratify  (or sort) the  sample by  some  characteristic.  Stratifying the  sample permits more
precision, allowing the team to make observations about  subsets of systems. A sample may be
stratified by system type, size, source, or a combination of these factors. For DV purposes, the
sample  is always  stratified by  system  type  (i.e.,  CWSs,  NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs) since
different regulations apply to different  types  of systems. Once the DV team determines the
subset of systems from which the sample will be drawn,  along with the number of systems which
must be  reviewed from that subset of systems,  the SDWIS/FED random  number generator
selects the systems for review.  Statistical principles dictate that samples  must be selected  in a
truly random fashion in order to obtain unbiased estimates and achieve  the desired precision
level. For states whose files are kept in  one central office, sample  selection is  straightforward.
The SDWIS/FED random number generator pulls a random sample of systems from the entire
subset of systems within the state. Hence, all systems have an equal chance of being chosen.

QA/QC  Procedures:  To assure the data collected  during a DV is complete and accurate, the
DV team follows the "EPA Protocol for Participation in a PWSS  Program Data Verification."
This protocol is intended as a "handbook"  for people performing a DV. The protocol  contains
detailed instructions for reviewing and analyzing data for sanitary surveys.  Since neither time
nor resources  allow  a  complete review  of all sanitary survey data, the DV team  must use a
random sample of systems that is drawn from the total number of systems in each state. This
random sample is  statistically representative  of systems in the state.  The team then uses the
statistical sampling results to draw reasonably  accurate  assumptions about all of the systems in
the state, based on just a few systems.
                                           50

-------
Data Quality Reviews: Information derived from DVs is captured in a draft report and
submitted to EPA (HQ and Regions) as well as the state where the DV was conducted for
review. States and EPA conduct data quality reviews and provide additional information or data
as necessary to assure accuracy and completeness. EPA works with states to resolve data issues.
Reports are finalized and thus used to measure performance.

Data Limitations:  OGWDW has an existing database for PWSS program information, the Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).  Violations of sanitary survey requirements are
captured in SDWIS.  However, the data field to record sanitary survey frequency is not a
mandatory field. Due to resource limitations, sanitary survey data cannot be verified for every
system in  every state each year. OGWDW employs a methodology to analyze a representative
sample of systems during an audit.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Percentage of source water areas (both surface and ground water) for community water
    systems will achieve minimized risk to public health

Performance Database: The source water assessment and protection programs are authorized
under Sections 1453, 1428, and relevant subsections of 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA).5 EPA issued guidance to implement these programs in 1997, State Source Water
Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance6  In March 2005, EPA issued supplemental
reporting guidance, "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
Measures: Final Reporting Guidance. "  Starting in FY 2005, and updated annually thereafter,
states report to EPA on the results of their source water assessment programs (SWAPs) and
progress in implementing source water protection (SWP) strategies, and whether such strategy
implementation is affecting public health protection. To assess the results of the SWAPs, state
reporting includes three elements: (1) the delineated source water areas around each well and
intake, (2) whether the assessments are complete, and (3) most prevalent and most threatening
sources of contamination. To assess progress in implementing the SWP strategies,  state reporting
includes two  elements: (1) whether a prevention strategy for Community Water System  source
water areas has been adopted, and is being implemented and (2) whether such strategy
implementation has reached a substantial level. To assess whether the program is affecting
public health protection, states report change in the number of Community Water System source
water areas with substantially implemented source water protection strategies. The Agency will
develop a national summary of data on the progress of states' source water protection programs
using these data elements in early 2006.

In FY 2003, EPA maintained pilot state-level summary data for each of these elements in a
spreadsheet format and this format will be used for reporting for FY 2005.  Beginning in FY
2005, states may, at their option, make available to EPA public water system-level data for each
s Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. P.L. 104-182. (Washington: 6 August 1996). Available on the Internet at

6 U.S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009
(Washington: US EPA, August 1997). Available on the Internet at 
                                           51

-------
of these elements to be maintained in a set of data tables in the drinking water warehouse (for
tabular data) and in event tables in the Office of Water's Reach Address Database (RAD)  (GIS
data). These data will be compatible with the inventory data States are currently reporting to the
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).8 Three states piloted this approach in 2003.

 [Not publicly available.  Contact the Drinking Water Protection Division at 202-564-3797.]

Data Source:  Up to the end of FY 2004, states reported to the EPA Regional Offices the
percentage of community water systems implementing source water protection programs. As
noted above, states can report to EPA's Regional Offices using a spreadsheet approach. EPA has
also developed a new source water data module to collect, store, and use public water system-
level data received from states, but it may be refined as more states voluntarily use it over the
next three years of the Strategic Plan. - See section "New/Improved Data or Systems."

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For this measure, the states' reporting of progress in
implementing  their source water assessment and protection programs will be based on EPA's
2005 guidance, "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures:
Final Reporting Guidance. " States will only report state-level summary information directly
related to specific community water systems in a state-level database.  While state reporting will
be based on definitions and procedures found in the  "State and Federal Source Water
Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance, " and even with the
state flexibilities built into the definitions for substantial implementation strategies, EPA believes
that the data will be reliable for use in  making management decisions.

QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures are included in the 2005 "State and Federal Source
Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance. "
Additionally, a series of data checks are built into the spreadsheet data collection procedures
given to each Region for their work with states.  States will be required to identify whether their
reported summary-level data are based on a system-level database. EPA Regional  offices also
will work with individual states to obtain a description of their methods of collecting and
verifying information.

Data Quality  Reviews: EPA Regions will conduct data quality reviews of state data using the
QA/QC procedures included with the spreadsheet-based data system, and work with states to
resolve data issues. As a result, EPA expects the quality of data on the results of the assessments
and source water protection activities to improve over time.

Data Limitations: Because the initial reporting provides only state-level summary information,
there is no standard protocol for EPA to verify and validate the data against system-level
information contained in state databases.  In addition, much of the data reported by states is
voluntary and  based on working agreements with EPA because SDWA only requires states to
complete source water assessments.  That is, the only source water information that states are
7 Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS). Available only on the Internet at

8 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Information available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
                                            52

-------
required to report to EPA under SDWA is whether the assessments are completed.  Although
EPA's 2005 "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures:
Final Reporting Guidance" set standard data definitions and procedures, it also provides for
considerable flexibility in states' definition for substantial implementation of strategies, data
collection protocols and analytical methods to evaluate their data.  For example, some states may
require each public water system to report data, while others may institute a voluntary process.
Because much of the data reporting is voluntary and the individual state protocols may vary,
state data may be incomplete and inconsistent across states.

Error  Estimate: There is no basis for making an error estimate for this performance measure
given the data limitations of state-level summary reporting described above.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The source water reporting module has been developed as a
joint initiative between EPA, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
(ASDWA), and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC). It will give EPA the ability to
access  the data directly from states through a data exchange agreement using an electronic data
transfer capability.  A state may choose, at its option, to provide EPA more detailed data in lieu
of state-level summary reporting. The new source water data module will be integrated into the
drinking water data warehouse and be compatible with Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) data already reported by states.  Geospatial data (i.e., the intake and well point
locations and the source water area polygons) will be maintained in EPA's Office of Water's
Reach  Access Database (RAD).  The source water assessment and protection indicator data and
other attribute data will be maintained in data tables in the drinking water warehouse. The
source water data module is operational for states to pilot from FY 2005 through FY 2008.
Three states used the module in the first pilot year 2003.  A number of other states may report
using the data module for the 2005 reporting period based on EPA/ASDWA/GWPC pilot
process.

References:
Guidance Manuals

    •   U.S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs
       Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009 (Washington: US EPA, August 1997). Available on the
       Internet at 
    •   Source Water Assessment and Protection Measures: Initial Guidance, August, 2003.
    •   "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final
       Reporting Guidance, " March 2005.

Web site addresses

    •   US EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 
    •   For more detailed information on Source Water topics, US EPA Office of Ground Water
       and Drinking Water, Source Water site. 
    •   US EPA Office of Water (OW) Reach Access Database (RAD). Watershed Assessment,
       Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS). 
                                           53

-------
       Safe        Drinking       Water        Information        System       (SDWIS).
       http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Number of households on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water

Performance Database: Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS), the Indian
Health Service (MS), Office of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE), Division of
Sanitation Facilities Construction (DSFC).

Data Sources: The STARS includes data on sanitation deficiencies, Indian homes and
construction projects. STARS is currently comprised of two sub data systems, the Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS) and the Project Data System (PDS).

The SDS is an inventory of sanitation deficiencies for existing Indian homes and communities.
The IHS is required to prioritize SDS deficiencies and annually report to Congress. The
identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the most common of which
follow:
          •  Consultation with Tribal members and other Agencies
          •  Field visits by engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives (CHRs)
             nurses, or by other IHS or tribal heath staff
          •  Sanitary Surveys
          •  Community Environmental Health Profiles
          •  Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Inventory
          •  Census Bureau Reports (for comparison purposes only)
          •  Tribal Master Plans for Development
          •  Telephone Surveys
          •  Feasibility Studies

The most reliable and preferred method is a field visit to each community to identify and obtain
accurate numbers of homes with sanitation  deficiencies. The number of Indian homes within the
communities must be consistent among the various methods cited above. If a field visit cannot
be made, it is highly recommended that more than one method be used to determine sanitation
deficiencies to increase the accuracy and establish greater credibility for the data.

The PDS is a listing of funded construction projects and is used as a management and reporting
tool.

QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance for the Indian country water quality performance
measure depends on the quality of the data in the STARS. The STARS data undergoes a series
of quality control reviews at various levels within the IHS DSFC. The DSFC is required to
annually report deficiencies in SDS to Congress in terms of total and feasible project costs for
proposed sanitation projects and sanitation deficiency levels for existing homes.
                                          54

-------
Data Quality Reviews:  The SDS data initially undergoes a series of highly organized reviews
by experienced tribal, IHS field, IHS district and IHS area personnel. The data are then sent to
the DSFC headquarters office for review before final results are reported. The DSFC
headquarters reviews the SDS data for each of the 12 IHS area offices.  The data quality review
consists of performing a number of established data queries and reports which check for errors
and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top 25 SDS projects and corresponding community
deficiency profiles for each area are reviewed and scrutinized thoroughly. Detailed cost
estimates are highly encouraged and are usually available for review.

Data Limitations:  The data are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS.

Error Estimate: The IHS DSFC requires that higher-level projects (those with the possibility of
funding prior to the next update) must be developed to allow for program implementation in an
organized, effective, efficient manner. Those SDS projects (top 20%) must have cost estimates
within 10% of the actual  costs.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The STARS is a web based application  and therefore allows
data to be continuously updated by personnel at various levels and modified as program
requirements are identified.

References:
1.     Indian Health Service (MS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Criteria for the
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program, June 1999, Version 1.02, 3/13/2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/Criteria_March_2003.cfm

2.     Indian Health Service (MS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Sanitation
Deficiency  System (SDS),  Working Draft,  "Guide for Reporting  Sanitation Deficiencies  for
Indian         Homes          and         Communities",           May           2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Percentage of the water miles/acres  identified by States  or Tribes as having fish
       consumption advisories in 2002 where increased consumption of safe fish is allowed.
       (485, 205 river miles, 11,277,276 lake acres)

    •   Percentage of water miles/acres with fish consumption advisory removed. (PART
       Measure)

Performance Database:  National Listing of Fish Advisories.1 The database includes  fields
identifying the waters for which fish consumption advisories have been issued. The fields also
identify the date upon which the advisory was issued, thus allowing an assessment of trends.
The National Hydrographic Data (NHD) are  used to calculate the  spatial extent of the fish
advisory.  This information is updated continually as states and tribes issue or revise advisories.
The National Listing of Fish Advisories database includes records showing that 24% of river
                                          55

-------
miles and 35% of lake acres were identified by states or tribes in calendar year 2003 as having
fish with chemical contamination levels resulting in an advisory of potential human health risk
from consumption.  States and tribes report data on a calendar year basis.  The calendar year data
are then used to support the fiscal year (FY) commitments (e.g., calendar year 2005 data support
the FY 2007 commitments).  Metadata are also available describing methodologies used by
states and tribes for establishing advisories. Fish advisory data have been collected since 1993.

Data Source: State and Tribal Governments.  These entities collect the information and enter it
directly into the National  Listing of Fish Advisories database.  EPA reviews advisory entries,
including the states'  or tribes'  responses to  an on-line survey,  which support the advisory
decision.

Methods, Assumptions  and Suitability:  The performance measure is calculated as  the
aggregate surface area covered by one or more individual advisories divided by the total waters
of each state or territory.  If a waterbody is covered by more than one advisory it is only counted
once, and until  all advisories are removed the waterbody is counted as having an advisory.  The
states and tribes submit the area data to the National Listing of Fish Advisories database.

QA/QC Procedures:  A standard survey, which has been approved by OMB, is available on the
Internet for electronic submission.  A password is issued to ensure the appropriate party is
completing the survey.  EPA has national guidance2'3 for states and tribes on developing and
implementing quality assurance practices for the collection of environmental information related
to fish advisories.  This guidance helps assure data quality of the information that  states and
tribes use to decide whether to issue an advisory.  The Office of Water's "Quality Management
Plan," approved in September 2001 and published in July 20024, is general guidance that applies
to information collection.

Data Quality Reviews: EPA reviews advisory entries and responses to the survey to ensure the
information is complete, then follows-up with the state or local government to obtain additional
information where needed. However, the Agency cannot verify the  accuracy  of the voluntary
information that state and local governments provide. There have been no external party reviews
of this information.

Data Limitations:  There are two primary data limitations.  First, participation in this survey and
collection of data is voluntary.  While the voluntary response rate has  been high, it does  not
capture the complete universe of advisories.  Puerto Rico, the Virgin  Islands, and Guam do not
report in the survey. Second, states have not assessed all waters for the need for advisories, so
the information reported reflects a subset of water bodies in the state.

Error Estimate:  We are unable to provide an error estimate.  Submitting data to the National
Listing of Fish Advisories database is  voluntary and the  Agency cannot be certain that  the
database contains information on 100% of the  assessed waters in the  United States.  Therefore,
we may  be understating  the  total amount of  waters assessed, the magnitude  of which  is  not
known.
                                           56

-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA will use small grants to encourage states to investigate
additional water bodies to determine if there is a need for fish consumption advisories. This will
lead to a more complete characterization of the nation's fish safety. EPA has also begun tracking
recommended "meal frequencies" in the state and tribal advisories to account for the instances
where advisories are modified to allow greater consumption.

References:
    1.  U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories." Washington,
       DC:       EPA-823-F-05-004.       September       2005.       Available      at
       http://epa.gov/waterscience/fi sh/advi sories/fs2004. pdf
    2.  U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Fish Sampling and Analysis." Volume 1 of "Guidance for
       Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories." 3r ed. EPA-823-B-
       00-007.      Washington      DC:      EPA,     2000.           Available     at
       http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volumel/.
    3.  U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits." Volume 2
       of "Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories." 3r
       ed.@       EPA-823-B-00-008.      Washington      DC:      EPA,       2000.
       http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volume2/.
    4.  U.S.  EPA. Office  of Water.  "Quality Management Plan."  EPA  821-X-02-001.
       Washington,      DC:      EPA,       July      2002.            Available     at
       http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Percentage of the shellfish-growing acres  monitored by states that are approved or
    conditionally approved for use

Performance  Database:  There is no  database currently available, although one is under
development (see below). In the past, data to support this measure came from surveys of States
that are members of the  Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), conducted at 5-year
intervals and periodic updates requested from the  Interstate  Shellfish Sanitation Conference
(most recent, 2003 data released in 2004).

Data Source:  The ISSC requests the data on approved acreages from shellfish producing states
and prepares reports.  Survey responses are voluntary.

Methods, Assumptions  and Suitability:  The methods used by the state programs to produce
the data used  by the ISSC  are based on the National Shellfish Sanitation Plan and Model
Ordinance; the operation of those state programs is overseen by the FDA.

QA/QC Procedures:  States are responsible for the internal QA/QC of their data.

Data Quality  Reviews:  The ISSC  reviews the  state data during report preparation to ensure
completeness and accuracy, and follows up with states where necessary.
                                          57

-------
Data Limitations:   Based on NOAA's previous surveys  and the voluntary  nature of the
information collected, potential data limitations may include incomplete coverage of shellfish
growing areas.

Error Estimate: No estimates are available.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The ISSC initiated development of the Shellfish Information
Management System (SIMS) in July 2002. The database is being developed and implemented by
the National  Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (NOAA) on behalf of the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), a Cooperative Program chartered by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).  The database will include relevant information that is collected by State
Shellfish Control Authorities.   Historically, NOAA collected shellfish-growing area data in 5-
year intervals,  1985,  1990, and  1995.   These  data were  not stored  in  a  database.   Once
operational, SIMS will be the first national  shellfish growing area  database and will include
NOAA's 1995  and  2003 data.  State  summary information can then be used to track trends
relevant to the performance measure, with the 1995 data as the baseline. The SIMS database is
designed as a real time database.  The ISSC plans to request data updates  annually, but  states
may update their data any time.  These  data may be accessed at any time so timely status reports
can be generated.

Currently, no long-term database management plan exists.

References:  None at this time.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Percentage of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored
    by state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming

Performance Database:  The data are stored in PRAWN (Program tracking, beach Advisories,
Water quality standards, and Nutrients), a database that includes fields  identifying the beaches
for which monitoring and notification information are available  and the date the advisory or
closure was issued,  thus enabling trend assessments  to be made.  The  database  also identifies
those states that have received a BEACH  (Beaches Environmental Assessment and  Coastal
Health) Act [P.L. 106-284] grant.  EPA reports the information annually,  on a calendar year
basis, each May. The calendar year data are then used to support fiscal year commitments (e.g.,
2006 calendar year data are used to report against  FY 2007  commitments). As of 2004, States
and Territories monitor for pathogens at 3,574 coastal and  Great Lakes beaches, up from  2,823
beaches in 20021.

Data Source:   Since 1997 EPA has surveyed state and local governments for information on
their monitoring programs and on their  advisories or closures. The Agency created the PRAWN
database  to store this information. State and local governmental response to the survey was
voluntary up through calendar year 2002.  Starting in calendar year 2003, data for many beaches
along the coast and Great Lakes had to be reported  to EPA as a condition of grants awarded
under the BEACH Act2.  Since 2005,  states have used an on-line process called eBeaches to
                                          58

-------
electronically transmit beach water quality and swimming advisory information to EPA instead
of using the paper survey.   The latest information reported by a state or local government is
accessible to the public through the BEACON (Beach Advisory Closing On-line Notification)
system.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data are an enumeration of the days of beach-
specific advisories or closures issued by the reporting state or local governments during the year.
Performance against the target is tracked using  a simple  count of the number  of  beaches
responding to the survey and the days over which the advisory or closure actions were taken.
This is compared to the total number of days that every beach could be open. Thus the  data are
suitable for the performance measure.

QA/QC Procedures: Since 1997, EPA has distributed  a standard survey form, approved by
OMB,  to  coastal and Great Lake state  and county  environmental and public health  beach
program officials in hard copy by mail.  The form is also available on the Internet for web-entry
electronic submission. When a state or local official enters data using the web-entry format, a
password  is issued to ensure  the  appropriate party is completing the survey. Currently the
Agency has procedures for information collection (see Office of Water's "Quality Management
Plan,"  approved September 2001  and published July  20023).   In addition, coastal  and Great
Lakes states receiving BEACH  Act grants are subject to the Agency's grant regulations under 40
CFR 31.45.  These regulations require  states and tribes to develop and implement quality
assurance practices for the collection of environmental information.

Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the survey responses to ensure the information is complete,
following up with the state or local government to obtain additional information where needed.
The Agency also reviews the QA/QC reports  submitted by States and Territories as part of their
grant reporting.  There have been no external party reviews of this information.

Data Limitations:  From calendar year 1997 to calendar year 2002, participation in the survey
and submission of data has been voluntary. While the voluntary response rate has been high, it
has not captured the complete  universe of beaches.  The voluntary response  rate was 92% in
calendar year 2002 (240 out of 261 contacted agencies responded).  The number of beaches for
which information was collected increased from 1,021 in calendar year  1997 to  2,823 in  calendar
year 2002.  Participation in the survey is now a mandatory condition for implementation grants
awarded under the BEACH Act program to coastal and Great Lakes states.  Except for Alaska,
all coastal and Great Lakes states and territories have annually applied for implementation grants
since they have been available.

Error  Estimate:  As of 2004, States  and Territories report that they monitor at 3,574 of the
6,099 coastal and Great Lakes  beaches.  This monitoring varies between  States.  For example,
North Carolina monitors all its 228 beaches whereas South Carolina monitors 24 of 229 beaches.
Where monitoring is done, there is some chance that the monitoring may miss some instances of
high pathogen concentrations. EPA's 2002 National Health Protection Survey of Beaches found
that  90%  of the nation's beaches  are monitored once a week or less4.   Studies in southern
California found that weekly sampling missed 75% of the pathogen exceedances5, and that 70%
of the  exceedances lasted for  only one day6.  An EPA Office of Research and Development
                                          59

-------
(ORD) beach monitoring study found a positive correlation between pathogen indicator densities
one day as compared to densities the next day, but that the correlation was negligible when
compared to densities after four days7.  These studies indicate that weekly sampling most likely
misses many pathogen events that can affect public health.  This information is not sufficient to
calculate the potential error in the reporting, but it is sufficient to indicate that the reporting may
understate the number of days that beaches should be closed or under advisory.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  Participation in the survey is now a mandatory condition for
grants awarded under the BEACH Act program.  As the Agency awards these implementation
grants, it will require standard program procedures, sampling and assessment methods, and data
elements for reporting.  To the extent that state governments apply for and receive these grants,
the amount, quality, and consistency of available data will improve.  In FY 2007, EPA expects
the 35  coastal and  Great Lakes  states to apply for grants  to  implement monitoring and
notification programs.

References

   1.  U.S. EPA. Office of Water.  "EPA's Beach Program: 2004 Swimming Season Update."
       EPA-823-F-05-006.       Washington,    DC,    July    2005.       Available   at
       http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches2004fs.pdf
   2.  U.S.  EPA.  Office of Water.  "National  Beach Guidance  and Required Performance
       Criteria for Grants." EPA-823-B-02-004.  Washington DC: EPA, June 2002.  Available at
       http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/guidance/all.pdf
   3.  U.S.  EPA.  Office of Water.   "A  Quality Management Plan." EPA  821-X-02-001.
       Washington,     DC:      EPA,      July      2002.            Available      at
       http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
   4.  U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 2002 Swimming Season."
       EPA-823-F-03-007.       Washington,    DC,    May    2003.       Available   at
       http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/beachwatch2003-newformat.pdf
   5.  Leecaster.  M.K. and S.B.  Weisberg, Effect of Sampling Frequency  on Shoreline
       Microbiology Assessments, Marine Pollution Bulletin., 42(11), 2001.
   6.  Boehm, A.B., et. al., Decadal and Shorter Period Variability of Surf Zone Water Quality
       at Huntington Beach, California, Environmental Science and Technology, 36(18), 2002.
   7.  U.S. EPA.  Office  of Research and Development.  "The EMPACT Beaches Project,
       Results  and  Recommendations  from  a  Study  on Microbiological Monitoring  In
       Recreational Waters." EPA 600/9-02/xxx.  Washington, DC, Sept. 2002.(Draft Report).

                               GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Percentage of waters assessed: assess and identify trends for 100% of the Nation's
       waters  by 2018 using statistically valid surveys to evaluate the extent that waters
       support fishable and swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act.
                                          60

-------
Performance Database: Data generated from the national assessment will be housed in the
EPA Office of Water's STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) data warehouse. Prior to entering the
STORET warehouse, all datasets are housed in a temporary facility, such as ORD's SWIM
database, where they are examined for QA purposes and undergo statistical analysis. Finalized
datasets transferred to the STORET warehouse will include all water quality, physical and
biological data and associated metadata for each survey. The STORET warehouse is available on
the web at http://www.epa.gov/STORET/index.html.

Data Source:
Samples will be collected over one sampling season, during a specified index period for each
resource. Sites are sampled one time, with additional repeat samples collected at 10 percent of
the sites to determine precision of methods. Surveys collect a suite of indicators relating to the
biological,  physical habitat and water quality of the resource in order to assess both the resource
condition and determine the percentage meeting the goals of the CWA. Surveys will collect
information on biological and abiotic factors at 30-50 sites on an ecoregion level II scale for each
resource. These data are collected through EPA-State collaboration. Prior to sampling, field
crews will undergo intensive training by EPA personnel on field sampling and collection
techniques. Laboratory analysis will be conducted at either a state lab or contract lab following
specified protocols for the survey.  Data collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP), with subsequent testing and auditing to ensure its application.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The surveys are conducted using a probabilistic survey
design, which allows extrapolation of results to the target population (specified water resource,
e.g., wadeable streams, lakes, rivers, etc.). The collection design maximizes the spatial spread
between sites, located  by specific latitude and longitude combinations. The survey utilizes an
indexed sampling period to increase the probability of accurately assessing condition and
identifying any problems in water quality, physical or biological indices if they exist. Based on
the QAPP and field protocol documents, a site is located by the sampling crew via Global
Positioning System ( GPS). Data are collected for each parameter following the protocols
outlined in the field operations manual. Indices for the probabilistic surveys relate to the
condition of the resource and the extent that the waters are supporting the fishable and
swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act. Samples taken from the field are stored in accordance
with field manual instructions and shipped to the processing laboratory. Laboratories will follow
quality assurance (QA) plans and complete analysis and provide electronic information to the
state or EPA. EPA and the state exchange data to ensure that each has a complete set. EPA and
states analyze the data to assess regional and national condition of the water resource surveyed.
Results of the analyses on a national and regional basis will be published in a publicly accessible
peer reviewed report released within two years of sample collection. The overall change in
condition of the water body type will be assessed on a five year cycle.

      Assumptions: (1) The underlying target population (water resource sampled for the
       survey) has been correctly identified; (2) GPS is successful; (3) QAPP and field
       collection manuals are followed; (4) all samples are successfully collected; (5) all
       analyses are completed in accordance with the QAPP; and (6) a combination of data  into
       indices is completed in a statistically rigorous manner.
                                           61

-------
       Suitability: By design, all data are suitable to be aggregated up to the regional and
       national level to characterize the ecological condition of the waterbody resource and the
       associated stressors. Samples provide site specific point-in-time data and excellent
       representation of the entire resource (extrapolation to the entire resource supportable).
       Data will be used to characterize populations and subpopulations of waterbody resources
       through time and space. Data analysis and interpretation will be peer reviewed prior to
       completion of final report. The data are suitable for individual reports and to establish a
       baseline for subsequent surveys to evaluate trends.
QA/QC Procedures:  Collection and processing of all samples are described in QAPP and Field
Protocols documents associated with each survey. In addition, the QAPP will contain specific
Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) and Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) associated with
each survey. To ensure that the survey is obtaining the DQOs and MQOs, there are several QA
steps built into each survey. Training for all crew members is required before sampling begins.
Field evaluations are conducted for all crews to ensure methods are being followed. Each
laboratory involved in the sample processing will adhere to the specified laboratory protocols
and undergo a thorough and documented quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process.
Submitted data will undergo a final QC check before analysis begins.

Data Quality Reviews: A concurrent peer review and public comment period will be held for
each survey. During this time, the draft report will be posted on the web for interested parties to
review and submit comments. An independent group of experts will be selected to serve on a
peer review panel for the report. In house audits will also be conducted over the course of the
survey.

Data Limitations: Because the data are collected in a manner to permit calculations of
uncertainty and designed to meet specific Data Quality Objectives (DQOs), the results at the
regional level are within about 2-4% of true values dependent upon the specific sample type.
Detailed QA/QC checks throughout the survey reduce the data limitations and errors in
sampling. The scale of the reporting units is limited by the number of samples taken in a specific
region. To make a statistically valid statement about the condition of the resource, sample size
should minimally include 30-50 sites per region. Since samples are collected one time at each
site per survey, trends analysis will  depend on future survey work. Lag time between sample
collection and reporting will be between  1-2 years.

Error Estimate:  The estimation of condition will vary for the national condition and the
regional condition for each survey. The condition estimates are determined from the survey data
using cumulative distribution functions and statistically-based uncertainty estimates.

New/Improved Data  or Systems:  Additional indicators, addressing regional specific needs can
be added to the survey over time. QA requirements will be met by all laboratories participating
in the surveys. Probabilistic surveys repeated on the same water body type utilizing a similar
sample design will show condition trends for the resource on a broad geographic scale.

References:
                                           62

-------
 Olsen, A. R. etal. 1999. Statistical Issues for Monitoring Ecological and Natural Resources in
       the United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54, 1-45

Stevens Jr., D. L. & Urqhart, N. S. 2000. Response Designs and Support Regions in Sampling
       Continuous Domains. Environmetrics 11, 11-41

 Stevens Jr., D. L. 1997. Variable Density Grid-based Sampling Designs for Continuous Spatial
       Populations. Environmetrics 8, 167-195

STORET database website. http://www.epa.gov/STORET/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-620/R-
01/005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-
620/R-03/002

FY 2007 Performance Measures;

•   Annual percentage of water body segments identified by States in 2000 as not attaining
    standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained (PART measure)
•   Restore water quality to allow swimming in stream miles and lake acres identified by
    states
•   Cost per water segment restored (PART measure)

Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System
(WATERS- found at http://www.epa.gov/waters/) is EPA's approach for viewing water quality
information related to this measure. WATERS can be used to view "303(d) Information,"
compiled from, States' Listings of Impaired Waters as Required by Clean Water Act Section
303(d) (referred to here in brief as "303(d) lists"), which are recorded in the National Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking System.  This information (found at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/status.html) is used to generate reports that identify waters that
are not meeting water quality standards ("impaired waters"). This information, combined with
information and comment from EPA Regions and  states, yields the baseline data for this
measure: the number of impaired waters in 1998/2000.  As TMDL and other watershed-related
activities are developed and implemented, water bodies which were once impaired will meet
water quality standards,  and thus will be removed from the year 1998/2000 impaired totals.
Changes will be recorded in reports, scheduled every six years  (e.g. reporting years 2006 and
2012), as percentage improvements to water body  impairment.

Data Source: The underlying  data source for this measure is State 303(d) lists of their impaired
water bodies. These lists are submitted with each biennial (calendar year) reporting cycle. The
baseline for this measure is the 1998 list (States were not required to submit lists in 2000;
however, if states did submit a  2000 list, then that more recent list was used as the baseline).
States prepare the lists using actual water quality monitoring data, probability-based monitoring
information, and other existing and readily available information  and knowledge the state has, in
                                          63

-------
order to make comprehensive determinations addressing the total extent of the state's water body
impairments. Once EPA approves a state's 303(d) list, EPA enters the information into
WATERS, as described above.  Delays are often encountered in state submissions and in EPA's
approval of these biennial submissions. Establishing more certain procedures to keep on
schedule is being considered.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: States employ various analytical methods of data
collection, compilation, and reporting including: 1) Direct water samples of chemical, physical,
and biological parameters; 2) Predictive models of water quality standards attainment; 3)
Probabilistic models of pollutant sources; and 4) Compilation of data from volunteer groups,
academic interests and others.  EPA-supported models include BASINS, QUAL2E, AQUATOX,
and CORMTX.  Descriptions of these models and instructions for their use can be found at
www.epa.gov/OST/wqm/.  The standard operating procedures and deviations from standard
methods for data sampling and prediction processes are stored by states in the STOrage and
RETrieval (STORET) database.  EPA aggregates state data to generate the national performance
measure.  State-provided data describe attainment of designated uses in accordance with state
water quality standards and thus represent a direct measure of performance.  Delays are often
encountered in state 303d lists and 305b submissions, and in EPA's approval of the 303(d)
portion of these biennial submissions. Establishing more certain procedures to prevent these
delays  is being considered.

QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data provided by states pursuant to individual state 303(d) lists
(under CWA Section 303(d)) is dependent on individual state procedures. EPA regional staff
interacts with the states during the process of approval of the lists and before the information is
entered into the database to ensure the integrity of the data. The Office of Water Quality
Management Plan  (QMP), renewed every five years, was approved in July 20019. EPA requires
that each organization prepare a document called a quality management plan (QMP) that:
documents the organization's quality policy; describes its quality system; and identifies the
environmental programs to which the quality system applies (e.g., those programs involved in
the collection or use of environmental data).

Data Quality Review:  Recent independent reports have cited that weaknesses in monitoring
and reporting of monitoring data undermine EPA's ability to depict the condition of the Nation's
waters and to support scientifically sound water program decisions. The most recent reports
include the 1998 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Program1 , the March 15, 2000 Government Accounting Office report Water Quality:
Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data11, the 2001 National Academy of
9 National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum Daily Load Approach
to Water Pollution Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water
Quality Management (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).


10 USEPA, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on
the Total Maximum Daily Load Program. EPA 100-R-09-8006 (1998).
1' GAO. Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data (Washington, DC: 2000),
RCED-00-54 and Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters,
GAO-02-186 (Washington, DC: 2002)


                                            64

-------
Sciences Report Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management12 and EPA 's
Draft Report on the Environment.
                                13
In response to these evaluations, EPA has been working with states and other stakeholders to
improve:  1) data coverage, so that state reports reflect the condition of all waters of the state; 2)
data consistency to facilitate comparison and aggregation of state data to the national level; and
3) documentation so that data limitations and discrepancies are fully understood by data users.

First,  EPA  enhanced  two  existing  data management  tools (STORET  and the  National
Assessment Database) so that they include documentation of data quality information.

Second, EPA  has  developed  a  GIS  tool called WATERS  that  integrates  many databases
including STORET, the National Assessment  Database, and  a  new water quality standards
database.   These  integrated databases facilitate comparison and understanding of differences
among state standards, monitoring activities, and assessment results.

Third, EPA and states have developed guidance.  The 2006 Integrate Report Guidance (released
August 3, 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG)14 provides comprehensive direction
to states on fulfilling reporting requirements of Clean Water Act sections 305 (b) and 303(d).
Also, the Consolidated Assessment andListing Methodology - Toward a Compendium of Best
Practices15 (released on the Web July 31, 2002 at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html)
intended to facilitate increased consistency in monitoring program design and the data and
decision criteria used to support water quality assessments.

Fourth, the Office of Water (OW) and EPA's Regional Offices have developed the Elements of a
State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program, (August 2002).16  This guidance describes ten
elements that each state water quality monitoring program should contain and proposes time-
frames for implementing all ten elements.

In addition, a recent evaluation by the EPA Office of the Inspector General17 recommended that
EPA focus on improving its watershed approach by:
        •   Facilitating stakeholder involvement in this approach
        •   Better integrating the watershed approach into EPA core programs,
12 Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. 2001.  Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total
Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research
Council
13 US EPA, Draft Report on the Environment 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006 (2003). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm (accessed 12 December 2005)
14USEPA, Office of Water, 2006 Guidance for Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to
Sections, 303 (d), 305 (b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act (2005).  Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG (accessed 12 December 2005)
15 U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology- Toward a Compendium of Best Practices.
(Washington, DC: 2002) Available at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/cakn.html (accessed 12 December 2005)
16 USEPA, Office of Water, Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program, EPA 841-B-03-003
(Washington, DC: 2003).  Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoirng/repguide.html (accessed 12
December 2005)
17 USEPA Office of the Inspector General, Sustained Commitment Needed to Further Advance the Watershed
Approach (2005). Available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-2005-P-00025.pdf.


                                             65

-------
       •  Refining the Agency strategic plan to better evaluate key programs and activities, and
       •  Improving the measurement system by which watershed progress is assessed.

EPA is engaged in  many activities to strengthen its footprint in above four  foci.  Specific
examples, as noted in Assistant Administrator Grumbles' December 2005  reply to the Inspector
General's evaluation, follow:

First, examples of how the EPA Office of Water is working to facilitate stakeholder involvement
in this  approach are monthly Webcasts (topics have included strategies, tools, and techniques for
sustainable watersheds) and plans to release a Watershed Planning Handbook in 2006.

Second, EPA core program activities are focusing more heartily on  watershed initiatives. EPA is
preparing  2006 guidance on  watershed TMDLs and guidance for using  Clean Water State
Revolving funds for state watershed activities.

Third,  EPA is working to refine its strategic planning process with the April 2005 inception of
the Watershed Managers Forum, a channel of communication between EPA Regional  offices and
Headquarters on issues, planning, and organizational steps to successfully implement watershed
                                 18   	
initiatives of EPA's Strategic  Plan  .  The Office of Water is also strengthening linkage of its
information technology capabilities  and monitoring efforts  to meet goals  of EPA's strategic
planning.

Fourth, EPA is working to improve measurement of its progress by conducting detailed analysis
of options for measuring performance.  Areas of general interest in this effort include tracking
improvements short of full restoration, and measures for the extensive work the Office of Water
does to maintain water quality.

Data Limitations: Data may not precisely represent the extent of impaired waters because
states do not employ a monitoring design that monitors all their waters.  States, territories and
tribes collect data and information on only a portion of their water bodies.  States do not use a
consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess attainment of water quality standards.  For
example, indicators of aquatic life use support range from biological community assessments to
levels of dissolved oxygen to concentrations of toxic pollutants.  These variations  in state
practices limit how the CWA Sections 305(b) reports and the 303(d) lists provided by  states can
be used to describe water quality at the national level. There are also differences among their
programs, sampling techniques, and standards.

State assessments of water quality may include uncertainties associated with derived or modeled
data. Differences in monitoring designs among and within states prevent the agency from
aggregating water quality assessments at the national level with known statistical confidence.
States, territories, and authorized tribes monitor to identify problems and typically lag  times
between data collection and reporting can vary by state.

Error  Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
18 USEPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2003-2008 Strategic Plan: Direction for the Future, (2003).
Available athttp://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf_(accessed 16 December 2005).


                                            66

-------
New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Water has been working with states to improve
the guidance under which 303(d) lists are prepared. EPA issued new listing guidance entitled
Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections
303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act during summer 2005. The Guidance is a
comprehensive compilation of relevant guidance EPA has issued to date regarding the Integrated
Report.  There are a few specific changes from the 2004 guidance. For example, the 2006
Integrated Report Guidance provides greater clarity on the content and format of those
components of the Integrated Report that are recommended and required under Clean Water Act
sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314. The guidance also gives additional clarity and flexibility on
reporting alternatives to TMDLs for attaining water quality standards (e.g., utilization of
reporting Category 4b).

References:

USEPA,  Office of the Inspector General.  2005.  Sustained Commitment Needed to Further
Advance the Watershed Approach.  Available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-
2005-P-00025.pdf.

USEPA,  Office  of  Water.   2005.  Guidance for  2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting
Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d),  305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act.  Available at
http ://www. epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG.,

USEPA, Office  of the  Chief Financial Officer.  2003. 2003-2008 Strategic Plan:  Direction for
the Future. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf

USEPA.   2003.  Draft Report on  the Environment 2003.  EPA 260-R-02-006.   Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index. htnx

USEPA,  Office  of  Water.   2003.  Elements  of a State  Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program.        EPA    841-B-03-003.        Washington,    DC.        Available    at
http ://www. epa.gov/owow/monitoring/repguid.html.

USEPA, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology.  1998. Report of
the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total  Maximum Daily Load Program. EPA  100-R9-
8006.

USEPA.  2002.  Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - Toward a Compendium of
Best      Practices.              Washington,       DC.             Available       at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html.

Government Accountability Office.  2002.   Water Quality:  Inconsistent State Approaches
Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify its Most Polluted Waters.  GAO-02-186.  Washington,
DC.
                                          67

-------
Government Accountability Office.  2000.  Water Quality:  Key EPA  and State Decisions
Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. GAO-RCED-00-54.  Washington, DC.

National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total  Maximum
Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction. 2001.  Assessing the TMDL Approach to
Water Quality Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

FY 2007 Performance Measures;

•   Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA on schedule  consistent
    with national policy (cumulative) (PART measure)
•   Number of TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA on a schedule
    consistent with national policy (cumulative) (PART measure)

Performance Database:  The National Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking System
(NTTS) is a  database which captures water  quality information  related to  this measure.
Watershed  Assessment Tracking  Environmental  Results  System  (WATERS-  found  at
http://www.epa.gov/waters/) is EPA's approach for viewing water quality information related to
this measure.  TMDL information (found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/status.html) is used
to generate reports that identify waters for which EPA has approved  state-established TMDLs
and for which EPA has established TMDLs.  Annual TMDL totals,  spanning 1996 to the present,
are available  from NTTS  on a fiscal year basis.  As TMDLs  and other watershed-related
activities are developed  and implemented, water bodies which were  once impaired will meet
water quality standards.  Thus these TMDL measures are  closely tied to the  PART measure,
"Percentage of water body  segments  identified  by States in 2000 as not attaining standards,
where water quality standards are now fully attained;" restored water bodies will be  removed
from the list of impaired water segments.

Data  Source:  State-submitted and EPA-approved TMDLs and EPA-established TMDLs are the
underlying data for this measure.  Electronic and hard copies are made available by states and
often  linked to  EPA  Web sites.  More specifically, WATERS allows search for TMDL
documents at http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/tmdl document search.html.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  State and EPA TMDLs are thoroughly and publicly
reviewed during their development.  Upon approval by EPA, relevant information  from each
TMDL is entered into the NTTS by EPA Regional staff.

QA/QC Procedures:  QA/QC of data is provided by EPA Regional staff and through cross-
checks of WATERS information regarding impaired water listings.  The Office of Water Quality
Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was approved in  July 2001.  EPA requires
that organizations prepare a document called a QMP that: documents  the organization's quality
policy; describes its quality system; and identifies the environmental programs to  which the
quality system applies  (e.g., those programs involved in the collection or use of environmental
data).
                                         68

-------
Data Quality Review:  Internal reviews of data quality have revealed some errors in data and
issues associated with the definition of certain database fields. In 2005, EPA convened a
meeting of NTTS users to discuss how to improve the database.  As a result, data field
definitions were clarified, the users' group  was reinstituted, and several training sessions were
scheduled.

In addition, the EPA Office of the Inspector General recently evaluated the Office of Water,
particularly the TMDL Program. The evaluation report, Sustained Commitment Needed to
Further Advance the Watershed Approach, recognized "EPA has integrated principles of the
watershed approach into the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program by encouraging
States to develop TMDLs on a watershed basis rather than by individual water segments.
Stakeholder involvement with TMDLs is critical for both the conventional and watershed
approaches, but the broader watershed approach may expand the number of stakeholders.
Expanding both the geographic scale and the number of stakeholders may result in additional
time and resources required to develop these TMDLs." This demand for resources is challenging
to overcome in the current budget environment. The EPA  Office of Water has formed a
Sustainable Finance Team to increase the capacity of local watershed groups and increase
awareness of funding possibilities for watershed work, both from within EPA and outside of the
Agency. Finally, the evaluation report states, "regardless of the approach taken for development
of TMDLs, the regulatory requirements of the Clean Water Act must be met."  Current
realization of targets shows the TMDL Program continues  to make sizable steps in meeting
Clean Water Act goals despite the challenges to taking a watershed approach. EPA plans to
evaluate the sufficiency of NTTS in handling watershed-based TMDLs given the increase in the
use of this approach.

Data Limitations:
There are  usually no  gaps in the fields required to identify the TMDLs; however, a number of
the fields in NTTS are optional, and population of these fields is erratic.

Error Estimate: No error estimate is currently available for this data.

New/Improved Data Systems: See above.

References:
USEPA, Office of the Inspector General.  2005.  Sustained Commitment Needed to Further
Advance the Watershed Approach. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-
2005-P-00025.pdf

National Research  Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum
Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction.  2001. Assessing the TMDL Approach to
Water Quality Management. Washington,  DC: National Academy Press.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:
                                          69

-------
       •  Percentage of major NPDES permittees in Significant Noncompliance at any
          time during the fiscal year (PART measure)
       •  Percentage of all major POTWs that comply with their permitted wastewater
          discharge standards

Performance Databases: The Permit Compliance System, (PCS) tracks permit compliance and
enforcement data for sources permitted under the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination  System (NPDES).    Data  in  PCS  include major permittee  self reported data
contained in Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR), data on permittee compliance status, data on
state and EPA inspection and enforcement response.

Data Source: Permittee self reported DMR data are entered into PCS by either state or EPA
Regional offices. PCS automatically compares the entered DMR data with the pollutant limit
parameters specified in the facility NPDES permit.  This automated process identifies those
facilities which have emitted effluent in excess of permitted levels. Facilities are designated as
being in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) when reported effluent exceedances are 20% or
more above permitted levels for toxic pollutants and/or 40% or more above permitted levels of
conventional pollutants.  PCS contains additional data obtained through reports and on-site
inspections, which are used to determine  SNC, including:  non-effluent limit violations such as
unauthorized bypasses, unpermitted discharges, and pass through of pollutants which cause
water quality or health problems; permit schedule violations; non-submission of DMRs;
submission of DMRs 30 or more days late; and violation of state or federal enforcement orders.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are established  computer algorithms to compare
DMR effluent data against permitted effluent levels.  The algorithms also calculate the degree of
permitted effluent exceedance to determine whether toxic/conventional pollutant SNC thresholds
have been reached.

QA/QC  Procedures:   Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures [See references] are in
place for PCS data  entry.   State and regional PCS data entry staff are required to take PCS
training courses [See references].  Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are prepared  for each
Office  within The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).  The Office of
Compliance  (OC) has  established extensive processes for ensuring timely input, review and
certification  of PCS information.  OC=s QMP, effective for 5  years, was approved July  29, 2003
by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) and is required to be re-approved in 2008.

Data Quality Review:  Information contained in  PCS is required by policy to be reviewed by
regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy.  SNC data in PCS are reviewed
quarterly.

Data Limitations:  Legal  requirements for permittees to self  report data on compliance with
effluent parameters in permits generally results in consistent data quality and accuracy.  EPA
monitors and measures the  timeliness of DMR submissions and data entry quality.   National
trends  over the  past several  years show an  average of 94% of DMRs are entered timely and
complete. Where data entry problems  are observed, OECA works directly with  regions and
states to improve performance, and in limited circumstances has dedicated supplemental grant
                                          70

-------
resources to help regions and states correct problems. As part of ICIS-NPDES implementation
OECA is working to deploy an electronic DMR process to save resources on data entry workload
and reduce data input errors.

Error Estimate: Not available

New & Improved Data or Systems: PCS was developed during the 1980's and has undergone
periodic revision and upgrade since then. OECA is currently developing a modernized data
system to replace PCS, utilizing modern data entry, storage, and analytical approaches. The first
phase of the new system, ICIS-NPDES, is scheduled to be operational March 30, 2006. Until
then, all SNC data will be obtained from PCS.  During phased implementation of ICIS-NPDES
across the  states a combination of PCS and ICIS-NPDES will be used to generate SNC data.
Once fully implemented, ICIS-NPDES will be the sole source of NPDES SNC data.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Percentage of (a) State and Territorial, and (b) Tribal water quality standards
    submissions (received  in the 12 month period ending April 30th  of the fiscal year) that
    are approved by EPA. Partial approvals receive fractional credit. (PART measure)

•   Number of (a) States and Territories, and (b) authorized Tribes, that within the
    preceding three year period submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable
    to EPA that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not
    considered in the previous standards. (PART measure)
Performance Database: The Water Quality Standards Action Tracking Application (WATA),
an internal tracking application managed by the Office of Science and Technology described at
http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf, is the performance database for these
measures. The information in this system yields the baseline and performance data for these
measures.

Data Source: The underlying data sources for this measure are the submissions from states,
territories, and authorized tribes of water quality standards to EPA pursuant to the Clean Water
Act and EPA's water quality standards regulation at 40 CFR part 131.  States, territories, and
authorized tribes are required to review their water quality standards at least once every three
years, and submit any new or revised water quality standards to EPA for review and approval.
Each submission is accompanied by a letter from an appropriate official, and includes a
certification by the state or territorial attorney general,  or equivalent tribal official, that the
standards were duly adopted pursuant to state, territorial, or tribal law.

EPA Regional Office staff members compile information from each submission and enter it into
the WATA system. The information includes identifying data (name of jurisdiction, date of
submission), data concerning components of the submission, and data concerning EPA's action
on the submission. EPA has delegated approval and disapproval decisions to the Regional
Administrator; the Regional Administrator may re-delegate the decisions to the appropriate
                                          71

-------
Division Director, but no further. Approval decisions are judicially reviewable, and are
accompanied by an appropriate administrative record.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:

The Office of Science and Technology has established computation metrics in the Water Quality
Standards Action Tracking Application (WATA) system to produce the baselines and
performance data for both measures. These metrics are as follows:

   •  Percentage of State, Territorial, and Tribal water quality standards submissions (received
     in the 12 month period ending April 30th of the fiscal year) that are approved by EPA.
     Partial approvals receive fractional credit.

This metric considers all new or revised submissions from May 1 of the previous year through
April 30 of the current year.  This reporting period provides regions 150 days to reach and
document a valid approval decision. EPA management believes this is an adequate time for
processing submissions. A "submission" is determined by the submitting jurisdiction,  as
described  above. The metric then searches for whether the Regional Office has made any
approval decision concerning the submission. If EPA approves the submission in full by the end
of the reporting period, it will be counted with an approval value of 1.  If EPA disapproves all
provisions of the standards, it will be counted with an approval value of 0 (zero).  In some cases
the Regional decision official may decide to approve some portions of the standards provisions,
disapprove some portions, or defer actions on some portions. To accommodate these
possibilities, and to reflect the complex nature of some submissions, the WATA system allows
Regional staff to track portions of a submission as separate parts.  When different decisions are
reached on different parts of a submission, the metric calculates a fractional approval value. The
fractional  approval value is a number between 0 and 1, equal to the number of submission parts
approved, divided by the total number of parts in the original submission. For example, if a
submission is divided up into 5 parts, and EPA approves 3  and disapproves 2, then the metric
would count this as 0.6.  The final performance metric is the sum of full or fractional approval
values divided by the total number of submissions during the reporting period.

   •  Number of (a) States and Territories, and (b) authorized Tribes, that within the preceding
     three year period submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that
     reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not considered in the
     previous standards

This measure utilizes a Regional Office entry in the WATA system which indicates whether a
submission or submission part includes one or more new water quality criteria or revised criteria
that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not considered in the previous
criteria. Biological criteria that are reflected explicitly in designated uses would count under this
entry. If a State, territory, or tribe has not adopted any such criteria, the jurisdiction  can
nevertheless be counted under this measure if (a) EPA has issued new or revised water quality
criteria, including revisions to the published table of EPA recommended criteria at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html, but the state has determined through a
scientific assessment that such a change is not relevant for its waters, or (b) the jurisdiction could
                                           72

-------
certify to EPA that it has completed a defensible scientific review of the new scientific
information EPA has issued and has determined that no changes are needed to their existing
water quality criteria.  The metric searches for one or more qualifying submissions or submission
parts for each jurisdiction during the three-year period ending 150 days before the end of the
reporting period, and that have been approved by EPA by the end of the reporting period. For
example, for FY 2006 any qualifying  submissions from May 1, 2003, through April 30, 2006,
that were approved by September 30,  2006, would enable the jurisdiction to be counted.  Note
the overlap from one reporting year to the next: a state that made such a submittal, in, say,
February 2005, would be counted in FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007. Conversely, a state that
last adopted such criteria in, say, November 2002, would be counted in FY 2005 but not in FY
2006.

QA/QC Procedures: States, territories, and tribes conduct QA/QC of water quality standards
submissions pursuant to individual  state procedures. Because such  submissions are subject to
judicial review, the attorney general's certification described above provides assurance of the
content of each submission. EPA regional staffs provide support to and interact with the
jurisdictions as they develop, review,  and adopt water quality standards. Each Regional  Office
provides data quality review of its entries in the WATA system. For example, Regional  Offices
generally assure that each entry is reviewed by the water quality standards coordinator, usually a
senior scientist or environmental protection specialist with extensive experience in water quality
standards actions. Data validation algorithms built into each entry screen also help improve data
quality. In addition, a sample of entries is spot-checked by Headquarters'  Office of Science and
Technology staff. The Regions and Headquarters have been able to conduct the data quality
reviews fairly easily because the number of submissions has  averaged about 50 submissions per
year in recent years, well within their  available resources to provide adequate review.

Data Quality Review:   No external reviews of the data have been conducted.

Data Limitations:  Submissions may vary considerably in size and complexity.  For example, a
submission may include statewide water quality standards revisions, use attainability analyses for
specific water bodies, site-specific criteria applicable to specific types of waters, general
statewide policies, antidegradation policies or procedures, and variances. Therefore, these
measures - the number of submissions approved, and the number of jurisdictions with updated
scientific information contained in adopted standards - do not provide an indicator of the scope,
geographic coverage, policy importance, or other qualitative aspects of water quality standards.
This information would need to be obtained in other ways, such as by reviewing the content of
adopted and approved standards available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/states/,
or contacting the appropriate Regional Office or state/territorial/tribal personnel.

Error Estimate:  No error estimate is available for this data.

New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Science and Technology has no immediate plans
for developing a new data system or enhancing the existing WATA system, other than refining
metrics for assessing and interpreting  performance results, or for assessing data quality.

References:
                                           73

-------
USEPA.  September 8, 2005.  Water Quality Standards Acting Tracking Application: Users
Manual.  Available at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf.

USEPA.  2000.  Water Quality Standards Regulation. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR part
131. Available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/40cfr!3 l_05.html.

USEPA.  August 1994.  Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd edition.
http ://www. epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Estimated annual reduction of nitrogen (reported in  pounds), phosphorous (pounds),
    and sediment (tons) from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319 funded projects
    only).

Performance Database:  The Section 319 Grant Reporting and Tracking  System  (GRTS) is
used by  grant recipients (State  agencies) to supply information about  State nonpoint  source
(NPS) Management and annual  Section 319 funded work programs, which  include watershed-
based / BMP implementation projects.  GRTS includes information on NPS load reductions to
water bodies of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments achieved as a result of implementation of
Best Management Practices (BMPs) under 319-funded watershed projects.

State reporting via  GRTS in part fulfills requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections
319(h)(ll) and 319(m)(l); however, GRTS also provides EPA and other stakeholders greater
and more efficient  access to data, information, and program accomplishments  than traditional
reporting (i.e., hardcopy Annual Reports),  as well as provides detailed, geo-referencing (i.e.,
watershed address,  and, now on a much  smaller scale,  water body segment/reach address) of
319-funded projects and their BMPs, and NPS pollutant load reductions.

GRTS is also becoming part of the "WATERS" framework  which is used to summarize water
quality information at the watershed (e.g., HUC8) level.  The Watershed Assessment Tracking
and Environmental Results  System (WATERS)  is a  geographic  information system  that
integrates many existing databases including the STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database,
the National Assessment Database (NAD), the TMDL Tracking  System (NTTS), the  Water
Quality Standards Database (WQSDB), and GRTS.

Data Source:  Load reduction data in  GRTS are reported by the States and their partners as
performance results of Nonpoint Source Management Programs, and Section 319(h) - funded
work programs, including individual project work plans.  Much of the implementation of ง319
work plans (often known as "Project Implementation Plans")  involves coordination, funding and
installation of on-the-ground BMPs in priority watersheds to  reduce pollutant loadings (often as
required  by  established Total  Maximum  Daily Loads), and to  restore the designated uses  of
impaired waters.

Various computer- and geographic-based models are used  in the States to estimate  the load
reductions resulting from implementation  of BMPs in "critical" or hydrologically sensitive areas
                                          74

-------
within watershed projects. Two models used by several states, and directly supported by EPA,
are the Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL) model, and the "Region 5"
model.  States, at their discretion, may use other  models or methods (e.g., AGNPs,  SWAT,
GWLF, etc) or may use actual water monitoring data to generate estimates of pollutant load
reduction resulting from BMP implementation.  The load reduction data generated by modeling
and/or monitoring  efforts are entered by State GRTS coordinators directly into the appropriate
GRTS data fields along with an explanation of the model / methods used to generate the data.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  States employ various methods to make pollutant load
calculations,  including: 1) Predictive  models to  estimate pollutant  loads  before  and  after
watershed projects' BMPs are implemented; 2) Direct sampling overtime of chemical, physical,
and biological parameters using targeted  site selection (usually, where impairments have been
determined thru 303(d) listing  methodology, and  often where TMDLs  are established);  3)
Statistical methods and sampling,  such  as by paired watershed studies to  determine whether or
not implemented  BMPs in  watersheds  are reducing NPS  pollutant  loads and resulting in
improved water quality; and,  4)  Compilation  of data from outside sources such as volunteer
monitors, academic institutions, and others  that are cited by the States as indirect evidence of
pollutant loads, reductions, and water quality.

EPA aggregates the load reduction data entered into GRTS to generate the national performance
measure, and incremental (e.g., annual) reports on total load reductions of each parameter -
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment.  The purpose of the aggregation is to provide a very general
estimate of load reductions on  a  nationwide scale.   It must be emphasized that this national
estimate is not a surrogate for direct measurements of specific waterbody restoration / protection
projects in  meeting their water quality goals.  Such  projects' successes  can only be assessed
through analysis  of locally  applied BMPs and  locally derived monitoring data and locally
applied modeling tools.

QA/QC Procedures:   QA/QC,  of load reduction  estimates generated  by states  and  their
watershed project cooperators, is dependent  on individual state procedures, such as state Quality
Management Plans (QMPs) which are periodically reviewed and approved by EPA Regions.

EPA provides guidance and training to  states in the use of the STEPL and "Region 5" models.
In the provision of guidance and training,  EPA emphasizes that Quality  Assurance Project Plans
(QAPPs) be developed (in accordance with EPA approved State QMPs) for local watershed
projects that generate locational information, and data using water quality models and/or water
monitoring.  EPA also stresses that project- /site- specific parameters be used whenever possible
for input to water quality models, as opposed to default input values provided by some modeling
tools.

Numerous system level checks are built into the data sources in GRTS, based upon "mandated
data" associated with the system.  States have continual access and opportunity to review the
information in GRTS to ensure it accurately  reflects  the data they entered (according to their QA
procedures).  EPA periodically reviews GRTS  and  reminds  states of the critical importance of
their completing mandated data elements in a timely, high-quality manner.
                                           75

-------
Data Quality Review: Data entered in GRTS are periodically reviewed by EPA Regions and
Headquarters.   Regional  personnel  also maintain hardcopies of the  states  work programs /
watershed project implementation plans and Annual  Progress Reports.  Verification of data in
GRTS can be cross-checked with these documents to ensure quality, consistency, and reliability
in progress reporting on an incremental (such as, year-to-year) basis, or to note any problems in
data quality in GRTS.  EPA frequently reviews various aggregation(s) of all the data in GRTS by
use of "ad-hoc" and standard  reports available in the GRTS reporting system.

EPA is working  to integrate  GRTS into the WATERS framework (and  to  enable  "Ask
WATERS") as another means to check  states' purported achievements in attaining loading
reductions and attaining water quality standards using Section 319(h) funding.

In the past, Nonpoint Source Program reporting under Section 319 had been identified as an
Agency-Level  weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act.   The Agency's
establishment and subsequent enhancements  of GRTS has served to mitigate this problem by
requiring states to rigorously identify the projects and activities funded with Section 319(h).  In
response to the FMFIA evaluation, EPA has been working with states and other stakeholders to
improve data input and quality.  EPA sponsors national GRTS users group meetings each year.
These meetings serve  not only to meet the training needs of the user community, but also
provide a forum for discussing needed enhancements  to GRTS. These enhancements range from
better capturing environmental results to improving consistency of data entry to facilitate state-
by-state comparisons, and aggregation of state data to  the national level.

The CWA  Sections 319(h)(ll) and 319(m)(l) require States to report their Nonpoint Source
Management Program  (NPSMP) milestones,  nonpoint source pollutant load reductions, and
water quality improvements, and these provide the  EPA Office of Water (OW) authority  to
require water quality monitoring, and/or modeling, and reporting by states to demonstrate their
success in reducing NFS pollutant loads and improving water quality. OW has issued guidance
documents  designed to improve  states'  NPSMP, watershed-based  projects and  consistency  in
state progress  reporting,  including their use  of GRTS.   These guidance documents include
Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements  for Section 319 Grants issued  in
September  2001, which outlines  the process for reporting in GRTS applicable Section 319(h)
funded projects, load  reductions for nutrients and sediment.  These modifications  remain  in
effect.  Also, the current National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines were issued
in October, 2003, and this guidance includes sections on  all NFS grant reporting requirements,
including GRTS reporting. Subsequent to issuing these guidelines, EPA, in consultation with the
States, established the  specific nonpoint  source program  activity measures (PAMs), including
nonpoint load  reductions, which are now part  of EPA's Strategic Plan,  the  OMB Program
Assessment Rating Tool ("OMB PART"), and the National Water Program Guidance. EPA has
also communicated  (e.g.,  via email) to states further  detailed explanations of the NFS program
activity measures, expected reporting sources and dates, and results of the Agency's reviews of
data input to GRTS by the states.

Data Limitations:   State NPSMP  work to model (and  monitor) watersheds is  often not
coordinated with  state water quality monitoring and assessment  strategies,  and therefore the
integration  of GRTS and other data systems' data may be rather limited  Load reduction data are
                                          76

-------
typically generated from the use of water quality models, and there is a great deal of uncertainty
in model inputs and outputs.  States generally do not apply model  results / load reductions to
decision-making for implementing  and/or revising their NFS Management Programs, nor do
they apply it to other relevant decisions, such as 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing.  The
results  generated  by computer models versus  direct monitoring  are generally  not very
comparable.

EPA is working with states to provide a data structure in GRTS as well as in the web-Reach
Indexing Tool (web-RIT) that make it easier for project BMPs to be geographically located so
that resulting load  reductions and water quality changes can be more easily tracked over time.
WATERS would provide an integrating framework for watershed / water quality information at
the national level.  However, there are challenges in how BMPs are (or can be) tracked in GRTS.
For example, Section 319 funded projects result in the implementation of many thousands of
BMPs as well as other 319 project activities; but it may not be  feasible  to track each of these
activities in GRTS.  Most of the load reductions in GRTS are linked to the 319 award fiscal year
rather than an implementation data, which is not useful for reporting incremental load reductions.
Furthermore,  it is  difficult to capture  a given year of load reductions for multi-year projects
funded under single (or multiple) grant  fiscal year(s).

State assessments of load reductions and water quality typically include uncertainties associated
with any  measuring or modeling tools.  Variability in the environment, as well as in state
methods and  application of tools limit the accuracy of data for describing load reductions and
water quality  at the project level.  Aggregating the load reduction data up to the national measure
compounds the level of uncertainty, thereby preventing the Agency from assigning a reasonable
numerical confidence level to it.

Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for these data.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  GRTS is  currently undergoing a transition from a Lotus
Notes-based system to an Oracle database.  Oracle is the standard  database used by Federal
agencies.  Conversion to Oracle will allow GRTS to seamlessly connect to other EPA OW data
systems, e.g., web-RIT,  STORET, NTTS,  WQSDB -  all systems  under  the  WATERS
framework, as well as potential  linkages to a variety of other  Federal  and   State databases,
models, and watershed planning and accountability tools. In this framework, the Oracle-based
GRTS will greatly  improve  reporting  capabilities for all end users, and answer questions  for
stakeholders,  such  as, where are watershed projects being developed and implemented?  Are
projects coincident with  impaired waters and established TMDLs?  Do they pursue actions
necessary to reduce pollutant loads and attain water quality standards?  Oracle provides users the
capability of customizing data entry screens to facilitate various reporting needs of the States and
EPA.   Customized screens can reflect the various programmatic needs of the Regional offices
and States, such as to review/input only the mandated elements and program measures, a mix of
mandated elements, and/or other Regionally required data fields.

References:

AGNP - Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model
                                           77

-------
SWAT - Soil Water Assessment Tool Model

GWLF - Generalized Watershed Loading Functions Model

STEPL - Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load Model

Region  5 Model - A model which uses some long-used  equations to help  determine load
reductions (such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, the Gully Erosion Equation, and
the Channel Erosion Equation)

Modification to NFS Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants (September 2001)

National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines (October 2003)


FY 2007Performance Measures:

   •   Percentage of high priority EPA and State NPDES  permits that are reissued as
       scheduled (PART Measure)

   •   Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits issued as scheduled (PART
       Measure)

Performance Database:
          U.S. EPA. Permit Compliance System (PCS), [database]. Washington, DC [Office of
          Enforcement and Compliance Assurance]
          Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (PIFT) [database]. Washington, DC [Office of
          Water]
          Priority Permits Data Base, [web-based database]. Washington, DC [Office of
          Water]

The Permit Compliance System (PCS) is used to determine which individual permits are current
through date fields for permit issuance and expiration.  EPA has carried out detailed permit
renewal backlog tracking with PCS data since November 1998. To supplement the individual
permit data from PCS, EPA uses the Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (PIFT) to track the
current or expired status of facilities covered under non-storm water general permits.  The PIFT
has been used to track non-storm water general permit facilities since January 2001.

EPA has undertaken a new "priority permits" issuance strategy that focuses permitting activities
on significant expired permits. The Priority Permits Database is a web-based system that tracks
the specific permits that each  State and Region has identified as priority.  States and Regions
enter the permits, and EPA HQ uses PCS to track permit issuance status of these permits.
                                          78

-------
Data Source:  EPA=s Regional offices and NPDES authorized states enter data into PCS.
EPA=s Regional offices are responsible for entering data to the PIFT. EPA's Regional offices
and States enter permit identification information into the Priority Permits database.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For individual permits, monthly reports are generated
from PCS that use permit issuance and expiration dates to aggregate, across each state, the
number of major and minor permits which have not exceeded expiration dates by more than 180
days. Permits that have not reached their expiration date, or are less than 180 days past that date,
are considered Acurrent. @ Permits that have not been renewed within 180 days of expiration are
considered Aexpiredg or Abacklogged. @ Although PCS tracks some data for facilities covered
by NPDES non-storm water general permits,  States and Regions are not required to input these
data; thus, the data are incomplete and unreliable. To fill this data gap, EPA developed the PIFT
tracking system to gather basic counts of facilities covered by current and expired non-storm
water general permits.  Further, to complement tracking of all permits, the Priority Permits
Database was developed to track the status of high priority permits.  Together the PCS, PIFT and
Priority Permits data are intended to measure NPDES program coverage. The data are suitable
for year -to-year comparisons of officially tracked permit status.

QA/QC Procedures: The PCS database is managed by the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA); PIFT and Priority Permits Database are managed by the Office
of Water (OW). EPA Headquarters (HQ) staff in OECA review data submitted by states as part
of the QA/QC process.  In addition, OW continues to work with States and Regions to improve
the quality and completeness of the data. EPA generates state-by-state reports that list PCS Akey
data@ fields, including permit issuance and expiration dates, as well as compliance and
enforcement data, and provides these lists to NPDES states and Regions for review and cleanup.
EPA also created a spread sheet comparing latitude/longitude (lat/long) data for municipal
treatment systems collected by the Clean Water Needs Survey to the lat/long data in PCS.  This
spread sheet is provided to  States and Regions so that, where discrepancies exist between state
and PCS  data, EPA and States can make corrections in PCS. EPA will continue to focus on
improving the lat/long data in PCS, especially at the pipe level.

Additionally, where  States maintain Akey@ permit data in separate state-level systems, EPA is
providing support to upload these data to PCS.

Regions enter data into the PIFT and Priority Permits database, both of which are web-based
systems maintained by OW.

Data Quality Review: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued several findings
regarding poor PCS  data quality, and PCS has been listed as an Agency-Level Weakness under
the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act since 1999. This weakness affects EPA=s ability to
obtain a true picture  of the status of the NPDES program. Fortunately, the permit issuance  and
expiration data needed for this performance measure are generally better populated than other
Akey@ data elements. As noted previously, OW is offering support to States for data upload,
data entry, and, if necessary, data compilation to improve data quality.  The replacement of PCS
with ICIS-NPDES, a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data system, is scheduled for the first
wave release to EPA and some direct user states in March 2006; other states will be migrated to
                                          79

-------
the new system in additional waves (the third phase to complete all direct users is scheduled for
August 2006; batch states will follow), and should greatly increase state participation and data
quality.

Data Limitations: EPA is aware of data gaps in PCS, particularly for minor facilities, and is
aware of discrepancies between state databases and PCS; however, EPA=s data clean-up over
the past five years has significantly improved data quality.  The PIFT has enabled EPA to report
on non-storm water facilities covered by NPDES general permits, but the data are not as
comprehensive as those tracked in PCS. In 2006, EPA is upgrading PIFT for EPA-issued
permits to improve inventory tracking. There are no national-level data to track permit issuance
and expiration status of facilities covered by  storm water general permits; thus, they are not
tracked under this performance measure. Priority Permits data are verified and reliable.

Error Estimate:  We believe that the permit renewal backlog data for major facilities is accurate
within 2 percent based on input from EPA=s Regional offices and states through a quarterly
independent verification.  For minor facilities, however, the confidence interval is less precise
and probably overestimates the permit renewal backlog for minor facilities by 5 percent based on
anecdotal information from EPA=s Regional offices and states.

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA headquarters is providing contractor assistance to
improve the data quality in PCS.  The new modernized ICIS-NPDES will be rolled out starting
in March 2006. ICIS -NPDES will be easier to use and will improve the quality of data needed
to manage the NPDES program.

References:

PCS information is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.htm

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •  Loading (Pounds) of pollutants removed per program dollar expended (PART
      efficiency measure)

Performance Database:  This measure is calculated using a variety of methods. For point
sources in industry sectors with effluent guidelines, a spread sheet is used.  An average Aper
facility @ pollutant reduction value is  assigned to each permitted effluent discharger according to
the effluent guideline developed in each industrial sector.  Using both the average per facility
value and the number of permits issued as reported under PCS, the spreadsheet then generates
the values for the total pollutants reduced.

The above calculation is used in combination with another spread sheet19 to summarize pollutant
reductions achieved through controls at Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs),  Publicly Owned
19 SWP Efficiency: Millions of Pounds Removed [unpublished Excel Spread Sheet]. (April, 2005). Washington,
D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Water].


                                           80

-------
Treatment Works (POTWs), and controls for municipal storm water and construction storm
water.  Industrial storm water is not included nor are reductions from water quality based effluent
limits.

CSOs:  CSO pollutant reductions are estimated in the 2001 and 2003 CSO Reports to
Congress20.

POTWs: Estimated reductions from POTWs were calculated using data from a detailed trend
       analysis for Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
       loadings in "Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in
       Municipal Wastewater Treatment21." The report provides flow estimates, loading
       estimates and a distribution of treatment class for every 2 to 4 years from 1968 through
       1996. In addition, the report uses data from the Clean Watershed Needs Survey
       (CWNS)22 to provide projections for 2016.  EPA has also prepared a 2004 update for
       Chapter Two23 of the 2000 "Progress in Water Quality."

Municipal Storm Water:  Estimates from municipal storm water were derived from EPA models
       of the volume of storm water discharged from municipal separate storm sewer systems
       (MS4s) developed as part of a 1997 EPA draft report. The methodology and results of
       the  1997 draft report are described in AEconomic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm
       Water Rule@, EPA, October 1999.24

Construction Storm Water:   EPA developed estimates of the sediment load present in
       construction storm water using a model developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
       The model uses the construction site version of the Revised Universal  Soil Loss Equation
       (RUSLE).  Uncontrolled (i.e. prior to implementation of Best Management Practices
       (BMPs)) and controlled (i.e. after the implementation of BMPs) sediment loadings were
       estimated for 15 climatic regions with three site sizes (one, three, and five acres), three
       soil erodibility levels (low, medium, and high), three slopes (3%, 7%, and 12%), and
       various BMP combinations. The methodology and results are described in "Economic
       Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule."
20 2003 CSO Report to Congress, August 2004, US EPA;
Available at: http://cipub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy_report2004.cfm
21 Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment (EPA-
832-R-00-008; June 2000). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/wquality/benefits.htm.

22 Clean Watershed Needs Survey 2000  [Electronic data basel. (2000). Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management].

23 2004 update of Chapter 2, "Nationwide Trends in BOD Loading Based on Population and POTW Treatment
Design" of the report, Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in Municipal
Wastewater Treatment.

24 Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule, Oct. 1, 1999, US EPA. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes orhttp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/docs.cfm?program_id=6&view=allprog&sort=name
                                            81

-------
The values derived from the above methods are summed to obtain the total pollutant load
reductions achieved under the surface water program.

To calculate the PART efficiency measure, the total cumulative pollutant reductions were
divided by the total number of dollars devoted to the EPA Surface Water Program (SWP), grants
to States under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 106, plus State 'match' dollars, annually. SWP
and CWA Section 106 budget is pulled from EPA's Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS). State 'match' dollars are reported to EPA by States.

Data Sources: For industrial sector permits,  each EPA Regional office reports the actual
number of permits issued in the past year, typically drawn from EPA=s Permit Compliance
System. For direct dischargers subject to effluent guidelines, the average per facility value for
pollutant reduction is derived from the Technical Development Documents (TDDs) produced at
the time of the effluent guideline (ELG) rulemaking. TDDs are available for: Pulp & Paper,
Pharmaceuticals, Landfills, Industrial Waste Combustors, Centralized Waste Treatment,
Transportation Equipment Cleaning, Pesticide Manufacturing, Offshore Oil & Gas,  Coastal Oil
& Gas, Synthetic Based Drilling Fluid, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Meat and
Poultry, Metal Products and Machinery, Aquaculture. Regarding PCS, States and EPA=s
Regional offices enter data into the system.

CSO loadings are estimated based on data obtained from the Clean Watershed Needs Survey and
from the "Report to Congress on the Impacts  and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and
Sanitary Sewer Overflows." States and EPA=s Regional offices provide data for the CSO
Report to Congress and the Clean Watershed  Needs Survey.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  EPA uses the spreadsheets described above to
estimate loadings. The data are aggregated across different sources to determine loading
reductions at the national level.  Loadings appear to be the best surrogate for determining the
environmental impacts of point sources. Pollutant load reductions, along with some of the water
quality improvement measures, tell the story about environmental outcomes. Pollutant
reductions per dollar spent provides a snapshot of the effectiveness and efficiency of the surface
water program, and comparing this over time helps to delineate a trend.

QA/QC Procedures: The loadings spreadsheets are based on information from rulemakings and
policies that have undergone extensive review.  The effluent guidelines follow EPA quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. The PCS database is managed by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). EPA Headquarters (HQ) staff in OECA
review data submitted by states as part of the  QA/QC process. (See full description under
"current permits" measure).

Data Quality Reviews: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued several findings
regarding poor PCS data quality, and PCS has been listed as an Agency-Level Weakness under
the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act since 1999. This weakness affects EPA=s ability to
obtain a true picture of the status of the NPDES program. Fortunately, the permit issuance and
expiration data needed for this performance measure are generally better populated than other
Akey@  data elements. As noted previously, OW is offering support to States for data upload,
                                          82

-------
data entry, and, if necessary, data compilation support to improve data quality. The replacement
of PCS with ICIS-NPDES, a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data system, is scheduled for
the  first wave release to EPA and some direct user states in March 2006; other states will be
migrated to the new system in additional waves (the third phase to complete all direct users is
scheduled for August 2006; batch states will follow), and should greatly increase state
participation and data quality.
                                                       9S  	
Recently, the EPA IG issued a report on effluent guidelines.    The IG recommendations pointed
to an inability to confirm our estimates of reductions. As part of OW's response to the IG, we
point to the annual performance measures as an effective way to describe the accomplishments
of the effluent guidelines program.

Data Limitations:  There is inconsistent and poor data quality in the PCS data base with respect
to flow and discharge monitoring, including missing data for minor facilities which has not been
required to be entered. Neither monitoring nor flow data are required for certain categories of
general permits. The Agency, therefore, is not able to provide sufficient information to measure
loadings reductions for all of the approximately 550,000 facilities that fall under the NPDES
program. The effluent guidelines loadings are estimates based the number of permits issued
across an industrial sector.

Error Estimate:  At this time we are unable to  estimate error due to the lack of actual national
level data to compare to estimates based on models.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  EPA headquarters is providing contractor assistance to
improve the data quality of PCS. PCS is scheduled to be replaced by ICIS-NPDES which will be
easier to use and will ensure that it includes needed data to manage the NPDES program.  See
full write-up under the "current permits" measures.

EPA continues to evaluate and explore methods for calculating loadings reductions nation-wide
from all sources.

References:
Clean Watershed Needs Survey 2000 [Electronic data basel. (2000). Washington, D.C. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management].

Effluent guidelines development documents are available at:
http ://www. epa.gov/waterscience/guide.

Modeling databases and software being used by the Office of Water are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/water/soft.html

PCS information is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.html
  Effectiveness of Effluent Guidelines Program for Reducing Pollutant Discharges Uncertain Report No. 2004-P-
00025, August 24, 2004. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040824-2004-P-00025.pdf


                                           83

-------
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

       •  Clean  Water  State  Revolving  Fund  (CWSRF)  Long-Term Revolving Level
          ($billions/yr)
       •  Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.

Performance Database: Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management
System (NIMS.)

Data Sources:  Data are from reporting by municipal and other facility operators, state
regulatory agency personnel and by EPA's regional staff. Data are collected and reported once
yearly.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into NEVIS are the units of performance.
These data are suitable for year-to-year comparison and trend indication.

QA/QC Procedures: EPA's headquarters and regional offices are responsible for compiling the
data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance with expected trends.
States receive data entry guidance from EPA headquarters in the form of annual memoranda. A
generic memorandum would be titled: "Request for Annual Update of Data for the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund National Information Management System, July 1, 200X through June 30,
200X."

Data Quality Reviews: EPA's headquarters  and regional offices annually review the data
submitted by the states. These state data are publicly available at
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrfin individual state reports. EPA's headquarters
addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through the appropriate EPA
regional office. An annual EPA headquarters' "N IMS Analysis" provides detailed data
categorization and comparison. This analysis is used during annual EPA regional office and state
reviews to identify potential problems which might affect the performance  measure, biennial
reviews by EPA's headquarters of regional oversight of state revolving funds and, annual
reviews by EPA's regional offices of their states' revolving funds operations.

State data quality is also evaluated during annual audits performed by independent auditors or by
the appropriate regional office of the EPA Inspector General.  These audits are incorporated into
EPA headquarters' financial management system.

Data Limitations: There  are no known limitations in the performance data, which states submit
voluntarily. Erroneous data can be introduced into the NEVIS database by typographic or
definitional error.  Typographic errors are controlled and corrected through  data testing
performed by EPA's contractor. Definitional errors due to varying interpretations of information
requested for specific data fields have been virtually eliminated in the past two years as a result
of EPA headquarters' clarification of definitions. These definitions are publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf There is typically a lag of approximately two months
from the date EPA asks states to enter their data into the NEVIS database, and when the data are
quality-checked and available for public use.
                                           84

-------
Error Estimate: Due to the rapid growth of this program, past estimates of annual performance
(relative to a target), compared to actual performance data received two years later, have been
accurate to an average of approximately plus or minus2 percentage points.

New/Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since 1996.  It is updated
annually, and data fields are changed or added as needed.

References:
State performance data as shown in NEVIS are available by state at:
http ://www. epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrf
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NEVIS is available at:
http ://www. epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan, July 2001 (approved September 28, 2001)
addresses the quality of data in NEVIS. Not publicly available.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Reduction in the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation

Performance Database:  Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS), the
Indian Health Service (IHS), Office of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE),
Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction (DSFC).

Data Sources: The STARS includes data on sanitation deficiencies, Indian homes and
construction projects.  STARS is currently comprised of two sub data systems,  the Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS) and the Project Data System (PDS).

The SDS is an inventory of sanitation deficiencies for existing Indian homes and communities.
The IHS is required to prioritize SDS  deficiencies and annually report to Congress.  The
identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the most common of which
follow:
          •  Consultation with Tribal members and other Agencies
          •  Field visits by engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives (CHRs),
             nurses, or by other IHS or tribal heath staff
          •  Sanitary Surveys
          •  Community Environmental Health Profiles
          •  Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)  Inventory
          •  Census Bureau Reports (for comparison purposes only)
          •  Tribal Master Plans for Development
          •  Telephone Surveys
          •  Feasibility Studies

The most reliable and preferred method is  a field visit to each community to identify and obtain
accurate numbers of homes with sanitation deficiencies. The number of Indian homes within the
communities must be consistent among the various methods cited above.  If a field visit cannot
                                          85

-------
be made, it is highly recommended that more than one method be used to determine sanitation
deficiencies to increase the accuracy and establish greater credibility for the data.

The PDS is a listing of funded construction projects and is used as a management and reporting
tool.

QA/QC Procedures:  Quality assurance for the Indian country water quality performance
measure depends on the quality of the data in the  STARS.  The STARS data undergoes a series
of quality control reviews at various levels within the IHS DSFC.  The DSFC is required to
annually report deficiencies in SDS to Congress in terms of total and feasible project costs for
proposed sanitation projects and sanitation deficiency levels for existing homes.

Data Quality Reviews:  The SDS data initially undergoes a series of highly organized reviews
by experienced tribal, IHS field, IHS district and IHS area personnel.  The data are then sent to
the DSFC headquarters office for review before final results are reported.  The DSFC
headquarters reviews the SDS data for each of the 12 IHS area offices. The data quality review
consists of performing a number of established data queries and reports which check for errors
and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top 25 SDS projects and corresponding community
deficiency profiles for each area are reviewed and scrutinized thoroughly.  Detailed cost
estimates are highly encouraged and are usually available for review.

Data Limitations:  The data are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS.

Error Estimate: The IHS DSFC requires that higher-level projects (those with the possibility of
funding prior to the next update) must be developed to allow for program implementation in an
organized, effective, efficient manner. Those SDS projects (top 20%) must have cost estimates
within 10% of the actual  costs.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The STARS is a web based application and therefore allows
data to be continuously updated by personnel at various levels and modified as program
requirements are identified.  PDS has been modified to meet 40CFR31.40  reporting
requirements.  In 2006 STARS is being modified  to include rural communities that are not
Alaska Native  Villages but has a substantial Alaska Native population.

References:

1.  Indian Health Service (MS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC).  Criteria for the
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program, June 1999,  Version 1.02, 3/13/2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/Criteria_March_2003.cfm

2.  Indian Health Service (MS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC).  Sanitation
Deficiency System  (SDS),  Working Draft,  "Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies for
Indian         Homes           and          Communities",          May          2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
                                          86

-------
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system
       health of coastal waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is improved on the
       "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report

Performance Database: EMAP/NCA [Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program/National Coastal Assessment] database (housed EPA/ORD/NHEERL/AED,
Narragansett, RI)(Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and
Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory/Gulf Ecology
Division); pre-database information housed in ORD/NHEERL facility in Gulf Breeze, FL (Gulf
Ecology Division) (pre-database refers to a temporary storage site for data where they are
examined for QA purposes, have appropriate metadata attached and undergo initial statistical
analyses); data upon QA acceptance and metadata completion are transferred to EMAP/NCA
database  and are web available at www.epa.gov/emap/nca.

Data Source:  Probabilistic surveys of ecological condition completed throughout the Mid-
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) in 1991-
1994, in southern Florida in 1995, in the Southeast in 1995-1997, in the Mid-Atlantic in  1997-
1998, in each coastal state in 2000-2004 (except Alaska and Hawaii), in Alaska in 2002 and
2004, in Hawaii in 2002 and 2004, and in Puerto Rico in 2000 and  2004, and in other island
territories (Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands) in 2004. Surveys collect condition
information regarding water quality, sediment quality and biotic condition at 70-100 sites/region
(e.g., mid-Atlantic) each year of collection prior to 1999 and at 35-150 sites in each state or
territory/year (site number dependent upon state) after 1999.  Additional sampling by the
National  Estuary Program (NEP) included all individual national estuaries; the total number of
sites within NEP boundaries was 30 for the two-year period 2000-2003.

These data are collected through a joint EPA-State cooperative agreement and the States follow a
rigid sampling and collection protocol following intensive training by EPA personnel.
Laboratory processing is completed at either a state laboratory or through a national EPA
contract.  Data collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (either the National
Coastal QAPP or a variant of it) and QA testing and auditing by EPA.

Methods, Assumptions  and  Suitability: The surveys are conducted using a probabilistic
survey design which allows extrapolation of results to the target population (in this case  - all
estuarine resources of the specific state.) The collection design maximizes the spatial spread
between sites, located by specific latitude-longitude combinations.  The survey utilizes an
indexed sampling period (generally late summer) to increase the probability of encountering
water quality, sediment quality and biotic condition problems, if they exist.  Based on the QAPP
and field collection manual, a site in a specific state is located by sampling vessel via Global
Positioning System (GPS) and water quality is measured on board at multiple depths. Water
samples are taken for chemistry; sediment samples are taken for chemistry, toxicity testing and
benthic community assessment; and fish trawls are conducted to collect community fish  data and
provide selected fish (target species) for analysis of whole body and/or fillet contaminant
concentrations.  Samples are stored in accordance with field manual instructions and shipped to
                                          87

-------
the processing laboratory. Laboratories follow QA plans and complete analyses and provide
electronic information to the state or EPA. EPA and the state exchange data to ensure that each
has a complete set. EPA analyzes the data to assess regional conditions, whereas the states
analyze the data to assess conditions of state-specific waters.  Results of analyses on a national
and regional basis are reported as chapters in the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR)
series.  The overall regional condition index is the simple mean of the five indicators' scores
used in the Coastal Condition Report (in the NCCR2 a recalculation method was provided for
direct comparison of the successive reports). An improvement for one of the indicators by a full
category unit over the eight year period will  be necessary for the regional estimate to meet the
performance measurement goal (+0.2  over an eight year period).

       Assumptions: (1) The underlying target population (estuarine resources of the United
States) has been correctly identified; (2) GPS is successful; (3) QAPP and field collection
manuals are followed;  (4) all samples  are successfully collected; (5) all analyses are completed in
accordance with the QAPP; and (6) all combinations of data into indices are completed in a
statistically rigorous manner.

       Suitability: By design  all data are suitable to be aggregated to the state and regional level
to characterize water quality, sediment quality, and biotic condition.  Samples represent
"reasonable",  site-specific point-in-time data (not primary intention of data use) and an excellent
representation  of the entire resource (extrapolation to  entire resource supportable).  The intended
use of the data is the characterization of populations and subpopulations of estuarine resources
through time.  The data meet this expectation and the  sampling, response, analysis and reporting
designs have been peer reviewed successfully multiple times.  The data are suitable for
individual calendar year characterization of condition, comparison of condition across years, and
assessment of long-term trends once sufficient data are collected (7-10 years). Data are suitable
for use in National Coastal Condition  calculations for the United States and its regions to provide
performance measurement information. The first long-term trends analysis will appear in the
2006 NCCR representing trends between 1990-2004.

QA/QC Procedures:  The sampling collection and analysis of samples are controlled by a
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) [EPA 2001] and the National Coastal Assessment
Information Management Plan (EVIP)[EPA 2001]. These plans are followed by all twenty-three
coastal states and 5 island territories.  Adherence to the plans are determined by field training
(conducted by  EPA ORD), field audits (conducted by EPA/ORD), round robin testing of
chemistry laboratories (conducted by EPA/ORD), overall systems audits of state programs and
national laboratory practices (conducted by EPA), sample splits (sent to reference laboratories),
blind samples (using reference materials) and overall information systems audits (conducted by
EPA/ORD). Batch sample processing for laboratory analyses requires the inclusion of QA
samples in each batch.  All states are subject to audits at least once every two years.  All
participants received training in year 2000 and retraining sessions are scheduled every two years.

Data Quality Reviews: Data quality  reviews have been completed in-house by EPA ORD at the
regional and national level in 2000-2003 (National Coastal Assessment 2000-2003) and by the
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in 2003 (assessment completed in June, 2003 and
written report not yet available; oral debriefing revealed no deficiencies). No deficiencies were
                                           88

-------
found in the program.  A national laboratory used in the program (University of Connecticut) for
nutrient chemistry, sediment chemistry and fish tissue chemistry is being evaluated by the
Inspector General' s Office for potential falsification of laboratory results in connection with
other programs not related to NCA. The NCA has conducted its own audit assessment and only
one incorrect use of a chemical digestion method for inorganic chemistry samples (metals) was
found. This error was corrected and all samples "digested" incorrectly were reanalyzed at no
cost.

Data Limitations: Data limitations are few.  Because the data are collected in a manner to
permit calculation of uncertainty and designed to meet a specific Data Quality Objective (DQO)
(<10% error in spatial calculation for each annual state  estimate), the results at the regional level
(appropriate for this performance measure) are within about 2- 4% of true values dependent upon
the specific sample type.  Other limitations as follows:  (a) Even though methodology errors are
minimized by audits, in the first year of the NCA program (2000) some errors occurred resulting
in loss of some data.  These problems were corrected in 2001 and no problems have been
observed since, (b) In some instances, (<5%) of sample results, QA investigation found
irregularities regarding the precision of measurement (e.g., mortality toxicity testing  of controls
exceeded detection limit, etc.). In these cases, the  data were "flagged" so that users are aware of
the potential limitations, (c) Because of the sampling/ analysis design, the loss of data at a small
scale (~ 10%) does not result in a significant increase in uncertainty in the estimate of condition.
Wholesale data losses of multiple indicators throughout the U.S. coastal states and territories
would be necessary to invalidate the performance measure,  (d) The only major source of
external variability is year-to-year climatic variation (drought vs. wet, major climatic event, etc.)
and the only source of internal variation is modification of reporting indicators (e.g., new indices,
not a change in data collected and analyzed).  This internal reporting modification requires a re-
analysis of earlier information to permit direct comparison, (e) There is generally a 2-3 year lag
from the time of collection until reporting.  Sample analysis generally takes one year  and data
analysis another. Add another year for report production and peer review, (f) Data collections
are completed annually; The EPA/ORD data collection collaboration will continue through 2004.
After 2004, ORD will assist OW, as requested, with expert advice, but will no longer support the
program financially.

Error Estimate: The estimate of condition (upon which the performance measure is
determined) has an annual uncertainty rate of about 2-3% for national condition, about 5-7% for
individual regional indicators  (composite of all five states data into a regional estimate), and
about 9-10% for individual state indicators. These condition estimates are determined from the
survey data using cumulative distribution functions and the uncertainty estimates are  calculated
using the Horvitz-Thompson estimator.

New/Improved Data or Systems:

 (1)    Changes have occurred in the data underlying the performance measure based on
       scientific review and development.  A change in some reporting indicators has occurred
       in order to more accurately represent the intended  ecological process or function. For
       example, a new eutrophication index was determined for the 2000 data.  In order to
       compare this new index to the 1991-1994 data, the earlier data results must be
                                           89

-------
       recomputed using the new technique. This recalculation is possible because the
       underlying data collection procedures have not changed.

 (2)    New national contract laboratories have been added every year based on competition.
       QA requirements are met by the new facilities and rigorous testing at these facilities is
       completed before sample analysis is initiated.  QA adherence and cross-laboratory sample
       analysis has minimized data variability resulting from new laboratories entering the
       program.

 (3)    The only reason for the discontinuation of the National performance goal would be the
       elimination of the surveys after 2004 or any other year thereafter.
       In order to continue to utilize the 2001 National Coastal Condition report as the baseline
for this performance measure, the original scores reported in 2001 have been re-calculated in the
2004 report using the index modifications described above (#1).  These "new" results for the
baseline (re-calculated scores) are reported in Appendix C of the 2005 report.

References:
1.    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Database (1990-1998) and National Coastal
     Assessment Database (2000- 2004) websites: www.epa.gov/emap and
     www.epa.gov/emap/nca (NCA data for 2000 is only data available at present)
2.    National Coastal Assessment. 2000-2003.  Various internal memoranda regarding results of
     QA audits. (Available through John Macauley, National QA Coordinator NCA, USEPA,
     ORD/NHEERL/GED, 1 Sabine Island, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561)
3.    National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA/620/R-
     01/002.(Available through John Macauley above)
4.    National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Information Management Plan. EPA/620/R-01/003
     (Available through Stephen Hale, NCA EVI Coordinator, ORD/NHEERL/AED, 27
     Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI)
5.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-
     620/R- 01/005.
6.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. In
     review Assigned Report Number EPA-620/R-03/002.

                                GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 3

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Report on the conditions  and seasonal trends of water quality in the Gulf of Mexico
       hypoxic zone

Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system

Data Source: N/A
                                          90

-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures: N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References: N/A


FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Six Year Review decisions
       (PART Measure)

   •   Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Contaminated Candidate List
       decisions (PART Measure)

Performance Database: EPA will track these program outputs annually using an internal data
base.

Data  Source:  The  source of data will be  a contractor-produced client document  analysis,
detailing client use of the Drinking Water Research Program's products by the EPA's Office of
Water.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The primary indicator of output, or productivity, is
calculation of the percentage of ORD-developed products by research theme appearing in client
produced (or secondary client-produced) documents, website content, formal communications,
regulations, rules, decisions, recommendations, and other tangible evidence over a five year
period, as identified through content analysis.

QA/QC Procedures: N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
                                         91

-------
References:

Bibliography of EPA's Drinking Water Research Program, product publication list. Calendar
years 2000-2004.

                                GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 1

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•      Daily per capita generation
•      Millions of tons municipal solid waste diverted

Performance Database: Data are provided by the Department of Commerce. EPA does not
maintain a database for this information.

Data Source:  The baseline numbers for municipal solid waste (MSW) source reduction and
recycling are developed using a materials flow methodology employing data largely from the
Department of Commerce and described  in the EPA report titled "Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States." The Department of Commerce collects materials production
and consumption data from various industries.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on domestic production of materials and products
are compiled using published data series. U.S. Department of Commerce sources are used,
where available; but in several instances more detailed information on production of goods by
end-use is available from trade associations. The goal is to obtain a consistent historical data
series for each product and/or material. Data on average product lifetimes are used to adjust the
data series.  These estimates and calculations result in material-by-material and product-by-
product estimates of MSW generation, recovery, and discards. To strategically support
attainment of the 35% recycling goal, EPA has identified specific components of the MSW
stream  on which to focus: paper and paperboard, organics (yard and food waste), and packaging
and containers. For these targeted efforts EPA will examine data on these waste components.

There are various assumptions factored into the analysis to develop estimates of MSW
generation, recovery and discards. Example assumptions (from pages 141-142 of year 2000
"Characterization Report") include:  Textiles used as rags are assumed to enter the waste stream
the same year the textiles are discarded.  Some products (e.g., newspapers and packaging)
normally have short lifetimes and products are assumed to be discarded in the year they are
produced.

QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control are provided by the Department of
Commerce's internal procedures and systems.  The report prepared by the Agency,
"Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States," is reviewed by a number of
experts for accuracy and soundness.

Data Quality Review:  The report, including the baseline numbers and annual rates of recycling
and per capita municipal solid waste generation, is widely accepted among experts.
                                          92

-------
Data Limitations: Data limitations stem from the fact that the baseline statistics and annual
rates of recycling and per capita municipal solid waste generation are based on a series of
models, assumptions, and extrapolations and, as such, are not an empirical accounting of
municipal solid waste generated or recycled.

Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) does not collect data on
estimated error rates.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Because the statistics on MSW generation and recycling are
widely reported and accepted by experts, no new efforts to improve the data or the methodology
have been identified or are necessary.

References:  U.S. EPA, Office  of Solid Waste  and Emergency Response, "Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 2003  Facts and Figures" Washington, DC: EPA, Accessed January
10,  2006.    Available  only   on  the  internet  at:     

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Annual increase in  the  percentage of  facilities with  permits or other approved
       controls
    •   Update controls for preventing releases at facilities that are due for permit renewals
    •   Percentage of MSW produced that is recycled

Performance  Database:   The  Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.

Data Source:  Data are entered by the states.  Supporting documentation and reference materials
are maintained in Regional and state files. EPA's Regional offices  and authorized states enter
data on a rolling basis.

Methods,  Assumptions  and   Suitability:    The Resource Conservation  Recovery  Act
Information System (RCRAInfo)  is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
RCRAInfo contains information  on entities (genetically referred to as "handlers") engaged in
hazardous waste generation and management activities regulated under the portion of RCRA that
provides for regulation of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo has several different modules, including
status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA permitting universe.

QA/QC Procedures:  States and EPA's Regional offices generate the data and manage data
quality related to timeliness and accuracy.  Within RCRAInfo, the application software contains
structural controls that promote the correct entry of the high-priority national components (but
does not prevent all user errors). RCRAInfo documentation, which is available to all users on-
line at http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/, provides guidance to facilitate the generation and
interpretation of data.  Training on use of RCRAInfo is provided at national meetings, usually
annually, depending on the nature of system changes and user needs.  Even with the  increasing
                                          93

-------
emphasis on data quality, with roughly 10,000 units in the baseline (e.g., a facility can have more
than one unit), we hear of data problems with some facilities every year, particularly with the
older inactive facilities. When we hear of these issues, we work with the EPA Regional offices
to see that they get resolved. It may be necessary to make a few adjustments to the permitting
baseline as data issues are identified. Determination of whether or not the GPRA annual goal #1
(listed above) is met is based on the legal and operating status codes for each unit. Each year
since 1999, in discussions with Regional offices and  states, EPA has highlighted the need to keep
the data that support the GPRA permitting goal current. RCRAInfo is the sole repository for this
information and is a focal point for planning from the local to national level. Accomplishments
for goal # 2 (listed above) is based on  the permit expiration date code. This is  a new code for the
new goal and we have made changes to the database  to make this code a high priority code. We
have discussed the need for correct entry with the Regions. Since tracking this  information is
new, we anticipate that we will have to work out some reporting bugs, review the accuracy of
tracking when it begins in October 1, 2005,  and make adjustments if necessary.

       Note: Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized
state personnel. It is not available to the general public because the system contains enforcement
sensitive data.  The general public is referred to EPA's Envirofacts Data Warehouse to obtain
filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste sites.

Data Quality Review: The 1995  GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information
System Are Limited (AEVID-95-167, August 22, 1995,
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf) on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System
reviewed whether national  RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing
their hazardous waste programs. Recommendations  coincide with ongoing internal efforts to
improve the definitions of data collected, ensure that data collected provide critical information
and minimize the burden on states. RCRAInfo, the current national database has evolved in part
as a response to this report.

Data Limitations: The authorized states have ownership of their data and EPA has to rely on
them to make changes.  The data that  determine if a  facility has met its permit requirements are
prioritized in update efforts. Basic site identification  data may become out-of-date because
RCRA does not mandate annual or other periodic notification by the regulated entity when site
name, ownership and contact information changes. Nevertheless, EPA tracks the facilities by
their IDs and those should  not change  even during ownership changes.  The baselines are
composed of facilities that  can have multiple units. These units may consolidate, split or
undergo other activities that cause the  number of units to change. We aim to have static
baselines, but there may be occasions where we would need to make minor baseline
modifications.  The baseline of facilities that are currently tracked for goal #2 are "due for permit
renewals," but we anticipate that there will be some facilities that cease to be "due for permit
renewals"  due to a change  in facility status.

Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSW does not collect data on estimated error rates.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  EPA has successfully implemented new tools in RCRAInfo
for managing environmental information to support  Federal and state programs, particularly for
                                           94

-------
permit renewals.  RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated universe of
RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as  facility status, regulated activities, and compliance
history. The system also captures detailed  data on the generation of hazardous waste by large
quantity generators and on waste management practices from treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.  RCRAInfo is web accessible, providing a convenient user interface for Federal, state
and local  managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled cost, and
using commercial off-the-shelf software to develop reports from database tables.

References:  RCRAInfo  documentation and data (http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/).  U.S. GAO,
"Hazardous  Waste:  Benefits of EPA's  Information  System Are Limited" (AIMD-95-167),
Washington, DC: GAO, August 22, 1995. Accessed January 18, 2006. Available on the Internet
at 
-------
Directors,   Regions  1-10,   dated  December  15,  2005.  Accessed  January  18,  2006.


                               GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage facilities required to have
   Facility Response Plans
•  Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA
•  Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters by facilities subject to the  Facility Response
   Plan (FRP) regulations.
•  Compliance rate of all facilities subject to Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations.
•  Compliance  rate  of inspected facilities  subject  to  Facility Response Plan (FRP)
   regulations.
•  Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to SPCC regulations.
•  Gallons of oil spilled to  navigable waters per million program dollars  spent annually on
   prevention and preparedness at Facility Response Plan (FRP) facilities.


Performance Database: The Office of Emergency Management has recently  gone through a
reorganization bringing together the chemical and oil emergency prevention, preparedness, and
response programs of the Agency.  Additionally, the Oil Program has just undergone a PART
review. Therefore, a new reporting system is under development to take into account the recent
reorganization as well as the  resulting annual and long-term measures developed through the
PART review. This system will store oil spill prevention, emergency preparedness and response
information (e.g., compliance and oil spill information).

Data Source: a new system  pending. This new system will have several components. "Gallons
of oil spilled" will be determined from the National Response Center database complemented by
other sources  of data on oil spills.  OEM is completing a national database of FRP facilities that
will serve as the basis for reporting on measures related to the FRP regulation. In addition, each
Region will gather and submit data through a common reporting mechanism available to HQ  and
all Regions.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Pending new database

QA/QC Procedures: Pending new database.

Data Quality Reviews:  Pending new database.

Data Limitations:  Pending  new database.

Error Estimate: Pending new database.

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
                                         96

-------
References: For additional information on the Oil program, see www.epa.gov/oilspill


FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Percentage of emergency response readiness improvement

Performance Database: No specific database has been developed. Data from evaluations from
each of the 10 Regions are tabulated and stored using standard software (WordPerfect,
spreadsheets, etc.).

Data Source:  Data  are  collected  through  detailed surveys  of all Regional programs, and
interviews  with  personnel and managers  in each  program office.   The score represents  a
composite based upon data from each unique Regional and headquarters organization.  Annual
increments represent annual improvements.  The survey instrument was  developed based upon
Core Emergency Response (ER) elements, and has been approved by EPA Headquarters and
Regional managers.  Core ER elements  cover all aspects of the Core ER program, including
Regional Response Centers, transportation, coordination with backup Regions, health and safety,
delegation  and warrant authorities,  response  readiness, response  equipment,  identification
clothing, training and exercises, and outreach.

While EPA is currently prepared to respond to chemical,  biological,  and  radiological incidents,
improvement in the  emergency  response and  homeland  security  readiness measure will
demonstrate an increased ability to respond quickly and effectively to national-scale events. The
FY 2007 Core ER target is to improve emergency response and homeland security readiness by
10% from the FY 2006 baseline performance.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  The Core ER elements were developed over the last
several years by the EPA Removal Program to identify and clarify what is needed to ensure an
excellent emergency response program. The elements, definitions, and rationales were
developed by staff and managers and have been presented to the Administrator and other high
level Agency managers. Based on the Core ER standards, evaluation forms and criteria were
established for EPA's Regional programs, the Environmental Response Team (ERT),  and
Headquarters. These evaluation criteria identify what data need to be collected,  and how that
data translate into an appropriate score for each Core ER element. The elements and evaluation
criteria will be reviewed each year for relevance to ensure that the programs have the highest
standards of excellence and that the measurement clearly reflects the level of readiness.  The data
are collected from each Regional office, ERT, and Headquarters using a systematic, objective
process.  Each evaluation team consists of managers and staff, from Headquarters and from
another EPA Regional office, with some portion of the team involved in all reviews for
consistency and some portion varying to ensure independence and objectivity. For instance, a
team evaluating Region A might include some or all of the following:  a staff person from
Headquarters who is participating in all reviews, a staff person from Headquarters who is very
familiar with Region A activities, a manager from Headquarters, and a staff person and/or
manager from Region B.  One staffer group will be responsible  for gathering and analyzing all
                                          97

-------
the data to determine the overall score for each Regional office, ERT, and Headquarters, and for
determining an overall National score.

QA/QC Procedures: See "Methods, Assumptions and Suitability"

Data Quality Review:  The evaluation team will review the data (see Methods, Assumptions
and Suitability) during the data collection and analysis process. Additional data review will be
conducted after the data has been analyzed to ensure that the scores are consistent with the data
and program information. There currently is no specific database that has been developed to
collect, store, and manage the data.

Data Limitations: One key limitation of the data is the lack of a dedicated database system to
collect and manage the data. Standard software packages (word processing, spreadsheets) are
used to develop the evaluation criteria, collect the data, and develop the accompanying readiness
scores. There is also the possibility of subjective interpretation of data.

Error Estimate: It is likely that the error estimate for this measure will be small for the
following reasons: the standards and evaluation criteria have been developed and reviewed
extensively by Headquarters and EPA's Regional managers and staff; the data will be collected
by a combination of managers and staff to provide consistency across all reviews plus an
important element of objectivity in each review; the scores will be developed by a team looking
across all ten Regions, ERT, and Headquarters; and only twelve sets of data will be collected,
allowing for easier cross-checking and ensuring better consistency of data analysis and
identification of data quality gaps.

New/Improved Data or Systems: There are no current plans  to develop a dedicated system to
manage the data.

References: FY 2004/2005 Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPEVI),
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/pdfs/appdxb3pl.pdf
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures controlled
•  Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with groundwater migration controlled
•  Federal Facility Superfund sites with human exposures controlled (PART measure)
•  Federal  Facility Superfund  sites with contaminated groundwater controlled  (PART
   measure)
•  Number of final remedies (cleanup targets) selected at Superfund sites (PART measure)
•  Number of Superfund final assessment decisions (PART measure)
•  Number of Superfund construction completions (PART measure)
•  Number of  Federal Facility  Superfund  sites where all remedies  have  completed
   construction (PART measure)
•  Number of Federal  Facility Superfund sites where the final  remedial  decision for
   contaminants at the site has been determined (PART measure)
                                          98

-------
•  Voluntary removal actions overseen by EPA and completed annually (PART measure)
•  Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually (PART measure)

Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability System (CERCLIS) is the database used by the Agency to track, store, and report
Superfund site information.

Data Source: CERCLIS is an automated EPA system; headquarters and EPA's Regional offices
enter data into CERCLIS on a rolling basis.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Each performance measure is a specific variable
within CERCLIS.

QA/QC Procedures:  To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls
are in place:  1) Superfund Implementation Manual (SPEVI), the program management manual
that details what data must be reported; 2) Report Specifications, which are published for each
report detailing how reported data are calculated; 3) Coding Guide, which contains technical
instructions to such data users as  Regional Information Management  Coordinators (EVICs),
program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit
Testing, an extensive QA check against report specifications; 5)  Regional CERCLIS Data Entry
Internal Control Plan, which includes: (a) regional policies and procedures for entering data into
CERCLIS; (b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund accomplishments are supported by
source  documentation; (c) delegation of authorities for approval of data input into  CERCLIS;
and (d) procedures to ensure that reported accomplishments meet accomplishment definitions;
and (6) a historical lockout feature has been added to CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal
year data can be changed only by approved and designated personnel and are logged to a change-
log report.   Specific direction for these  controls are  contained  in the Superfund  Program
Implementation  Manual  (SPEVI)  Fiscal Year  2006/2007  (SPEVI.   U.S.  EPA,  Superfund.
"Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPEVI Fiscal Year 2006/2007."  Washington, DC:
EPA.       Accessed   January    10,    2006.       Available    on    the   Internet    at:
)

CERCLIS  operation and further development is taking place  under the following administrative
control quality assurance procedures:  1) Office of Environmental Information Interim Agency
Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.4. U.S. EPA, Office of Technology
Operations and Planning. "OEI  Information Management and Information Technology
Policies." Washington, DC: EPA.  Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
; U.S. EPA, Office of Technology
Operations and Planning. "OEI  Information Management and Information Technology Policies,
Interim Agency Systems Life Cycle Management Policy, Agency Directive 2100.4."
Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Intranet at:
;  2) the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) Quality Management Plan.  U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. "OSWER Quality Management Plan." Washington, DC: EPA.
August 2003.  Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
; 3) Agency platform, software and hardware
                                         99

-------
standards. U.S. EPA, Office of Technology Operations and Planning. "Information Technology
Roadmap." Washington, DC:  EPA. Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
; 4) Quality Assurance Requirements in all
contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being developed and maintained. U.S. EPA,
Environmental Protection Agency.  "EPA's Information Quality Guidelines (IQG)."
Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed January 10, 2006.  Available on the Internet at:
; and 5) Agency security procedures. U.S.
EPA, Office of Technology Operations and Planning. "IT Security IT Roadmap." Washington,
DC:  EPA.  Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
 In addition, specific
controls are in place for system design, data conversion and data capture, and CERCLIS outputs.

Data Quality Reviews: Two audits, one by the Office Inspector General (OIG) and the other by
Government Accountability Office (GAO), were conducted to assess the validity of the data in
CERCLIS.    The  OIG  audit  report,  Superfund  Construction  Completion  Reporting  (No.
E1SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030), dated December 30, 1997, was prepared to verify the accuracy of
the information that the Agency was providing to Congress and the public. The OIG report
concluded  that the Agency  "has good  management  controls to  ensure  accuracy of the
information that is reported," and "Congress and the public can rely upon the information EPA
provides regarding construction completions."  The GAO's  report, Superfund: Information on
the Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241), dated August 28,  1998,  was prepared to verify the
accuracy of the information in CERCLIS on  sites' cleanup progress.  The report estimates that
the cleanup status of National Priority List (NPL) sites reported by CERCLIS as of September
30, 1997, is accurate for 95 percent of the sites. U.S. General Accounting Office.  "Superfund
Information on the Status of Sites."   Washington, DC:  GAO.  August 1998.  Accessed January
10, 2006.   Available on  the Internet  at:  .
Another  OIG audit,  Information  Technology -  Comprehensive  Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)  Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-
00016), dated September  30,  2002,  evaluated the accuracy, completeness, timeliness,  and
consistency of the  data entered into CERCLIS.  The report provided 11 recommendations to
improve controls for CERCLIS data quality. EPA concurs with the  recommendations contained
in the audit, and many of the identified problems have been  corrected or long-term actions that
would  address these recommendations continue to be  underway.  U.S. Office of Inspector
General.  "Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and  Liability  Information  System (CERCLIS) Data  Quality."    Washington, DC:   OIG.
September  2002.    Accessed  January   10,  2006.   Available   on  the  Internet  at:


The IG reviews annually the end-of-year Comprehensive  Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) data, in an informal process, to verify the data
supporting the performance measures.  Typically, there are no published results.

The Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) was signed  in  August 2003. U.S.  EPA, Office of Solid  Waste and Emergency
Response.  "OSWER Quality Management  Plan."  Washington, DC:  EPA.  August 2003.
                                         100

-------
Accessed     January    10,    2006.         Available    on     the    Internet     at:


Data Limitations: Weaknesses were identified in the OIG audit, Information Technology -
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002. The Agency
disagrees with the study design and report conclusions; however, the report provided 11
recommendations with which EPA concurs.  Many of the identified problems have been
corrected or long-term actions that would address these recommendations continue to be
underway, e.g., 1) FY 02/03  SPEVI Chapter 2 update was made to better define the Headquarters'
and Regional  roles and responsibilities for maintaining planning and accomplishment data in
CERCLIS; 2) FY 04/05 SPEVI Appendix A, Section A.A.5 'Site Status Indicators' added
language to clarify the use of the non-NPL status code of "SX"; 3) FY 04/05 SPEVI Appendix A,
Section A.A.6 'Data Quality' added a section on  data quality which includes a list of relevant
reports; 4) FY 04/05 SPEVI Appendix E, Section E.A.5 "Data Owners/Sponsorship' was revised
to reflect what data quality checks (focus data studies) will be done by designated Regional and
headquarters staff; 5) A data quality objectives supplement for GPRA measures was added in
Change 6 to this SPEVI. For  changes regarding this OIG audit, see the Change Log for this
SPEVI.  U.S. EPA. Superfund. "Change Log 7."  Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed January 10,
2006. Available on the Internet at:
; 6) Draft guidance from
OCA (Other Cleanup Activity) subgroup, which outlines the conditions under which sites are
taken back from states when states have the lead but are not performing; and 7) Pre-CERCLIS
Screening: A Data Entry Guide, which provides guidance to the regions for preventing entry of
duplicate sites in  CERCLIS.  The development and implementation of a quality assurance
process for CERCLIS data has begun.  This process includes delineating quality assurance
responsibilities in the program office and periodically selecting random samples of CERCLIS
data points to check against source documents in  site files.

Error Estimate: The GAO's report, Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites
(GAO/RECD-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, estimates that the cleanup status of National
Priority List sites reported by CERCLIS is accurate for 95 percent of the sites. The OIG report,
Information Technology-Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No.  2002-P-00016), dated September 30,
2002, states that over 40 percent of CERCLIS data on site actions reviewed was inaccurate or not
adequately supported.  Although the 11 recommendations  were helpful and will improve controls
over CERCLIS data, the Agency disagrees and strongly objects to the study design and  report
conclusions, stating they do not focus on the program's data quality hierarchy and the
importance it  places on NPL sites.

New/Improved Data or Systems: A CERCLIS  modernization effort, initiated in 2002, has
been completed.  As a result of the modernization effort, CERCLIS now has standards for data
quality. Each EPA Region's  CERCLIS Data Entry Control Plan,  which  identifies policies and
procedures for data entry, is reviewed annually. Data quality audit fields have been added to
CERCLIS.  EPA Headquarters has begun to create and share with the Regions data quality audit
reports. These reports document data quality for  timeliness, completeness, and accuracy as
                                          101

-------
determined by the Superfund data sponsors to encourage and ensure high data quality. The
modernization effort has increased the availability of CERCLIS data via Superfund eFacts, a
Superfund data mart which serves program managers in Headquarters and the Regions. In FY
2007, the program will continue its effort to improve its management of the program through the
increased availability of timely and accurate technical information to Superfund's managers. In
2007, the Agency will work to increase utilization of CERCLIS data by incorporating additional
remedy selection, risk, removal response, and community involvement data into CERCLIS.

The Business Process Reevaluation task in the modernization project has provided CERCLIS
managers with a first step in an implementation evaluation.  The document, which resulted from
the evaluation, is being used as a valuable resource for scoping the future redesign of CERCLIS
as well as the realignment of the database that will remove unnecessary data and add the new
data fields that are necessary to manage the Superfund program today. The redesign is mandated
to bring CERCLIS into the Agency's Enterprise Architecture. As part of OSRTI's effort to bring
CERCLIS into the Agency's Enterprise Architecture all Regional databases have been moved to
the National  Computing Center in RTF.  This is the first step in folding the Headquarters and
Regional databases into one database. This move of the databases to RTF is being done without
changing the application, by using a commercial off the shelf (COTS) software  program to
enable the Regional data entry staff to input data over the Agency's Wide Area  Network.  The
initial step of moving the databases to RTF and moving all users to the COTS software has been
completed. The move to a single database will be completed during FY 2006 and implemented
in FY 2007.  The Superfund Document Management System (SDMS) will  be linked to
CERCLIS. This linkage will enable users to easily transition between the programmatic
accomplishments reporting to the actual document that  defines and describes the
accomplishment reported in CERCLIS.  The effort to link SDMS and CERCLIS and to
consolidate the systems will lead to common reporting (same events and data) in CERCLIS and
SDMS. This will be done by electronically extracting data from the documents  in  SDMS to fill
the data fields in CERCLIS - eliminating the manual data entry/human error impacts.

References:  OIG audit Superfund Construction Completion Reporting, (No. E1SGF7_05_0102_
8100030)   and  Information  Technology  -   Comprehensive   Environmental   Response,
Compensation,  and Liability Information System  (CERCLIS) Data Quality, (No. 2002-P-00016).
U.S.  Office  of Inspector General.  "Information Technology:   Comprehensive  Environmental
Response, Compensation, and  Liability Information  System (CERCLIS) Data  Quality."
Washington, DC: OIG. September 2002.  Accessed January 10, 2006.  Available on the Internet
at:   http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2002/cerlcis.pdfX  and   the   GAO  report,   Superfund
Information  on  the  Status of Sites  (GAO/RCED-98-241).  U.S.  General  Accounting  Office.
"Superfund Information on  the Status of Sites."   Washington,  DC:   GAO.  August 1998.
Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf).    The  Superfund Program  Implementation
Manuals for the fiscal years 1987 to the current manual.  U.S. EPA, Superfund. "Policies and
Guidances."  Washington,  DC:  EPA. Accessed January 10, 2006.  Available  on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/guidance/index.htm.    The  Quality  Management  Plan
(QMP) for the Office of  Solid Waste and Emergency Response (August 2003).    U.S. EPA,
Office of Solid  Waste and  Emergency  Response.  "OSWER Quality Management Plan."
Washington, DC: EPA. August 2003. Accessed January 10, 2006.  Available  on the Internet at:
                                         102

-------
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf).  Office of Environmental Information Interim
Agency Life Cycle  Management  Policy  Agency  Directive 2100.4.  U.S.  EPA,  Office  of
Technology Operations  and Planning.    "OEI  Information  Management and  Information
Technology Policies." Washington, DC:  EPA. Accessed January  10, 2006. Available on the
Internet at:  http://cfmt.rtpnc.epa.gov/otop/policies/infoman.cfm and  U.S. EPA,  Office  of
Technology Operations  and Planning.    "OEI  Information  Management and  Information
Technology Policies,  Interim Agency Systems Life Cycle Management Policy, Agency Directive
2100.4."  Washington, DC:  EPA.  Accessed January 10, 2006. Available on the Intranet at:
http://intranet.epa.gov/repolicy/ads/orders/2100_4.pdf  EPA platform, software  and hardware
standards. U.S. EPA, Office of Technology Operations and Planning.  "Information Technology
Roadmap." Washington, DC: EPA.  Accessed January  10, 2006. Available on the Internet at:
http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf   Quality Assurance Requirements in all contract
vehicles    under    which    CERCLIS    are    being    developed    and   maintained
(http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines).   EPA security  procedures.   U.S.  EPA,
Office of Technology Operations and Planning. "IT Security IT Roadmap."  Washington, DC:
EPA.      Accessed   January   10,   2006.       Available    on   the   Internet   at:
http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Percentage of Superfund spending that is obligated to individual sites each year
       (PART measure)

    •   Annual  Program dollars obligated per operable unit completing cleanup activities
       (PART measure)

    •   Superfund-lead removal  actions  completed annually per million dollars  (PART
       measure)

Performance Database:  Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) is EPA's financial
management system and the official system of record for budget and financial data.

Data Source: IFMS  contains records of all financial transactions (e.g., personnel, contracts,
grants, other) of Superfund appropriation resources, as distinguished by U.S. Treasury schedule
codes.  Procurement data are entered manually into IFMS by Funds Control Officers throughout
the Agency. Site-specific obligations are distinguished through the Site/Project field of the
IFMS account number that is assigned to every financial transaction.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Total annual obligations include current and prior year
appropriated resources, excluding Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Science and
Technology transfers. Obligation data are generated using the OCFO Reporting and Business
Intelligence Tool (ORBIT), the Agency's system for evaluating IFMS data. Site-specific
obligation data are derived using query logic that evaluates the Site/Project field of the IFMS
account number. For a given fiscal year, the percentage of appropriated resources that is
obligated site-specifically is the result of dividing site-specific annual obligations by total annual
obligations.
                                          103

-------
QA/QC Procedures: The data are compliant with the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act
(FMFIA) of 1982 and received FY 2005 FMFIA certification

Data Quality Reviews: EPA received an unqualified audit opinion by the OIG for the annual
financial statements, and the auditor recommended several corrective actions. All
recommendations have been implemented by Office of the Chief Financial Officer in IFMS.

Data Limitations:  Accuracy of EPA personnel in recording their time.

Error Estimate: None.

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to replace IFMS with a new system in FY 2008.

References:

   FY 2005 FMFIA Certification
   2004 Audited Financial Statements, see http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/fmancial.htm
   OIG Audit "EPA Needs to Improve Change Controls for Integrated Financial Management
   System" dated August 24, 2004 (2004-P-00026)

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Current  human exposures under  control  (RCRA high  priority facilities) (PART
   measure)
•   Migration of contaminated  groundwater under control (RCRA high priority facilities)
   (PART measure)

Performance Database:  The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program.

Data Source: The states and Regions enter data. A "High", "Medium", or "Low" entry is made
in the database with respect to final-assessment decision. A "yes" or "no" or "insufficient
information" entry is made in the database with respect to meeting the human exposures to
toxins controlled and releases to groundwater controlled indicators. An entry will be made in the
database to indicate the date when a remedy is  selected and the complete construction of a
remedy is made. Supporting documentation and reference materials are maintained in the
Regional and/or state files. EPA's Regional offices and authorized states enter data on a
continual basis.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RCRAInfo has several different modules, including a
Corrective Action Module that tracks the status of facilities that require, or may require,
corrective actions.  RCRAInfo contains information on entities (generically referred to as
"handlers") engaged in hazardous  waste (HW) generation and management activities regulated
under the portion of RCRA that provides for regulation of hazardous waste. All five measures
are used to summarize and report on the facility-wide environmental conditions at the RCRA
Corrective Action Program's highest priority facilities. The environmental indicators are used to
                                         104

-------
track the RCRA program's progress in getting highest priority contaminated facilities under
control. Known and suspected facility-wide conditions are evaluated using a series of simple
questions and flow-chart logic to arrive at a reasonable, defensible determination. These
questions were issued as a memorandum titled: Interim Final Guidance for RCRA Corrective
Action Environmental Indicators, Office of Solid Waste, February 5, 1999). Lead regulators for
the facility (authorized state or EPA) make the environmental indicator determination; however,
facilities or their consultants may assist EPA in the evaluation by providing information on the
current environmental conditions. Remedies selected and complete constructions of remedies are
used to track the RCRA program's progress  in getting highest priority contaminated facilities
moving towards final cleanup.  The lead regulators for the facility make the remedies selection
and construction completion of remedies determinations.

QA/QC Procedures:  States and Regions generate the data and manage data quality related to
timeliness and accuracy (i.e., the environmental conditions and determinations are correctly
reflected by the data). Within RCRAInfo, the application software enforces structural controls
that ensure that  high-priority national components of the data are properly entered.  RCRAInfo
documentation,  which is available to all users on-line, provides guidance to facilitate the
generation and interpretation of data.  Training on use of RCRAInfo is provided on a regular
basis, usually annually, depending on the nature of systems changes and user needs.

Note: Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized state
personnel. It is  not available to the general public because the system contains enforcement
sensitive data. The general public is referred to EPA's Envirofacts Data Warehouse to obtain
filtered information  on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste facilities.

Data Quality Review: GAO's 1995 Report  on EPAs Hazardous Waste Information System
(http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html) reviewed whether national
RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing their hazardous waste
programs. Recommendations coincide with  ongoing internal efforts (WIN/Informed) to improve
the definitions of data collected, ensure that data collected provide critical information and
minimize the burden on states.   EPA's Quality Staff of Office of Environmental Information
conducted a quality  systems audit in December 2003. The audit found the corrective action
program satisfactory.

Data Limitations: No data limitations have been identified. As discussed above, the
performance measure determinations are made by the authorized states and EPA Regions based
on a series of standard questions and entered directly into RCRAInfo.  EPA has provided
guidance and training to  states  and Regions to help ensure consistency in those determinations.
High priority facilities are monitored on a facility-by-facility basis and the QA/QC procedures
identified above are in place to help ensure data validity.

Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste does not collect data on estimated
error rates.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  EPA has successfully implemented new tools for managing
environmental information to support federal and state programs, replacing the old data systems
                                           105

-------
(the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System and the Biennial Reporting
System) with RCRAInfo. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated
universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as facility status, regulated activities, and
compliance history. The system also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste
from large quantity generators and on waste management practices by treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. RCRAInfo is web-accessible, providing a convenient user interface for
federal, state and local managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled
cost, and using commercial off-the-shelf software to develop reports from database tables.

References:    U.S.  GAO, "Hazardous Waste:  Benefits  of EPA's Information System Are
Limited" (AIMD-95-167), Washington, DC:  GAO, August 22,  1995. Accessed  January  18,
2006. Available on the Internet at 

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Number of cleanups that meet state  risk-based  standards for human exposure and
   groundwater contamination (LUST)

•  Number of cleanups that meet state  risk-based  standards for human exposure and
   groundwater contamination on Indian country (LUST)
Performance Database: The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) does not maintain
a  national  database.    States  individually maintain records for  reporting  state program
accomplishments.

Data Source: Designated State agencies submit semi-annual progress reports to the EPA
regional offices. The data for the comparison of leaking underground storage tank cleanups will
be developed in FY 2005 for a planned reporting date of FY 2006.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC  Procedures:  EPA's regional offices verify  and then forward the  data  in a  word
processing table to OUST.  OUST staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with the
regional offices. The data are displayed in a word processing table on a region-by-region basis,
which is a way regional staff can check their data.

Data Quality Review: None.

Data Limitations:  Percentages reported are sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations
from sample data. Data quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: None
                                         106

-------
References:   U.S.  EPA Memorandum, FY 2005 End-of-Year Activity Report, from  Cliff
Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division
Directors,  Regions   1-10,   dated   December   15,   2005.   Accessed  January  18,   2006.


                               GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 3

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Refer to DOJ, settle, or writeoff 100% of Statute of Limitations (SOLs) cases for
       Superfund sites with total unaddressed past costs equal to or greater than $200,000
       and report value of costs recovered

    •   Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial
       action at 90 percent of Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible parties other
       than the Federal government

Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database contains information on hazardous waste
sites, potentially hazardous waste sites and remedial  activities across the nation. The database
includes sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for the NPL.

Data Source: Automated EPA system; Headquarters and EPA's Regional Offices enter data into
CERCLIS

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are no analytical or statistical methods used to
collect the information. The performance data collected on a fiscal year basis only. Enforcement
reports are run at the end of the fiscal year, and the data that support this measure are extracted
from the report.

QA/QC Procedures:  To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls
are in place: 1) Superfund Implementation Manual (SPEVI), the program management manual
that details what data must be reported; 2) Report Specifications, which are published for each
report detailing how reported data are calculated; 3) Coding Guide, which contains technical
instructions to such data users as Regional Information Management Coordinators (EVICs),
program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit
Testing, an extensive QA check against report specifications; 5) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry
Internal Control Plan, which includes: (a) regional policies and procedures for entering data into
CERCLIS; (b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund accomplishments are supported by
source documentation; (c) delegation of authorities for approval of data input into CERCLIS;
and (d) procedures to ensure that reported accomplishments meet accomplishment definitions;
and (6) a historical lockout feature has been added to CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal
year data can be changed only by approved and designated personnel and are logged to a change-
log report.  Specific direction for these controls are contained in the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPEVI) Fiscal Year 2004/2005
                                         107

-------
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim04.htm) and the Fiscal Year 2006/2007
SPIM (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim06.htm).

Data Quality Review: The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLIS data, in an informal
process, to verify the data supporting the performance measure. Typically, there are no
published results.

Data Limitations: None

Error Estimate: NA

New/Improved Data or Systems: None

References: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan,
approved April 11, 2001

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •  By FY 2007, complete evaluation of monitored natural attenuation at a  site with
      inorganic ground  water contamination using the first version of the evaluation
      framework developed in FY 2005

Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system

Data Source: N/A

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  N/A

QA/QC Procedures: N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A


                              GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 1

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •  Cumulative number of Detailed Review Papers completed (PART measure)
   •  Cumulative number of Prevalidation Studies completed (PART measure)
   •  Cumulative number of Validation by Multiple Labs completed (PART measure)
                                       108

-------
   •   Cumulative number of Peer Reviews (PART measure)

Performance  Database:   Performance is  measured by  the  cumulative  number of actions
(usually studies) to be undertaken by the projected completion date of FY 2009.  The measures
appear as fractions where the numerator represents the total number of cumulative actions for
the current year and the denominator represents the actions projected to be completed by the end
of FY 2009.

Data Source:  Data are generated to support all stages of validation of endocrine test methods
through contracts, grants  and interagency  agreements, and the cooperative support of  the
Organization  of Economic Cooperation  and Development (OECD), and EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD). The scope of the effort includes the conduct of laboratory
studies and associated analyses to validate  the assays proposed for the Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program (EDSP).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  The measures are program outputs that represent the
program's progress toward completing the validation of endocrine test methods.  The measures
track progress through each stage of the  process rather than reporting only the end  product.
These measures are being adopted because they best show the complexity of  the validation
process. For example, EPA may plan on four studies to address prevalidation issues for a given
assay, and at the completion of the four studies, the annual performance measure (APM) would
be 4/4.  Upon  review of the last study, EPA may conclude that an ambiguity exists, or another
question has arisen that requires an additional study. The APM would then be revised to 4/5,
showing that four studies were completed, but another study must now be completed to address
all issues that allow EPA to move to the next phase of validation. The denominator also could
move downward if, for instance, EPA concludes that a planned study is not needed or if an assay
performs so poorly during prevalidation that it is dropped  from the Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program.

Although 21 assays are being developed and  validated, the denominators for the measures differ
from this number for several reasons: more than one assay may be covered in a Detailed Review
Paper,  more  than one  prevalidation study  is  required to optimize an  assay and  address
prevalidation questions, etc.

How various  studies are counted also requires some explanation as there are several options.
EPA has taken the view that a study is laboratory work performed to  address a specific question
whether performed in one  laboratory or  many labs.  Thus, a single chemical  study  will be
counted as one study,  a multichemical study involving  10 chemicals in one laboratory will be
counted as one study, and a study of interlaboratory variability will be counted as one study for
each lab in which testing  is conducted.  From these examples,  it is  apparent that laboratory
studies differ considerably in scope and complexity.

QA/QC Procedures:  EDSP's contractors operate independent quality assurance units (QAUs)
to ensure that all  studies are conducted under appropriate QA/QC  programs.  Two levels of
QA/QC are employed. First, the contractors operate under a Quality Management Plan designed
to ensure overall  quality  of  performance under the contracts.   Second, prevalidation  and
                                          109

-------
validation studies are conducted under  a project-specific Quality  Assurance Project Plans
(QAPPs) developed by the contractor and approved by EPA.  These QAPPs are specific to the
study being conducted.   Most validation  studies are conducted according to Good Laboratory
Practices (GLPs).  In addition, EPA or  its agent conducts  an independent  lab/QA audit of
facilities participating in the validation program.

Data Quality Review:  All of the documentation and data generated by the contractor, OECD
and ORD, as it pertains to the EDSP, are  reviewed for quality and scientific applicability.  The
contractor maintains  a Data Coordination Center which  manages information/data  generated
under EDSP.  The contractor also conducts statistical analyses related to lab studies, chemical
repository, and quality control studies.

Data Limitations: There is a data lag of approximately 9-24  months due to the variation in
length and complexity of the lab studies, and for time required for review, analysis and reporting
of data.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved  Data or Systems: N/A

References:   EPA Website;  EPA  Annual Report; Endocrine Disrupter  Screening Program
Proposed Statement of Policy, Dec. 28,  1998; Endocrine Disrupter  Screening  and  Testing
Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) Final Report (EPA/743/R-98/003); EPA Contract #  68-W-01-
023.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Cumulative number of assays that have been validated. (PART Measure)

Performance Database:  Performance  is  measured by  the  cumulative  number  of assays
validated.  The completion of the validation process for an  assay can take several years. Excel
spreadsheets are used to capture and track various steps within the validation process in order to
better show progress. As a result, in the FY 2006 PART review of EPA's Endocrine Disrupter
Program, these steps within the validation process became individual PART measures: Detailed
Review Papers  Completed,  Prevalidation  Studies  Completed, Validation by Multiple Labs
Completed, Peer Reviews, Assays Ready for Use.

Data Source:  Data are generated to support all stages of validation of endocrine test methods
through contracts,  grants and interagency  agreements,  and the cooperative  support of  the
Organization  of  Economic Cooperation and  Development  (OECD), and EPA's  Office of
Research and Development (ORD).   The scope of the effort includes the conduct of laboratory
studies and associated analyses  to validate  the assays proposed for the Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program (EDSP).
                                         110

-------
Methods, Assumptions and  Suitability:  The measures are program outputs which when
finalized, help to ensure that  EPA meets The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA)
requirement that EPA  validate  assays to screen chemicals for their  potential  to affect the
endocrine system.

QA/QC Procedures: EDSP's contractors operate independent quality assurance units (QAUs)
to ensure that all studies are  conducted under appropriate QA/QC programs.  Two levels of
QA/QC are employed. First, the contractors operate under a Quality Management Plan designed
to ensure overall quality  of  performance under the  contracts.   Second, prevalidation  and
validation studies are  conducted  under  a project-specific  Quality  Assurance Project Plans
(QAPPs) developed by  the contractor and approved by EPA.  These QAPPs are specific to the
study being conducted.   Most validation  studies are conducted according to Good Laboratory
Practices (GLPs).  In addition,  EPA or  its agent conducts  an independent lab/QA  audit of
facilities participating in the validation program.

Data Quality Review:  All of the documentation and data generated by the contractor, OECD
and ORD, as it pertains to the EDSP, are  reviewed for  quality and scientific applicability.  The
contractor maintains  a  Data Coordination Center which manages information/data generated
under EDSP.  The contractor also conducts statistical analyses related to lab studies, chemical
repository, and quality control studies.

Data Limitations: There is a data lag of approximately 9-24 months due to  the variation in
length and complexity of the lab  studies, and for time required for review, analysis and reporting
of data.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A

References:   EPA Website;  EPA Annual Report; Endocrine Disrupter  Screening Program
Proposed Statement of Policy,  Dec. 28,  1998; Endocrine  Disrupter  Screening and Testing
Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) Final Report (EPA/743/R-98/003); EPA Contract # 68-W-01-
023.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

    •   Number  of  registrations of  reduced  risk  pesticides  registered (Register safer
       chemicals and biopesticides) (cumulative)
    •   Number  of  new  (active  ingredients) conventional  pesticides registered  (New
       Chemicals)(Cumulative)
    •   Number of conventional new uses registered (New Uses)(Cumulative)
    •   Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions
    •   Reduce registration decision times for new conventional chemicals (PART measure)
    •   Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk chemicals
                                         111

-------
Performance Database:  The  OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs  Information Network)
consolidates  various pesticides program databases.  It is maintained by the EPA and tracks
regulatory data submissions and studies, organized by scientific discipline, which are submitted
by the registrant in  support of a pesticide's registration. In addition to tracking  decisions in
OPPIN, manual counts are also maintained by the office on the registrations of reduced risk
pesticides.   Results  for reduced risk pesticides, new active conventional ingredients, and new
uses have been reported since 1996.  The results are calculated on a fiscal year (FY) basis. For
antimicrobial new uses, results have been  reported since FY 2004 on a FY basis.  Both S18
timeliness and reduced risk decision times are being reported on a FY basis for the first time in
FY2005.

Data Source: Pesticide program reviewers update the status of the submissions and studies as
they are received and as work is completed by the reviewers. The status indicates whether the
application is ready for review, the application is in the process of review, or the review has been
completed.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which when
finalized, represent the program's statutory requirements to ensure  that pesticides  entering the
marketplace are safe for human health and  the environment, and when used in accordance with
the packaging label present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While program outputs are not the
best measures of risk reduction, registration  outputs do provide a means for reducing risk by
ensuring that pesticides entering the marketplace meet the latest health standards, thus when used
according to the label are safe.
QA/QC Procedures: A reduced risk pesticide must meet the criteria set forth in Pesticide
Registration Notice 97-3,  September 4, 1997. Reduced  risk pesticides include those which
reduce the risks to human health; reduce the risks to non-target organisms;  reduce the potential
for contamination of groundwater, surface water or other valued environmental resources; and/or
broaden the adoption of integrated pest management strategies, or make such strategies more
available or more effective. In  addition, biopesticides are generally considered safer (and thus
reduced risk).  All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard. All risk  assessments are subject to  public and
scientific peer review. The office adheres to its Quality Management Plan  (May  2000)  in
ensuring data quality and that procedures are properly applied.

Data Quality  Review: These  are program  outputs.  EPA staff and  management  review the
program outputs  in  accordance with established policy  for  the registration  of reduced-risk
pesticides as set forth in Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997.

Data Limitations: None. All required data must be submitted for the risk assessments before the
pesticide is registered. If data are not submitted, the pesticide is not registered. As stated above, a
reduced risk pesticide must meet the criteria set  forth in  PRN 97-3  and all registrations must
meet FQPA safety requirements. If a pesticide does not meet these criteria, it is not registered. If
an application for a reduced risk pesticide does not meet the reduced risk criteria, it is  reviewed
as a conventional active ingredient.
                                           112

-------
Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network), which consolidates various pesticides program databases, will reduce the processing
time for registration actions.

References: FIFRA Sec 3(c)(5); FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3,
September 4,  1997; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996; OPP Quality Management Plan,
May 2000); Endangered Species Act.
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Number of Tolerance Reassessments issued (PART measure)
•   Number of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) issued  (PART measure)
•   Number of Product Reregistration decisions issued
•   Tolerance Reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by children (PART measure)
•   Number of inert ingredients tolerance/tolerance exemptions reassessed
•   Reduce decision times for REDs (PART measure)

Performance Database:  The OPPIN (Office  of  Pesticide Programs Information Network)
consolidates various EPA program databases. It is maintained by the EPA and tracks regulatory
data submissions and  studies, organized  by scientific discipline, which  are submitted  by the
registrant in support of a pesticide's reregi strati on.  In addition to tracking decisions in OPPIN,
manual counts are also maintained by the office on the reregistrations decisions. Decisions are
logged in as the action is completed, both for final  decisions and interim  decisions. REDs and
product reregi strati on decisions have been reported  on a FY basis since FY 1996.  Reduction in
decision times for REDs will be reported on an FY basis in FY 2005.

Data Source: EPA's Pesticides Program staff and managers.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which represent the
program's statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for
human health  and  the environment  and  when  used  in accordance with the packaging label
present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While program outputs are  not the best measures of
risk reduction, they do provide a means for reducing risk in that the  program's safety  review
prevents dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace.

QA/QC Procedures:  All registration actions must employ  sound  science and meet the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard. All risk assessments are subject to public
and scientific peer review. The office adheres to the procedures for quality management  of data
as outlined in its QMP approved May 2000.

Data Quality Review: Management reviews the program counts and signs off on the decision
document.
                                         113

-------
Data Limitations: None known.

Error Estimate: N/A. There are no errors associated with count data.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The OPPIN, which consolidates various pesticides program
databases, will contribute to reducing the processing time for reregi strati on actions.

References: EPA Website http://www.epa.gov/pesticides EPA Annual Report 2002 EPA
Number 735-R-03-001; 2003  Annual Performance Plan OPP Quality Management Plan, May
2000; Endangered Species Act.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Percentage of Acre Treatments with Reduced Risk Pesticides (PART measure)

Performance Database: EPA uses an external database, Doane Marketing Research data, for
this measure. The data have been reported for trend data since FY 2001 on an FY basis.

Data Source:  Primary source is Doane Marketing  Research,  Inc.  (a  private sector research
database). The database  contains  pesticide usage information by  pesticide,  year, crop use,
acreage and  sector.

Methods, Assumptions and  Suitability: A reduced-risk pesticide  must meet the criteria set
forth in Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997. Reduced-risk pesticides include
those which reduce the risks to human health; reduce the risks to non-target organisms; reduce
the potential for contamination of  groundwater, surface water, or other valued environmental
resources; and/or broaden the adoption of integrated pest management strategies or make such
strategies more available or more effective. In addition, biopesticides are generally considered
safer (and thus reduced-risk). EPA's statistical and economics staff review data from Doane.
Information  is  also compared to prior years for variations and trends  as well as to determine the
reasons for the variability.

Doane  sampling plans and QA/QC  procedures are  available to the public at their website. More
specific information  about the data is proprietary  and a subscription fee is required. Data are
weighted and a multiple regression procedure is used to adjust for  known disproportionalities
(known disproportionality  refers  to  a non  proportional sample,  which means  individual
respondents  have different weights) and ensure  consistency with  USD A and state acreage
estimates.

QA/QC Procedures: All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard. All risk  assessments are subject to public
and scientific peer review.  Doane data are subject to extensive QA/QC procedures, documented
at their websites. In  ensuring the quality of the data, EPA's pesticide  program  adheres to its
Quality Management Plan (QMP), approved May 2000.
                                          114

-------
The main customers for Doan pesticide usage data are the pesticide registrants.   Since those
registrants know about sales of their own products, they have an easy way to judge the quality of
Doane provided data.  If they considered the quality  of the data to be poor, they would not
continue to purchase the data.

Data Quality Review:  Doane data are subject to extensive internal quality review, documented
at the website. EPA's statistical and economics staff review data from Doane. Information is also
compared to prior years for variations  and trends as well  as to determine the reasons for the
variability. For some crops and states, comparisons are also made with a more limited pesticide
usage database from the National Agricultural Statistics  of USDA.

Data Limitations: Doane data are proprietary; thus in order to release any detailed information,
the Agency must obtain approval. There is a data lag of approximately 12-18 months, due to the
collection of data on a  calendar year (CY) basis, time required for Doane to process  data, lead
time for EPA to purchase and obtain data, plus the time it takes to review and analyze the data
within the office's workload.

Error Estimate: Error estimates differ according to the  data/database and year of sampling. This
measure  is compiled by  aggregating  information  for many crops and pesticides.  While
considerable uncertainty may  exist for a single pesticide on a single crop, pesticide use data at
such a highly  aggregated  level are considered  quite accurate.    Doane  sampling plans and
QA/QC procedures are  available to the  public at their website. More specific information about
the data is proprietary and a subscription fee is  required.  Data are weighted and multiple
regression procedure is used to adjust for known disproportionalities and ensure consistency with
USDA and state acreage estimates

New/Improved Data or Systems: These are not EPA databases; thus improvements are not
known in any detail at this time.

References: EPA Website; EPA Annual Report; Annual Performance Plan and Annual
Performance Report,  http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/download.htm; Doane  Marketing
Research, Inc.: http://www.doanemr.com; http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs and
http://www.usda.nass/nass/nassinfo; FFDCA  Sec 408(a)(2); EPA  Pesticide Registration Notice
97-3, September 4, 1997; Endangered Species Act.

FY 2007 Performance  Measure:

   •   Number of incidents  and mortalities to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife caused  by
       currently registered pesticides (PART measure)

Performance Database: The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) is a national
database of information on poisoning  incidents of non-target plants and animals  caused  by
pesticide use. The fields used include the number of incidents reported for each non-target plant
or animal. The data used to report is the  average for 3 years. Data are gathered on a calendar year
basis and reported on a  FY basis beginning in FY 2004.  There is approximately 2 year data lag.
The Environmental Fate and Effects staff for Pesticide Programs maintain this database.
                                          115

-------
Data Source: Data are extracted from written reports of fish and wildlife incidents submitted to
the Agency by pesticide registrants under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2), as well as incident reports voluntarily submitted by state and Federal
agencies involved in investigating such incidents.

Methods, Assumptions and  Suitability:  This measure  helps to provide information on the
effect of EPA's regulatory actions on the protection offish and wildlife from acute toxic effects
of pesticides. Incidents offish and wildlife mortality caused by pesticides are summed annually
and  sums are reported as three-year moving averages.  Incidents related to known misuse of
pesticides and to pesticides not currently registered in the United States are excluded, as are
incidents for which the cause is highly uncertain.  This indicator assumes that changes in the
total number of incidents reported to the Agency reflect changes in the total number of incidents
that  are  occurring.   Inherent in this  is the assumption that a consistent  effort  is  made to
investigate and report incidents year after year.  This indicator is suitable only if fish and wildlife
mortality incidents are investigated and reported widely enough to provide adequate monitoring
of incidents  throughout the country, and if the  level of effort in investigating and reporting
incidents are reasonably consistent over time.
QA/QC  Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the
quality of the data.  Before entering incident data in the database, a database program is used to
screen for records already in the database with similar locations and dates.  Similar records are
then individually reviewed to prevent duplicate reporting. After each record is entered into the
EIIS database, an incident report is printed that contains all the data entered into the database. A
staff member, other than the one who entered the data, then reviews the information in the report
and compares it to the original source report to verify data quality. Scientists using the incident
database are also encouraged to report any inaccuracies they find in the database for correction.

Data Quality Review: Internally and externally data quality reviews related to data entry have
been conducted. EPA follows a quality assurance plan for accurately extracting data from reports
and entering it into the EIIS database. This quality assurance plan is described in Appendix D of
the Quality Management Plan for pesticides  programs.  The American Bird  Conservancy  has
reviewed data in the EIIS database for records related to bird kill incidents.

Data Limitations: This measure is designed to monitor trends in the numbers of acute
poisoning events reported to  the Agency. The reporting of incidents to the Agency is currently
very limited.  Very few fish and wildlife reports are being reported  by pesticide registrants under
the FIFRA 6(a)(2) requirement.  This is because most fish and wildlife incidents are classified as
"minor"  under the current rule, and the registrants are required to report only aggregate data for
these minor incidents.  The aggregate data are inadequate for entering the incidents into EIIS and
including them  in this index because no details are reported on individual incidents, even if they
are fish kills or bird kills.  In 2004,  only three fish kills and one wildlife kill were reported as
"major"  incidents with adequate data to include  in this index.  Incident reports voluntarily
submitted from sources  other than pesticide  registrants also have been very scarce in recent
years. Since 2003,  only two state and regional government agencies have  reported fish  kill
                                           116

-------
incidents to the Agency (the California Department of Fish and Game and the US Geological
Survey) and  only three  have reported wildlife kills (the  New York State Department  of
Environmental Conservation, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Southeast
Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study).  Many states governments have informed the Agency that
budget cuts have led to inadequate funding to investigate and report on fish and wildlife kills
occurring in their states, making them unable to report these incidents to the EPA.  Other states
may not be reporting because they are not aware that the EPA is collecting this information.  In
summary, the data are currently inadequate for monitoring national trends in incidents.

Error Estimate: Moving average counts of number of incidents per year may be interpreted as a
relative index of the frequency of acute toxicity effects that pesticides are causing to fish and
wildlife. The indicator numbers are subject reporting rates. If there is  a change in incidents since
the baseline year, it may be due to change in tracking/reporting of kills rather than change related
to the use of  a pesticides.  Also, despite efforts to avoid duplicate counting of incidents, a few
incidents likely have duplicate records in the EIIS database. A quality assurance review of bird
kill incidents  completed by the American Bird Conservancy in 2005 found five incidents with
duplicate records, which will be corrected

New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA is currently conducting a project with the American
Bird Conservancy to improve the quality and quantity of data on bird kill  caused by pesticides.
This project should eventually result in additional reports of bird kill incidents being submitted to
the Agency, but to date no additional incident reports have been obtained.  The Environmental
Fate and Effects Division of the Office  of Pesticide Programs has begun a process to obtain  an
Information Collection  Request (ICR) permit, which would allow soliciting state  agencies for
voluntary submittal of any incident reports that they produce.

References: The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) is  an internal EPA database.
Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2).
QMP:  Quality  Management  Plan for the  Office  of  Pesticides Program,  May 20,  2000;
Endangered Species Act.

FY 2007 Performance  Measure:

   •   Percentage of high-priority chemicals for which EPA has developed short-term
       exposure limits  (Acute Exposure Guideline Levels [AEGL]). (PART measure)

Performance Database:  There is no database. Performance  is measured by the cumulative
number of chemicals with "Proposed", "Interim", and/or "Final"  AEGL values as published by
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).  The results are calculated on a fiscal year basis.

 Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that
reviews short term exposure values for extremely hazardous chemicals. The supporting data,
from both published and unpublished sources and from which the AEGL values are derived, are
collected, evaluated,  and  summarized by FACA Chemical Managers and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory's  scientists.  Proposed AEGL values are published for public comment in the Federal
Register.  After reviewing  public  comment, interim values  are  presented to  the  AEGL
Subcommittee of the National Academy  of Sciences (NAS) for review and comment. After
                                          117

-------
review and comment resolution,  the National Research Council under the auspices of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) publishes the values as final.

Methods,  Assumptions, and  Suitability: The work of the National  Advisory  Committee's
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (NAC/AEGL, formally chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act) adheres to the 1993 U.S. National Research Council/National Academies of
Sciences (NRC/NAS) publication Guidelines for Developing  Community Emergency Exposure
Levels for Hazardous Substances. NAC/AEGL, in cooperation with the National Academy of
Sciences'  Subcommittee on AEGLs, have developed standard  operating  procedures (SOPs),
which are  followed by the program. These have been published by the National Academy Press
and are referenced below.  The  cumulative number of AEGL values approved as "proposed" and
"interim"  by  the NAC/AEGL FACA Committee and "final" by the National  Academy of
Sciences represents the measure of performance. The work is assumed to be completed at the
time of final approval of the AEGL values by the NAS.

QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures include public  comment via the Federal Register
process; review and approval by  the FACA committee; and  review and approval by the
NAS/AEGL committee and their external reviewers.

Data Quality Review: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: This is the first time acute exposure values for  extremely
hazardous  chemicals have been established according  to a standardized process and put through
such a rigorous review.

References: Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
for Hazardous Chemicals, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 2001
(http://www.nap.edu/books/030907553X/html/).   NRC  (National  Research  Council).  1993.
Guidelines for Developing Community Emergency Exposure Levels for Hazardous Substances.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

FY 2007 Performance Measure

•   Total EPA Cost per Chemical for which a Proposed AEGL data set is developed (PART
    measure)

Performance Database: Complete budgetary  information  at the program  and project level is
maintained in EPA's Finance Central database.  This database and other financial records are
consulted  each time the program reports performance results. In addition to Finance Central,
OPPT maintains records on AEGL program income, expenditures and carry over from one year
to the next; and on  the number of FTE's allocated to the program.  Information from these
records is aggregated to determine total EPA cost per chemical for which a proposed AEGL data
                                         118

-------
set is developed.  The denominator of this ratio - number of proposed AEGL data sets - is
tracked in separate records maintained by the program. Specifically, there is an Access database
containing the approval dates for proposed AEGL values and a Wordperfect file, organized by
fiscal year, that is used to record events in the AEGL process as they occur.

Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that reviews
short term exposure values for  extremely hazardous chemicals. The supporting data, from both
published and unpublished sources and from which the AEGL values are derived, are collected,
evaluated, and summarized by FACA Chemical Managers and Oak Ridge National Laboratory's
scientists. Proposed AEGL values are published for public comment in the Federal Register and
then referred to the National  Academies  of Science  (NAS) for further review  and action.
Although proposed  AEGLs  are  not considered final  until  so designated  by  the NAS, the
proposed values are suitable for many purposes.  This performance measure is tied to proposed
values rather than to final ones  because actions through the proposal stage of the AEGL process
are  largely under EPA's control whereas  subsequent action to finalize the AEGL values  is
largely a matter within NAS jurisdiction.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The methods involved in developing and reporting on
this  performance  measure largely consist  of simple computational  steps performed on  data
relating to AEGL  cost and accomplishment.  For example, it is necessary to track the number of
FTE's assigned to the AEGL program and then find the associated labor cost by multiplying by
standard  cost-of-living factors.  Likewise, the extramural cost associated with managing the
program  is determined by  pulling cost  and budgetary  data from the relevant databases as
described above, multiplying by 70% as an estimate of the proportion of staff  and contractor
resources devoted to  proposed AEGL development,  summing as needed,  and adjusting  for
inflation. One assumption underlying these computations is that 70% is a reasonable estimate of
the proposal stage's share of total cost devoted to AEGLs.  The methods, simple as they are,
seem highly suitable for the kinds of measurement to be performed.

QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures for AEGL development include public comment via
the Federal Register process; review and approval  by the FACA committee; and review and
approval by the NAS/AEGL committee  and their external reviewers.  AEGL documents are
formally  reviewed for QC purposes by designated contractors and EPA staff at critical junctures
utilizing  detailed  checklists. Cost information  from available records is  also subjected to
appropriate QA/QC controls.

Data Quality Review: This is a new performance measure and, therefore, there is no developed
track record of review and correction.  However,  appropriate oversight  of the measurement
process will be provided.  Information developed in the course of measurement will be presented
to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to technical outcomes
and to provide quality oversight.

Data Limitations:  No specific data limitations  have  been identified  with respect to the
information relied upon in developing or reporting this measure.
                                          119

-------
Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure does not require inferences  from statistical
samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Access databases, spreadsheets and other files are maintained
and improved on an ongoing basis. A new database is being developed to document rationales
used to develop AEGL  values.  This new database should enhance the efficiency of AEGL
development.

References: Please see www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

••  Annual reduction in the number of children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead
   levels (> or = 10 ug/dL). This performance measure is a direct measure of Healthy People
   2010 goal 8-11.  (PART measure)

ป  Percentage difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income  children 1-5
   years old as compared to the geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5 years
   old. (PART measure)

Performance Database: Data from the  Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention's (CDC)
National Health  and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is recognized as the  primary
database in the United  States for national blood lead statistics.  NHANES is a probability sample
of the non-institutionalized  population of the United States.  Data are collected on a calendar
year basis, and is currently released to the public in two year sets. The most current release is the
data set for 2001-2002, released in early 2005.  Blood lead levels are measured for participants
who are at least one year old. The survey collects information on the age of the participant at the
time of the survey.

Data  Source:   The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey is a survey designed to
assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the U.S.  The survey program
began in the early  1960s as a periodic study, and  continues as an  annual survey. The survey
examines a nationally representative sample of approximately 5,000 men, women, and  children
each year located  across the U.S.  CDC's National  Center for Health  Statistics  (NCHS) is
responsible for the conduct  of the survey and the release of the data to the public. NCHS and
other  CDC centers publish results from the survey,  generally in CDC's Morbidity  and Mortality
Weekly Report (MMWR), but also in scientific journals.   In recent years, CDC has published a
National Exposure report based on the data from the NHANES.  The most current National
Exposure report was  released  on July  21,  2005,  and  is available  at the  web  site
http ://www. cdc.gov/exposurereport/

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Detailed interview questions  cover areas related  to
demographic, socio-economic, dietary, and health-related questions. The survey also includes  an
extensive medical  and dental  examination  of  participants,  physiological measurements, and
laboratory tests. Specific laboratory measurements of environmental interest include: metals (e.g.
lead, cadmium, and mercury), VOCs, phthalates, organophosphates (OPs), pesticides and their
                                          120

-------
metabolites, dioxins/furans, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). NHANES is unique in that
it links laboratory-derived biological markers  (e.g. blood, urine etc.) to questionnaire responses
and results of physical exams. For this performance measure, NHANES has been recognized as
the definitive source.  Estimates of the number of children 1-5 years with an elevated blood lead
level based on NHANES have been published by CDC,  most recently  in May, 2005.  (See
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm). Analytical guidelines issued by
NCHS provide guidance on how many years of data should be combined for an analysis.

QA/QC Procedures: Background documentation is  available at the NHANES web site at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.   The analytical  guidelines are available at the web site
http://www.cdc. gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_general_guidelines June_04.pdf).

Data Quality Reviews: CDC follows standardized survey instrument procedures to collect data
to promote data quality, and data are subjected to rigorous QA/QC review. Additional
information on the interview and examination process can be found at the NHANES web site at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hnanes.htm

Data  Limitations:  NHANES is a voluntary  survey and  selected persons may refuse to
participate.  In addition, the NHANES survey uses two steps, a questionnaire and  a physical
exam.  There are sometimes different numbers of subjects in  the interview and examinations
because some participants only complete one step of  the survey. Participants may answer the
questionnaire but not provide the more invasive blood sample.  Special weighting techniques are
used to adjust for non-response. Seasonal changes in blood lead levels cannot be assessed under
the current NHANES design.  Because NHANES is a  sample survey, there may be no children
with elevated blood lead levels in the sample, but still some  children with elevated  blood lead
levels in the population.

Error  Estimate: Because  NHANES  is based  on  a  complex  multi-stage sample  design,
appropriate sampling weights should  be used in analyses to  produce estimates and associated
measures of variation.  Recommended methodologies  and appropriate weights are provided at
the NHANES web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.  Measurement error for the blood
lead levels is anticipated.

New/Improved Data or Systems: NHANES has  moved  to a continuous  sampling schedule,
scheduled release of data, and scheduled release of National Exposure reports by CDC.

References: 1) the NHANES web site, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm;   2) the National
Exposure report web site, http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/;  3) MMWR article with the most
recent   estimate   of  the   number   of  children  with   elevated  blood  lead   levels,
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm;  4)  summary information on
children's       blood       lead       levels         from       past        NHANES,
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/research/kidsBLL.htm#National%20surveys
FY 2007 Performance Measure:
                                          121

-------
   •   Annual percentage of lead-based  paint certification applications in Federally-
       managed states that require more than the 40 days of EPA effort to process (PART
       measure)

Performance Database:  The National Program Chemicals Division (NPCD) in the Office of
Pollution Prevention and  Toxics (OPPT) maintains  the Federal  Lead-Based Paint  Program
(FLPP) database, an electronic database of applications for certification by individuals and firms
and applications for accreditation by training providers in states and tribal lands administered by
a Federal lead program.   The database provides a record of all applications for certification or
accreditation for Federally-managed lead  programs and the actions on those applications.  The
database is augmented by hard copy records of the original applications.

Data Source:  The FLPP database is available internally to EPA Headquarters and Regional lead
program  staff who process  the  applications  or oversee the  processing.   The  database  is
maintained on an EPA Research  Triangle Park (RTF), North Carolina server. Access to the
database  is granted by the Lead, Heavy  Metals, and Inorganics Branch (LHMIB) in NPCD.
Overall maintenance of the database and periodic improvements are handled by  a contractor,
currently ICF Consulting,  located  in Fairfax,  Virginia.  Data entry  of application data  is
conducted by  a second contractor,  currently Optimus  Corporation, located  in Silver Spring,
Maryland.  Optimus Corporation maintains  the  file  of the original applications.  Each EPA
Regional office maintains a file of copies of the original applications for that region.

Methods, Assumptions and  Suitability:   The number of applications for  certification in
Federally-managed  states  and tribal lands  is  approximately 3000 per year.  Each  of these
applications is processed.  Certification is issued if all criteria are met.  Some applications may
be returned to the applicant or withdrawn by the applicant.  For the applications that are fully
processed, the length of time for EPA processing can be determined from date fields in the FLPP
database.  Accordingly, a census of all the fully processed applications for certification  can be
conducted, and the percentage of applications that took more than the prescribed number of days
(e.g., 40) of  EPA effort to process can  be computed based on this  census.  The  census  is
conducted every six months, and the  annual percentage calculated appropriately  from the six
month  percentages.

QA/QC Procedures: NPCD has an approved Quality Management Plan in place, dated January
2005.  Applications and instructions for  applying  for certification  and   accreditation are
documented and available at the web site http://www.epa.gov/lead/traincert.htm.  Documentation
for the  FLPP database is maintained internally at EPA and is available upon request.

Data Quality Reviews:  The FLPP database is an internal EPA database, maintained for the
purpose of processing and tracking  applications.  The database is interactive, and operational
usage in  processing applications by Headquarters and  the Regional offices provides ongoing
quality reviews.

Data Limitations:   Applications that were returned to the applicant or withdrawn by the
applicant are out of scope for this performance measure.
                                          122

-------
Error Estimate: There is no sampling error in this performance measure, because it is based on
a census of all applicable records.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The FLPP database is scheduled to undergo improvements in
the next few years.   The  performance measurement system will  help determine if there is a
change in timeliness after the improvements are implemented.

References:  1) Quality Management Plan for National Program Chemicals Division, January
2005;  2)  FLPP  database  documentation;  3)  URL  for  Applications   and   Instructions,
http://www.epa.gov/lead/traincert.htm.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•  Reduce the potential for risks from leaks and spills by ensuring the safe disposal of
   large capacitors and transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Performance Database: PCB Annual Report Database.  The results are calculated on a calendar
year (CY) basis. Two-year data lag and results for CY 06 will not be available until 2008.

Data Source: Annual Reports from commercial storers and disposers of PCB Waste.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data provide a baseline for the amount of safe
disposal of PCB waste annually. By ensuring safe disposal of PCBs in equipment such as
transformers and capacitors coming out of service, and contaminated media such as soil, and
structures from remediation activities, the Agency is reducing the exposure risk of PCBs that are
either already in the environment or may be released to the environment through spills or leaks.

QA/QC Procedures: The Agency reviews, transcribes, and assembles data into the Annual
Report Database.

Data Quality Reviews:  The Agency contacts data reporters, when needed, for clarification of
data submitted.

Data Limitations: Data limitations include missing submissions from commercial storers and
disposers, and inaccurate submissions. PCB-Contaminated Transformers, of PCB concentrations
50 to 499 parts per million (ppm), and those that are 500 ppm PCBs or greater are not
distinguished in the data. Similarly, large and  small capacitors of PCB waste may not be
differentiated. Data are collected for the previous calendar year on July 1 of the next year
creating a lag of approximately one year. Despite these limitations, the data do provide the only
estimate of the amount of PCB waste disposed annually.

Error Estimate: Not available.

New/Improved Data or Systems: None
                                         123

-------
References: U.S EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, National Program Chemicals
Program, PCB Annual Report for Storage and Disposal of PCB Waste.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Annual Percent reduction in relative risk index for chronic human health associated
       with environmental releases of industrial  chemicals in  commerce as measured by
       Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model  (PART measure)

Performance  Database: The  RSEI Model uses annual reporting  from individual industrial
facilities along with a variety  of other information to evaluate chemical emissions and other
waste management activities.  RSEI incorporates detailed data from EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI)  and Integrated Risk Information System, the U.S. Census,  and many other
sources. Due to a two year TRI data lag, performance  data will be unavailable for the FY 2006
Annual Performance Report. The data are based on calendar year.

Data  Source: The RSEI model incorporates data  on chemical  emissions and transfers and
facility  locations from EPA's  Toxics  Release Inventory;  chemical  toxicity data from  EPA's
Integrated Risk  Information System;  stack data from EPA's AIRS Facility Subsystem and
National Emissions Trends Database and the Electric Power Research Institute; meteorological
data from the National  Climatic Data Center;  stream reach data from EPA's Reach  File  1
Database; data on drinking water systems from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System;
fishing activity data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife; exposure factors  from EPA's Exposure Factor
Handbook; and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Methods, Assumptions  and Suitability: The RSEI Model generates unique numerical  values
known as "Indicator Elements" using the factors pertaining  to  surrogate  dose, toxicity and
exposed population. Indicator Elements are unitless (like an index number, they can be compared
to one-another but do not reflect actual risk), but proportional to the modeled relative  risk of
each release (incrementally higher numbers reflect greater estimated risk). Indicator Elements are
risk-related measures generated for every possible combination of reporting facility, chemical,
release  medium, and exposure pathway (inhalation  or ingestion). Each  Indicator Element
represents a unique release-exposure  event and together these  form the  building blocks  to
describe exposure scenarios of interest.  These Indicator Elements are summed in various ways to
represent the risk-related results for releases users are interested in assessing. RSEI results  are for
comparative purposes and only  meaningful when compared to other scores produced by
RSEI. The measure is appropriate for year-to-year comparisons of performance. Depending on
how the user wishes to  aggregate,  RSEI can address  trends nationally, regionally, by state or
smaller geographic areas.

QA/QC Procedures:  TRI facilities self-report release data and occasionally make errors. TRI
has QC functions and an error-correction mechanism for reporting such mistakes.  EPA updates
off-site facility locations  on an annual basis using geocoding techniques.

Data Quality Reviews:  RSEI depends upon a broad array of data  resources, each of which has
gone through a quality review process tailored to  the specific data and managed by the providers
                                          124

-------
of the data sources. RSEI includes data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), U.S. Census, etc. All were collected for regulatory or programmatic
purposes and are of sufficient quality to be used by EPA, other Federal agencies, and state
regulatory agencies. Over the course of its  development, RSEI has been the subject of three
reviews by EPA's  Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Risk  Screening Environmental Indicators  Model,  Peer  Reviews.  Described  at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html).   The RSEI  model  has  undergone  continuous
upgrading since the 1997 SAB Review. Toxicity weighting methodology was completely revised
and subject to a  second  positive review by SAB (in  collaboration with EPA's Civil Rights
program);  air methodology was revised and groundtruthed using New York data to demonstrate
high confidence;  water methodology has been revised in collaboration  with EPA's  Water
program. When the land methodology has been
reviewed and revised, EPA  will have completed its formal, written response to the 1997 SAB
Review.

Data Limitations: RSEI relies on data from a variety of EPA and other sources. TRI data may
have errors that are not  corrected in the standard TRI QC process.  In the past, RSEI has
identified  some  of these errors and  corrections  have been made by reporting companies.
Drinking water intake locations are not available for all intakes nationwide.
In coastal  areas, Publicly  Owned Treatment Works (POTW) water releases may go directly  to
the ocean,  rather than nearby  streams.  EPA is in  the process  of systematically correcting
potential errors regarding POTW water releases. These examples are illustrative of the data
quality checks and methodological improvements that are part of the RSEI development effort.
RSEI values are recalculated on an annual basis, and, resources permitting, all data sources are
updated annually.

Error Estimate: In developing the RSEI methodology, both sensitivity analyses and
groundtruthing studies have been used to address model accuracy (documentation is provided on
the RSEI  Home Page  - www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/).  For example, groundtruthing of the air
modeling performed by RSEI compared to site-specific regulatory modeling done by the state  of
New York showed virtually identical results in both rank order and magnitude. However, the
complexity of modeling performed in RSEI, coupled with un-quantified data limitations, limits a
precise estimation of errors that may either over- or under-estimate risk-related results.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The program regularly tracks improvements in other Agency
databases (e.g., SDWIS and Reach File databases) and incorporates newer data into the  RSEI
databases. Such  improvements  can  also lead to methodological modifications  in the model.
Corrections in TRI reporting data for all previous years are captured by the annual updates of the
RSEI model.

References: The methodologies used in RSEI were first documented for the 1997 review by the
EPA Science Advisory Board. The Agency has  provided this and  other updated technical
documentation on the RSEI Home Page. (RSEI Home Page - http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/)
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
Model, Peer Reviews. Described at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html
RSEI Methodology Document (describes data and methods used in RSEI Modeling)
                                          125

-------
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/method2004.pdf  RSEI  User's Manual (PDF,  1.5  MB)
explains all of the functions of the model, the data used, and contains tutorials to walk the new
user through common RSEI tasks (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/users_manual.pdf).
A more general overview  of the  model can be found in the RSEI Fact Sheet (PDF, 23 KB)
(http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/factsheet_v2-l.pdf).
There are also seven Technical Appendices that accompany these two documents  and provide
additional information on the data used in the model. The Appendices are as follows:  Technical
Appendix A (PDF, 121 KB) - Listing of All Toxicity Weights for TRI Chemicals and Chemical
Categories  Technical Appendix  B (PDF,  290 KB)  - Physicochemical  Properties for TRI
Chemicals and Chemical Categories
Technical Appendix C (PDF, 40 KB) - Derivation of Model Exposure Parameters
Technical Appendix D (PDF, 71 KB) - Locational Data for TRI Reporting Facilities and Off-site
Facilities Technical Appendix E (PDF, 44 KB) - Derivation of Stack Parameter Data  Technical
Appendix F (PDF, 84KB) - Summary of Differences Between RSEI Data and TRI Public Data
Release
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Number of new chemicals or microorganisms introduced into commerce that pose
       an unreasonable risk to workers, consumers or the environment (PART measure)

Performance Database: Implementation of this measure will require the use of several EPA
databases: Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS), pre-manufacture notice
(PMN) CBI Local Area Network (LAN), 8(e)  database (ISIS), and the  Focus  database.  The
following information from these databases will be used collectively in applying this measure:
• CBITS: Tracking information on Pre-Manufacture Notices (PMNs) received;
• PMN CBI LAN: Records documenting PMN review and decision, assessment reports on
chemicals submitted for review.  In addition, the  information developed for each PMN is kept in
hard copy in the Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC);
• ISIS: Data submitted by industry under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(e).
TSCA 8(e)  requires  that  chemical  manufacturers,  processors, and distributors  notify EPA
immediately of  new  (e.g. not already  reported), unpublished  chemical information  that
reasonably supports a conclusion of substantial risk. TSCA 8(e)  substantial  risk information
notices  most often contain toxicity  data but  may also contain  information  on  exposure,
environmental persistence,  or actions being taken to reduce human health  and  environmental
risks. It is an important information-gathering tool that serves as an early warning mechanism;
• Focus: Rationale for decisions emerging from Focus meeting, including decisions on
whether or not to drop chemicals from further review.

Measurement results  are calculated on a  fiscal-year basis and draw on relevant information
received over the 12-month fiscal year.

Data Source: The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), the office responsible for
the implementation of the TSCA, will compare  data submitted under TSCA Section 8(e) with
previously-submitted new chemical review data (submitted under TSCA Section 5 and contained
                                         126

-------
in the PMN) to determine the number of instances  in which  EPA failed to  prevent the
introduction of new chemicals or microorganisms into commerce which pose an unreasonable
risk to workers, consumers or the environment. Inconsistencies between the 8(e) and previously-
submitted new chemical review data will  be  evaluated  by applying the  methods and steps
outlined below to determine whether the inconsistencies signify an "unreasonable risk."

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: EPA's methods for implementing this measure
involve determining whether EPA failed to prevent the introduction of chemicals or
microorganisms  into commerce that  pose an unreasonable  risk to workers, consumers or the
environment, based on comparisons of 8(e) and previously-submitted new chemical  review data.
The "unreasonable risk" determination is based  on consideration of (1) the magnitude of risks
identified by EPA,  (2) limitations on risk that result from specific safeguards applied, and (3) the
benefits to industry and the public expected to be provided  by the new chemical substance. In
considering risk, EPA  looks at anticipated  environmental effects,  distribution and fate of the
chemical substance in the environment, patterns  of use, expected degree of exposure, the use of
protective equipment and  engineering controls,  and other factors  that affect or mitigate risk.
These are the steps OPPT will follow in comparing the 8(e) data with the previously-submitted
new chemical review data.
1. Match all  8(e)  submissions in the 8(e) database with associated TSCA Section 5 notices.
TSCA Section 5 requires manufacturers to give EPA a 90-day  advance notice  (via  a  pre-
manufacture notice or PMN) of their intent  to manufacture and/or import a new  chemical. The
PMN includes information  such as  specific chemistry identity,  use,  anticipated production
volume,  exposure and release information, and existing available test data. The  information is
reviewed through the New Chemicals Program to determine whether action is needed to prohibit
or limit manufacturing,  processing, or use of a chemical.
2. Characterize the resulting 8(e) submissions by the PMN review phase. For example, the 8(e)
submissions were received: a) before  the PMN notice was received by EPA, b) during the PMN
review process, or c) after the PMN review was completed.
3. Review of 8(e) data will focus on 8(e)s received after the PMN review period was  completed.
4. Comparison  of hazard  evaluation  developed during PMN review with associated  8(e)
submission.
5. Report on the accuracy of the initial hazard determination
6. Revised risk assessment developed to determine if there was an unreasonable risk based on
established risk assessment and risk management guidelines.
The databases used and the information retrieved are directly applicable to this measurement and
therefore suitable for measurement purposes.

QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan  for  the Office of Pollution  Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic  Substances;"  June  2003)  and will  ensure that those  standards  and
procedures are applied to this effort.

Data Quality Reviews: This is a new performance measure and, therefore, there is no developed
track  record  of  review and correction.  However,  appropriate oversight of  the measurement
process will be provided. Information developed  in the course of measurement will be presented
to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to technical outcomes
                                          127

-------
and to provide quality oversight. In addition,  the National Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Advisory Council (NPPTAC), which consists of external experts providing independent review
and direction to OPPT, has provided comment on this measure.

Data Limitations: There are some limitations of EPA's review which result from differences in
the quality and completeness of 8(e)  data provided by industry; for example, OPPT cannot
evaluate submissions that do not contain adequate information on chemical identity. The review
is also affected in some cases by a lack of available electronic information. In particular the pre-
1996  PMN  cases are only  retrievable in hard  copy  and may have to be requested from the
Federal Document Storage Center. This may introduce some delays to the review process.

Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure  does not require inferences  from  statistical
samples and therefore  there is no  estimate of  statistical error.  OPPT will review all  8(e)
submissions received in the  year with corresponding previously-submitted new chemical review
data, and not a sample of such submissions.

New/Improved Data or Systems: OPPT is currently developing an integrated, electronic
system that will provide real time access to prospective PMN review.

References: OPPT New Chemicals Program
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/, TSCA  Section 8(e) - Substantial Risk
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/sect8e.htm,
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tsca8e/index/htm
"Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Percent change relative to base year in cost savings from new chemical prescreening.
    (PART measure)

Performance Database: Implementation of this measure will require the use of several EPA
databases, all of which play a role in tracking premanufacture notices (PMNs) and the action
EPA decides to take on such notices.  The principal databases involved in PMN tracking, with
separate identification of prescreened chemicals, are:

          o  Chemical Control Division tracking database: Records basic identifying and
             status information on each PMN submitted to EPA, including name of submitter,
             identity of technical contact at company, actions taken by EPA. Enables
             chemicals to be tracked quickly and easily through the PMN review process.

          o  Management  Information Tracking  System (MITS): Contains non-CBI  data on
             all PMNs, including chemical identification and actions taken by EPA.

          o  New Chemicals Focus meeting database: Contains information on the decisions
             reached at Focus meetings, including whether to drop chemical from further
                                          128

-------
              review, to pursue regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
              Section 5(e) to prohibit or limit activities associated with the new chemical or to
              pursue regulation under a non-5(e) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to require
              manufacturers, importers and processors to notify EPA at least 90 days before
              beginning any activity that EPA has designated as a "significant new use," or,
              alternatively, to refer the chemical for full-scale standard review.  It is critical to
              know the number and percentage of PMNs going to these outcomes in order to
              perform base year cost savings calculations in support of the cost savings
              measure.

          o   Sustainable Futures prescreening tracking databases: Contain information on
              PMNs which display evidence of chemical prescreening using OPPT screening
              methods, including data on the types of assessments and model  evaluations
              performed by the submitter, and contact information on Sustainable Futures
              participants including date(s) attended EPA training.

          o   Measurement results are calculated on a fiscal year basis and draw upon relevant
              information collected over the 12-month fiscal year.

Data Source:  The major data sources involved in this measurement are fully described under
"Performance Database," above. No external data sources play a significant role in the
calculation of measurement results.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: EPA measures percent change in cost savings as a
result of chemical prescreening relative to a base year by: 1) determining the base year pre-
screening rate and base year cost savings; 2) calculating the current year prescreening rate
(prescreened PMNs as a percentage of total PMNs) and; 3) determining the actual  percent
change in cost savings due to prescreening by multiplying the base year cost savings by the ratio
of the current year prescreening rate to the base year prescreening rate. Finally, the actual
percent change in cost savings relative to the base year can be compared to the target percent
change of 6.67%. This procedure assumes, quite reasonably, that cost savings  from prescreening
will generally change in rough proportion to the change in the prescreening rate.

The methods used in calculating base year information are as follows:

          o   Determine base year prescreening rate by  checking the data systems described
              above to obtain the number of new prescreened chemicals going through the PMN
              review process and the total number of chemicals undergoing such review. The
              prescreening rate is simply the ratio  of prescreened chemicals to total chemicals
              undergoing PMN review.

Determine base year cost savings by :

          o   Checking the relevant databases to determine the number and percentage of base
              year PMNs that are (a) prescreened PMNs and (b) non-prescreened PMNs
                                           129

-------
          o  Estimating the number of prescreened PMNs that would have gone to regulation
             or standard review if there were no prescreening program (this is done by
             multiplying the number of prescreened PMNs by the percentage of non-
             prescreened PMNs that go to one of the "post-Focus meeting outcomes" of
             standard review, regulation under TSCA Section 5(e), or issuance of a non-5(e)
             SNUR)

          o  Subtracting the number of actual prescreened PMNs going to one of the post-
             Focus meeting outcomes from the projected number derived in the previous step,
             is the estimated number of PMNs avoiding a post-Focus meeting outcome. The
             rationale is that some some pre-screened PMNs still end up requiring post-Focus
             action, but at a lower rate than for PMNs which are not pre-screened. The
             hypothetical number estimated in this step, the difference between the projected
             and actual numbers of pre-screened PMNs requiring a post-Focus meeting
             outcome, represents the number of cases to have avoided post-Focus action as a
             result of pres-screening.

          o  Multiplying the number of cases estimated to have avoided post-Focus action as a
             result of pre-screening by unit cost factors to obtain estimates of the cost savings
             realized by avoidance of post-Focus meeting outcomes due to prescreening. (unit
             cost factors are generated separately from information/estimates maintained by
             EPA on the labor hours (Agency and contractor) associated with each post-Focus
             meeting outcome and the EPA  cost per labor hour)

          o  Summing the cost savings realized by avoidance of specified post-Focus meeting
             outcomes to arrive at total cost savings for the base year.

QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances," June 2003) and will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort.

Data Quality Reviews: This is a new performance measure and, therefore, there is no developed
record of review and correction. However, appropriate oversight of the measurement process
will be provided. Information developed in the course of measurement will be presented to
senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to technical outcomes and
to provide quality oversight.

Data Limitations: No specific data limitations have been identified with respect to the measure
presented here, except to the extent that the measure requires certain assumptions, discussed
above, in addition to inputs of hard data.

Error Estimate: Not applicable.  This measure does not require inferences from statistical
samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error.
                                          130

-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: OPPT is currently developing an integrated electronic system
that will provide real time access to prospective PMN review.

References: Additional information on EPA's New Chemicals program for TSCA Section 5 can
be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/index.htm.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •   Percentage of High Production  Volume (HPV)  chemicals identified  as priority
       concerns through assessment of Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) and other
       information with risks eliminated or effectively managed

Performance  Database:  EPA will track the  number  of agency  actions (e.g.,  regulatory,
voluntary), targeting  risk  elimination or management of high production  volume chemicals,
using internal  program databases  or the Agency's Regulation and Policy Information Data
System (RAPIDS). Many types of Agency  actions qualify as risk management or elimination
actions. Issuance of  a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under  TSCA is  an  example  of
regulatory action that can be tracked by the RAPIDS Promulgation Data field. An example of a
non-regulatory risk management/elimination action is a  written communication from  EPA  to
chemical manufacturers/users indicating the Agency's  concerns and suggesting but not requiring
actions to  address chemical risks (chemical substitution, handling protections, etc.). These
actions would be tracked by  monitoring internal communications files. The results are calculated
on a calendar-year basis.

Data Source: RAPIDS stores official Agency data on progress of rule-making and other policy
program development efforts. Data are supplied by EPA programs managing these efforts. For
voluntary actions not tracked in RAPIDS, performance data are tracked internally by program
managers.

Methods,  Assumptions and Suitability: As EPA identifies HPV chemicals that are priorities
for risk management  action, following protocols currently under development, the Agency will
commence regulatory or non-regulatory actions to address identified risks. All such actions will
be recorded for the HPV chemical(s) subject to those actions, enabling EPA to report on progress
in responding  to the  risks  on  a chemical-  or  chemical-category-specific  basis. This annual
performance measures (APM) commits the Agency to eliminate or effectively manage  all such
risks. Using data contained in RAPIDS, in the case of regulatory risk management action, EPA's
progress towards meeting this APM will be  documented by the sequence of formal  regulatory
development  steps  documented  in  that   system.  Where  risk  management  action  takes
nonregulatory form, such as  issuance of advisory communications to chemical manufacturers  or
users, progress toward meeting this APM will be tracked by internal files documenting such
actions. The definition of risk is being addressed in the development of the protocols used in the
HPV screening/prioritization process.

QA/QC Procedures: RAPIDS entries are quality assured by senior Agency managers.

Data Quality Reviews: RAPIDS entries are reviewed by EPA's Regulatory Management Staff.
                                         131

-------
Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: N/A

References: None


FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•     The cumulative number of chemicals for which VCCEP data needs documents are
      issued by EPA in response to industry-sponsored Tier I risk assessments.

Performance Database: Internal VCCEP program activity tracking database. Data needs
documents are issued by EPA to conclude work on all Tier I submissions. Documents may
indicate data are sufficient to reasonably demonstrate that children are not subject to significant
risks.  Documents also may indicate that additional assessment and associated data development
are required, commencing Tier 2 work. The results are calculated on a calendar-year basis.

Data Source: Formal EPA files of VCCEP Tier I data needs communications. Data needs are
also subject to peer review, results of which are posted and made public on the Toxicology
Excellence for Risk Assessment website found at http://www.tera.org/peer/MeetingReports.html

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Information is tracked directly through internal record-
keeping systems. No models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.

QA/QC Procedures: The VCCEP program operates under Information Quality Guidelines as
found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/

Data Quality Reviews: The VCCEP program operates under Information Quality Guidelines as
found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/

Data Limitations: None known

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: None

References:  http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/vccep/index.htm

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •  Number of risk management plan audits completed
                                        132

-------
Performance Database: There is no database for this measure.

Data Source: EPA's Regional offices and the states provide the data to EPA headquarters.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Data are collected and analyzed by surveying EPA's
Regional offices to determine how many audits of facilities' risk management plans (RMPs)
have been completed.

QA/QC Procedures: Data are collected from states by EPA's Regional offices, with review at
the Regional and Headquarters' levels.

Data Quality Review: Data quality is evaluated by both Regional and Headquarters' personnel.

Data Limitations: Data quality is dependent on completeness and accuracy of the data provided
by state programs.

Error Estimate: Not calculated.

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

Reference: N/A


FY 2006 Performance Measure:

•  Percentage of TRI chemical forms submitted over the Internet using the Toxic Release
   Inventory Made Easy (TRI-ME) and the Central Data Exchange (CDX)

Performance Database: TRI System (TRIS).

Data Source: Facility submissions of TRI data to EPA.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  As part of the regular process of opening the mail at
the TRI Reporting Center, submissions are immediately classified as paper or floppy disk. This
information is then entered into TRIS.  The identification of an electronic submission via CDX is
done automatically by the software.

QA/QC Procedures: Currently, the mail room determines whether a submission is on paper or a
floppy disk during the normal process of entering and tracking  submissions.  Electronic
submissions via CDX are automatically tracked by the software. With an increase in electronic
reporting via CDX, the manual mail room  processing will be significantly reduced. Information
received via hard copy are double-key entered. During the facility reconciliation process, the
data entered are checked to ensure "submission-type" identification is accomplished at no less
than 99 % accuracy.  Accuracy is defined  as accurate identification of document type.
                                         133

-------
Data Quality Reviews: Each month the Data Processing Center conducts data quality checks to
ensure 99 % accuracy of submission information captured in TRIS.

Data Limitations: Occasionally, some facilities send in their forms in duplicative formats (e.g.,
paper, floppy, and/or through CDX). All submissions are entered into TRIS.  The Data
Processing Center follows the procedures outlined in the document "Dupe Check Procedures" to
identify potential duplicate submissions. Submissions through CDX override duplicate
submissions by disk and/or hard copy. Floppy disk submissions override duplicate paper copy
submissions.

Error Estimate: The error rate for "submission-type" data capture has been assessed to be less
than 1%.  The quality of the data is high.

New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: EPA continues to identify enhancements in E-
reporting capabilities via CDX.

References: www.epa.gov/TRI

                            GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•      Brownfields properties assessed
•      Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding
•      Acres of Brownfields property available for reuse
•      Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities
•      Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed
•      Billions  of dollars  of cleanup and redevelopment funds  leveraged  at Brownfields
       sites
•      Acres of Brownfields made ready for reuse per million dollars.
Performance Database:   The Assessment, Cleanup  and  Redevelopment Exchange System
(ACRES) contains the performance information identified in the above measures.
Key fields related to performance measures include:
Properties with Assessment Completed with Pilot/Grant Funding
Properties assessed with Targeted Brownfields Assessment Funding
Properties with Cleanup Complete
Acres Made Ready for Reuse
Cleanup/Redevelopment Jobs Leveraged
Assessment/Cleanup/Redevelopment Dollars Leveraged
Number of Participants Completing Training
Number of Participants Obtaining Employment

Data Source:  Data are extracted from quarterly reports and property profile forms prepared by
assessment, cleanup, revolving loan fund (RLF), job training, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary
                                         134

-------
Response  Program  cooperative  agreement  award  recipients.    Information  on  Targeted
Brownfields Assessments is collected from EPA Regions.

Methods,  Assumptions and Sustainability:  Cooperative agreement award recipients submit
reports quarterly (except for 128(a)) and property profile forms to EPA.  Performance measure
data are extracted from these documents by an EPA contractor.  Data are then forwarded to
Regional Pilot managers for review and fmalization.   Given the reporting cycle and the data
entry/QA period, there is typically a six month data lag for BMS data.

Note that accomplishments reported by Brownfields Assessment Grantees, Brownfields Cleanup
Grantees,  Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund  Grantees,  Brownfields  Job Training  Grantees,
Regional Targeted Brownfields Assessments, and State  and Tribal 128 Voluntary  Response
Program Grantees all contribute towards these performance measures.  "Number of Brownfields
properties  assessed"  is  an  aggregate  of assessments completed with Assessment Grant funding,
Regional  Targeted Brownfields Assessment funding, and  State  and  Tribal 128  Voluntary
Response  Program funding.   Number of Brownfields  properties cleaned up is an aggregate of
properties  cleaned up by RLF Grantees, Cleanup Grantees, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary
Response  Program Grantees.  "Number of Acres Made Ready for Reuse" is  an aggregate of
acreage assessed that does not require cleanup and acreage cleaned up as reported by Assessment
Grantees, Regional Targeted Brownfields Assessments, Cleanup  Grantees, RLF Grantees,  and
State  and  Tribal  128  Voluntary  Response Program Grantees.  "Number of cleanup  and
redevelopment jobs leveraged" is the aggregate of jobs leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup  and
RLF Grantees.  "Amount  of cleanup  and redevelopment  funds leveraged at  Brownfields
properties" is the aggregate  of funds leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup  and RLF  Grantees.
"Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed" is based on the "Number of Participants
Completing Training" and the "Number of Participants Obtaining Employment" reported by Job
Training Grantees.

QA/QC Procedures: Data reported by  cooperative award agreement recipients are reviewed by
EPA Regional project officers or project managers for accuracy. Reports are produced monthly
with detailed data trends analysis.

Data Quality Reviews: No external reviews.

Data Limitations: All data provided voluntarily by grantees.

Error Estimate: NA

New/Improved Data or  Systems:  The Brownfields  Program has developed the Assessment
Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES database) to improve data collection
and management.  The Brownfields Program will implement online QA for Regional  project
officers using the ACRES database in FY 2006.    The Program is  also in the process of
amending  the OMB  ICR to  gather information from State and Tribal  128 Voluntary  Response
Program grantees.

References: none.
                                         135

-------
                                GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 3

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Acres of habitat protected or restored in National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas
    [Ocean and Coastal PART measure]
•   Program dollars per acre of habitat  protected or restored [Ocean and Coastal PART
    efficiency measure]

Performance Database:  The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds has developed a
standardized format for data reporting and compilation, defining habitat protection and
restoration activities and specifying habitat categories. The  key field used to calculate annual
performance is habitat acreage. Annual results have been reported since 2001 for the NEP
(results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).

Information regarding habitat protection is accessible on a web page that highlights habitat
loss/alteration, as well as the number of acres protected and restored by habitat type
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.htm. This allows EPA to provide a
visual means of communicating NEP performance and habitat protection and restoration
progress to a wide range of stakeholders and decision-makers.

Data Source: NEP documents such as annual work plans (which contain achievements made in
the previous year), annual progress reports and other implementation tracking materials, are used
to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. EPA aggregates the data
provided by each NEP to arrive at a national total for the entire Program.  EPA is confident that
the data presented are as accurate as possible Each NEP reviews the information prior to
reporting to EPA.  In addition, EPA conducts regular reviews of NEP implementation to help
ensure that information provided in these  documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact
being achieved.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Measuring the number of acres of habitat restored and
protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of the habitat reported,-or of
the estuary overall, but it is a suitable measure of on-the-ground progress. Habitat acreage does
not necessarily correspond one-to-one with habitat quality,  nor does habitat (quantity or quality)
represent the only indicator of ecosystem  health.  Nevertheless, habitat acreage  serves as an
important surrogate and a measure of on-the-ground progress made toward EPA=s annual
performance goal of habitat protection and restoration in the NEP. EPA has defined and
provided examples of Aprotectiong and Arestorationg activities for purposes of measure tracking
and reporting (see citation for the PIVOT website in references below.) "Restored and protected"
is a general term used to describe a range of activities.  The term is interpreted broadly to include
created areas, protected areas resulting from acquisition, conservation easement or deed
restriction, submerged aquatic vegetation coverage increases, permanent shellfish bed openings,
and anadromous fish habitat increases.

The NEP "Habitat Acres Protected  or  Restored" efficiency measure will  be calculated  by
dividing the total ocean and coastal protection program dollars by the total NEP acres protected
                                          136

-------
or restored.  The measure is based on the habitat data collected by the NEPs, as described above
and reported in the annual habitat measure), and the total program dollars, which is the sum of
the NEP/Coastal budget  (including the additional  funds for Long Island Sound),  the  Marine
Pollution budget, and the program match as reported by the NEPs.

QA/QC Procedures:  Primary data are prepared by the staff of the NEP based on their own
reports and from data supplied by other partnering agencies/organizations (that are responsible
for implementing the action resulting in habitat protection and restoration).  The NEP staff are
requested to follow EPA guidance to prepare their reports, and to verify the numbers.  EPA then
confirms that the national total accurately reflects the information submitted by each program.
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was approved
in July 2001. EPA requires that each organization prepare a document called a Quality
Management Plan (QMP) that documents the organization's data quality policy, which addresses
the quality, generation and use of the organization's data  and identifies the environmental
programs to which the quality system applies (e.g., programs that rely on the collection or use of
environmental data.)

Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews conducted yet.

Data Limitations: It is still early to determine the full extent of data limitations. Current data
limitations include: information that may be reported inconsistently (based on different
interpretations of the protection and restoration definitions), acreage that may be miscalculated
or misreported, and acreage that may be double counted (same parcel may also be counted by
partnering/implementing agency or need to be replanted multiple years). In addition, measuring
the number of acres of habitat restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements
in the health of the habitat reported (particularly in the year of reporting), but is rather a measure
of on-the-ground progress made by the NEPs.

Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.

New/Improved Data or Systems: In 2004, NEP provided latitude and longitude data (where
possible) for each project.  These data are then mapped to highlight where these projects are
located in each NEP study area.  Not only does this assist both the individual NEP and EPA in
obtaining a sense of geographic project coverage, but it provides a basis from which to begin
exploring cases where acreage may be double-counted by different agencies. An on-line
reporting system is also being developed for the NEPs= use that will assist in tracking habitat
projects, and will help reduce EPA=s QA/QC time. Currently, this system is scheduled to be in
place by September 2005.

References: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as  well as data
submitted by the individual National Estuary Programs, is displayed numerically, graphically,
and by habitat type in the Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool (PIVOT).
PIVOT data are publicly available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/
intro.htm. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (July 2001) is available on the Intranet
at http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/infopolicy.html.
                                          137

-------
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   By 2008, working with partners, achieve a net increase of 400,000 acres of wetlands

Performance Database: The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service produces information on the characteristics, extent, and status of the Nation's wetlands
and deepwater habitats. This information is used by Federal, State, and local agencies, academic
institutions, U.S. Congress, and the private sector.  The Emergency Wetland Resources Act of
1986 directs the Service to map the wetlands of the United States. The NWI has mapped 89
percent of the lower 48 states, and 31 percent of Alaska.  The Act also requires the Service to
produce a digital wetlands database for the United States. About 42 percent of the lower 48 states
and 11 percent of Alaska are digitized. Congressional mandates require the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to produce a status and trends reports to Congress at ten-year intervals.

The status and trends report is designed to provide recent and comprehensive  estimates of the
abundance of wetlands in the 48 conterminous States. This status and trends report indicates
whether there is an actual increase in wetland acreage or if wetlands are  continuing to decrease.
Up-to-date status and trends information is needed to periodically evaluate the efficacy of
existing Federal programs and policies, identify national or regional wetland issues, and increase
public awareness of and appreciation for wetlands.

The last status and trends report26 provided the most recent and comprehensive estimates of the
current gains and losses for different types of wetlands in the United States on public and private
lands from calendar year 1986 to 1997. In calendar year 1997, there were an estimated 105.5
million acres of wetlands in the conterminous United States. Of this total, 100.5 million acres
(95 percent) are freshwater wetlands and 5 million acres (5 percent)  are saltwater wetlands.

The President directed in his Earth Day 2004 announcement that the next  National Wetlands
Inventory update, status and trends report, should be completed by the end  of 2005, five years
ahead of the current schedule,  and asked that the updates be done more frequently thereafter.
The next Status and Trends Report is expected to be released by the Fish and Wildlife Service in
January 2006,  and every five years thereafter.  This new information will  show  whether,
nationally, we  are making progress against the net gain measure and should  inform Federal,
State, Tribal, local government programs' policies and decision making.

Data Source:   The National Status and Trends Report is developed and published by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This is the only Federal study that provides statistically valid
estimates with a published standard error for all wetlands in the conterminous United States.
Aerial imagery is the primary data source, and it is used with reliable collateral data such as
topographic maps, coastal navigation charts, published soil surveys,  published wetland maps,
and State, local or regional studies. A random number of sites are also field verified.  All
photography is cataloged, numbered, tagged, and traced in a database management system.
26 Dahl, I.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, B.C. 82pp.
                                           138

-------
For each plot, aerial imagery is interpreted and annotated in accordance with procedures
published by the Fish and Wildlife Service.  The results are compared with previous era imagery,
and any changes recorded. The differences between the data sets are analyzed and a statistical
estimate of the change is produced.

The five major kinds of wetlands are: 1) freshwater (or palustrine), 2) saltwater (or estuarine), 3)
riverine, 4) lacustrine (or lakes and other deepwater habitats), and 5) marine wetlands. For
analysis and reporting purposes, these types of wetlands were further divided into subcategories
such as freshwater forested wetland, freshwater emergent wetland, estuarine and marine
intertidal wetlands.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: An  interagency group of statisticians developed the
design for the national status and trends study published in 2000.  The study was based on a
scientific probability sample of the surface area of the 48 coterminous States.  The area sampled
was about 1.93 billion acres and the sampling did not discriminate based on land ownership.  The
study used a stratified, simple random sampling design.  About 754,000 possible sample plots
comprised the total  population.  Geographic information system software was used to organize
the information of about 4,375 random sample plots. The plots were examined with the use of
remote sensed data in  combination with field work. Estimates of change  in wetlands were made
over a specific time  period. A similar study design was used for the Status and Trends report due
out in January 2006.
QA/QC Procedures: The Service has developed and implemented quality assurance measures
that provide appropriate methods to take field measurements, ensure sample integrity and
provide oversight of analyses, which includes reporting of procedural and statistical confidence
levels. The objective was to produce comprehensive, statistically valid acreage estimate of the
Nation's wetlands. Because of the sample-based approach, various quality control and quality
assurance measures were built into the data collection, review, analysis, and reporting stages.
This includes field verification of the plots.  Six Federal agencies assist with field verification
work.

Data Quality Reviews: Not Applicable

Data Limitations: Certain habitats were excluded because of the limitations of aerial imagery
as the primary data source to detect wetlands.  This was consistent with previous wetland status
and trends studies conducted by FWS.

Error Estimate:  Estimated procedural error ranged from 4 to 6 percent of the true values when
all quality assurance measures have been completed. Procedural error was related to the ability
to accurately recognize and classify wetlands both from multiple sources of imagery and on the
ground evaluations. Types of procedural errors were missed wetlands, inclusion of upland as
wetland, misclassification of wetlands, or misinterpretation of data collection protocols.  The
amount of procedural error is usually a function of the quality of the data collection conventions;
the number, variability, training and experience of data collection personnel; and the rigor of any
quality control or quality assurance measures.
                                           139

-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: Advances in computerized cartography were used to improve
data quality and geospatial integrity. Newer technology allowed the generation of existing
digital plot files at any scale to overlay directly over an image base.

References:
http://wetlands.fws.gov/index.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/Pubs Reports/publi.htm

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Annually, beginning in FY04 and in partnership with the Corps of Engineers and
    states, achieve no net loss of wetlands in the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory
    program

Performance Database:  Since 1989, the goal of the Clean Water Act Section 404 program has
been no net loss of wetlands.

Historically, the Corps has collected limited data on wetlands losses and gains in its Regulatory
Analysis and Management System (RAMS) permit tracking database. The Corps has compiled
national Section 404 wetland permitting data for the last 10 years reflecting acres of wetland
impacts avoided (through the permit process), acres permitted for impacts, and acres mitigated.
However, limitations in methods used for data collection, reporting and analysis resulted in
difficulties in drawing reliable conclusions regarding the effects of the Section 404 program.

Data Source: Data included in RAMS is generally collected by private consultants hired by
permit applicants or Corps Regulatory Staff.  Data  input is generally done by Corps staff.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RAMS was designed to be an administrative aid in
tracking permits, thus it lacks many of the fields necessary to adequately track important
information regarding wetland losses and gains.  Also, the  database was modified differently for
each of the 38 Corps Districts making national summaries difficult. Furthermore, the database is
also proprietary making it difficult to retrofit without utilizing its original developers.

QA/QC Procedures: Historically, there has not been a high level of QA/QC with regard to data
input into RAMS. Its antiquated format and numerous administrative fields discourage use.
Lack of standard terms and classification also make all aspects of data entry problematic.

Data Quality Reviews:  Independent evaluations published in 2001 by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) provided a critical evaluation of the
effectiveness of wetlands compensatory mitigation (the restoration, creation, or enhancement of
wetlands to compensate for permitted wetland losses) for authorized losses of wetlands and other
waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.  The NAS determined that available data was
insufficient to determine whether or not the Section 404 program was meeting its goal of no net
loss of either wetland area or function. The NAS added that available data suggested that the
                                          140

-------
program was not meeting its no net loss goal.  Among its suite of recommendations, the NAS
noted that wetland area and function lost and regained over time should be tracked in a national
database and that the Corps should expand and improve quality assurance measures for data
entry.

In response to the NAS, GAO, and other recent critiques of the effectiveness of wetlands
compensatory mitigation, EPA and the Corps in conjunction with the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and Transportation released the National Wetlands Mitigation
Action Plan (MAP) on December 26, 2002. The Plan includes 17 tasks that the agencies will
complete in FY 07 to improve the ecological performance and results of compensatory
mitigation.  (Note: some Mitigation Action Plan items may be subsumed by the Corps' mitigation
rulemaking expected to be finalized in calendar year 2006.)

Data Limitations:  As previously noted, RAMS currently provides the only national data on
wetlands losses and gains in the Section 404 Program.  Also, as previously noted, there are a
number of concerns regarding the conclusions that can be drawn from these numbers. Data
quality issues include:

1.  Inability to separate restoration, creation, enhancement and preservation acreage from the
aggregate "mitigation" acreage reported;
2.  Lack of data regarding how much designated mitigation acreage was actually undertaken, and
how much of that total was successful;
3.  Lack of data regarding how much of the permitted impacts actually occurred; and
4.  Limitations on identifying acres "avoided," because the figure is only based on the difference
between original  proposed impacts and impacts authorized. Often, permit applicants who are
aware of the 404  program's requirements to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, make
initial site selection and site design decisions that minimize wetland impacts prior to submitting a
permit application.  Such avoidance decisions benefit applicants, as their applications are more
likely to be accepted and processed with minor changes. This behavioral influence that the
program engenders is difficult to capture and quantify, but contributes considerable
undocumented "avoided" impacts.

Error Estimate: Not applicable

New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA and the Corps have acknowledged the need for
improved 404 tracking. The Corps is currently piloting a new national permit tracking database
called ORM (Operation and maintenance business information link, Regulatory Module) to
replace its existing database (RAMS).  As part of the MAP, the Corps is working with EPA and
the other Federal agencies and states to ensure that the version of ORM that is ultimately
deployed will adequately track wetlands gains and losses.  The Corps expects to deploy ORM in
all 38 of its districts at the start of 2007, enabling  national reporting in early 2008. The Corps, in
coordination with EPA and other federal agencies has invested in the development of a GIS-
enabled version of the ORM data management system, known as G-ORM and plans to beta test
it in three Corps Districts by Fall 2006. The G-ORM enhancement will improve the
environmental results of the CWA Section 404 Program and reporting of aggregate wetland data
under it, by spatially-enabling wetland permit decision-making, improving tracking of permitted
                                          141

-------
losses and required compensation, and ensuring public and interagency access to wetland
permitting information via a system of web-services and web-mapping tools.

ORM is being designed to provide improved tracking regarding:

•      Type of impacts
•      Type and quantity of habitat impacted (Using Hydrogeomorphic and Cowardin
       classification systems)
•      Type and quantity of habitat mitigated (Using Hydrogeomorphic and Cowardin
       classification systems)
•      Type and quantity of mitigation (restoration,  creation, enhancement, or preservation)
•      Differentiating stream mitigation (in linear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in acres)
•      Spacial tracking via  G-ORM GIS enhancements for both impact and mitigation sites
       (planned)
•      Functional losses (debits) at the impact site and functional gains at the mitigation site
       (credits) if assessment tool is available and applied

References:
http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems so that overall ecosystem health
    of the Great Lakes is improved

Performance Database:  USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will collect
and track the eight (8) components of the index and publish the performance results as part of
annual reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and as online
reporting of GLNPO's monitoring program,  .
Extensive databases for the indicator  components are maintained by GLNPO (phosphorus
concentrations, contaminated sediments, benthic health, fish tissue contamination), by binational
agreement with Environment Canada (air toxics deposition), and by local authorities who
provide data to the USEPA (drinking water quality, beach closures). A binational team of
scientists and natural  resource managers  is working to establish a long term monitoring program
to determine extent and quality of coastal wetlands.

Data Source: Data for the index components are tracked internally and reported through the
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process. The document, "State of the Great
Lakes 2005 -A Technical Report," presents detailed indicator reports prepared by primary
authors, including listings of data sources. Depending on the indicators, data sources may include
U.S. and Canadian federal agencies, state and provincial agencies, municipalities, research
reports and published scientific literature. Information from the following indicators is used to
evaluate the Index components:
       Coastal Wetlands group of indicators:
             Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
             Coastal Wetland Fish  Community Health
                                          142

-------
             Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
             Coastal Wetland Area by Type
             Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
             Effects of Water Levels Fluctuations
       Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
       Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
       Benthic Health group of indicators:
             Hexagenia
             Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod Diporeia spp.
       Contaminants in Sport Fish
       Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures
       Drinking Water Quality
       Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Index is based on a 40 point scale where the
rating uses select Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal wetlands,
phosphorus concentrations, Area of Concern (AOC) sediment contamination, benthic health, fish
tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition). Each
component of the Index is based  on a 1 to 5 rating system, where 1 is poor and 5 is good.
Authors of SOLEC indicator reports use best professional judgment to assess the overall status of
the ecosystem component in relation to established endpoints or ecosystem objectives, when
available.  Each indicator is evaluated for Status (good, fair, poor, mixed) and Trend (improving,
unchanging, deteriorating, undetermined). To calculate the Index, the data for each indicator are
compared to the evaluation criteria for the numeric,  1 to 5, rating system.  Each of the index
components is included in the broader suite of Great Lakes indicators, which was developed
through an extensive multi-agency process to satisfy the overall criteria of necessary, sufficient
and feasible. Information on the selection process is in the document, "Selection of Indicators
for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4."

QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place^see
reference #1 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited
every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for  Quality Management.

The SOLEC process relies on secondary use of data, i.e., data for many of the indicators are
collected, maintained and analyzed by agencies and organizations other than USEPA.
Participating agencies and organizations follow their own QA/QC procedures to assure high
quality data. A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed to document procedures
for data assessment and review for the indicators reports prepared for the State of the Great
Lakes 2005 report.  See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP."
Data Quality Review:  GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given "outstanding"
evaluations in previous peer and management reviews2 (see reference #2 below).  GLNPO has
implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality
standards.
                                          143

-------
An external Peer Review of SOLEC processes and products was conducted in 2003 by an
international panel of experts familiar with large-scale regional or national indicator and
reporting systems. Panel findings were generally positive and several recommendations were
made to consider for future SOLEC events and reports.  Many of the recommendations have
been implemented, and others are being considered for feasibility. The final report by the review
panel is available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference Peer Review Report" in the SOLEC 2004 section.
A second review of the suite of Great Lakes indicators was conducted by Great Lakes
stakeholders in 2004. As a direct result of the findings and recommendations from the
participants, several indicators were revised, combined or dropped, and a few others were added.
The indicators were also regrouped to allow the user to more easily identify the indicators
relevant to particular ecosystem components or environmental issues. The final report from the
review is available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference Peer Review Report, Part 2: Stakeholder Review of the Great Lakes
Indicators" in the SOLEC 2004 section.
Data Limitations: Data limitations vary among the indicator components of the Index.  The data
are especially good for phosphorus concentrations, fish tissue contamination, benthic health, and
air toxics deposition.  The data associated with other components of the index (coastal wetlands,
AOC sediment contamination, beach closures, and drinking water quality) are more qualitative.
Some data are distributed among several sources, and without an extensive trend line.
Limitations for each of the index components are included in the formal indicator descriptions in
the document, "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4."

Error Estimate: Error statistics for the Great Lakes Index have not been quantified. Each unit
of the 40 point scale represents 2.5% of the total,  so any unit change in the assessment of one of
the component indicators would result in a change of the index of that magnitude.  The degree of
environmental change required to affect an indicator assessment, however, may be significantly
large.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The data system specifically for this index is being
developed.  Data continue to be collected through the SOLEC process by various agencies,
including GLNPO. Efforts are currently in progress to integrate various Great Lakes monitoring
programs to better meet SOLEC objectives and to increase efficiencies in data collection and
reporting.

References:

1.  "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office."  EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.

 2. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
                                          144

-------
3. "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP." Unpublished. Prepared as part of
Cooperative Agreement between USEPA and Environment Canada.

4. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2003." ISBN 0-662-34798-6,
Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En40-ll/35-2003E, and U.S.

5. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003. Available on CD and
online at .

6. Canada and the United States. "Implementing Indicators 2003 - A Technical Report." ISBN 0-
662-34797-8 (CD-Rom), Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. Enl64-l/2003E-
MRC (CD-Rom), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-003.
2003. Available on CD from U.S. EPA/Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago.
Available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html

7. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2005 - Draft." Environment Canada,
Burlington, Ontario, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, 2004. Available
online at 

8. Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Health, Version 4." Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, and U.S. EPA,
Chicago.  2000. Available online at .

All SOLEC documents, background reports, indicator reports, indicator development processes,
conference agenda, proceedings and presentations are available online at
http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html The documents are sorted by SOLEC  year and include the
State of the Great Lakes reports which are released the following calendar year.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   The average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye

Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Great Lakes Fish
Monitoring Program (GLFMP) ^see reference #1 below). This program is broken into two
separate elements, Element 1 - Open Water Trend Monitoring and Element 2 - Game Fish Fillet
Monitoring. Each program collects and monitors contaminants in Great Lakes fish at alternating
locations throughout the Great Lakes Basin; fish are collected at one set of sites during even
years and at another set in odd years.  Element 1 began with the collection of data in Lake
Michigan in 1972 and the additional lakes were added in 1976.  Element 2 began with the
collection of data in all five of the Great Lakes in the early 1980's. In FY07, the database will
contain QA/QC data from fish collected in 2005.  Data are reported on a calendar year basis and
are specific to the even or odd year sampling schedule (even year sites are only compared to
other even year sites etc.)
                                         145

-------
Data Source: GLNPO is the principal source of data for the Great Lakes Fish monitoring
program. The Great Lakes States and Tribes assist with fish collection. Previous cooperating
organizations include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This indicator provides concentrations of selected
organic contaminants in Great Lakes open water fish.  The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring
Program is broken into two separate elements that monitor potential exposure to contaminant
concentrations for wildlife (Element 1) and humans through consumption (Element 2). Only
Element 1 is included in this indicator.

The first element, Open Lakes Trend Monitoring Program, was created to: (1) determine time
trends in contaminant concentrations, (2) assess impacts of contaminants on the fishery using
fish as biomonitors, and (3) assess potential risk to the wildlife that consume contaminated fish.
The first element includes data from ten 600-700 mm lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) whole
fish composites (5 fish in each composite) from each of the lakes. Since sufficient lake trout are
not found in Lake Erie, data for 450 - 550 mm walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreuni) are used
for that Lake.

All GLFMP data are quality-controlled and then loaded into the Great Lakes Environmental
Database (GLENDA). Included in GLENDA are flags for each data point that can be used to
evaluate the usability of the data. Each Great Lake is a unique environment with a distinct
growth rate, food web, and chemical integrity. For this reason, a direct comparison of annual
concentrations between basins is not appropriate.  However, an average annual basin-wide
percent decrease can be determined using an exponential decrease function, and the 1990 data as
the baseline. The percent decrease of Element 1 can be calculated and compared to the 5%
reduction target to determine if the target has been met. All years of data from all lakes are
plotted on the same graph, with each year containing 5 data points. An exponential decrease is
then found for the entire data set and the percent decrease is calculated from the best fit line. The
Lake Michigan data set represents the worst case scenario in the Great Lakes Basin for the Open
Lakes Trend Monitoring Program.
                         	                                                   9
QA/QC Procedures:  GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place (see
reference #2 below) that conforms to the USEPA  Quality Management Order and is audited
every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.  The Quality
Assurance (QA) plan that supports the analytical portion of the fish contaminant program is
approved and available online3 (see reference #3 below). The draft field sampling Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is being revised and will be submitted to the GLNPO QA
Officer for review upon the completion of the Quality Management Plan.

Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been evaluated as
"outstanding" in previous peer and management reviews4 (see reference #4 below). GLNPO has
implemented all recommendations  from these external audits and complies with  Agency Quality
standards.
                                          146

-------
Data Limitations: Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program data are not well-suited to portray
localized changes. Nevertheless, data collected at a certain site (odd year or even year sites) can
be compared to data collected from the same site.  In addition, only very general comparisons
can be made of contaminant concentrations between lakes.  A recent review of the odd year
Open Lake Trend Monitoring in Lake Erie data indicate an increased variability in the data
between the years of 1999 and 2003 because during those years several individual samples (fish)
fell outside of the desired size range leading to a higher or lower than average mean sample size
for the composite.

Error Estimate: The data quality objective of the fish contaminant program was to detect a
20% change in each measured contaminant concentration between two consecutively sampled
periods at each site.  Based on changing environmental conditions, the data quality objective has
been revised to detect trends in concentration of 0.1 mg/kg/year based on three consecutive sampling
periods (6 years, as sites are sampled every other year) for a specific site, with a power of 80% or greater.
The program was designed to reach that goal with 95% confidence.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The GLENDA database is a significant new system with
enhanced capabilities. Existing and future fish  data will be added to GLENDA.

References:

1.  " The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - A technical and Scientific Model For Interstate
Environmental Monitoring" September,  1990. EPA503/4-90-004.

2.  "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office."  EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002,  Approved April 2003. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/

3.  "Great Lakes Fish  Monitoring Program -  Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sample
Collection      Activities".,      Great      Lakes      National      Program      Office.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP_Q APP_082504.pdf

4.  "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. "  Unpublished  -  in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.

5.  "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants ", Dr. Deborah Swackhammer, University of
Minnesota Environmental Occupational Health, School of Public Health, EPA Grant
#GL97524201-2, 7/7/02.De Vault, D. S.  1984.  Contaminant analysis offish from Great Lakes
harbors and tributary mouths. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office. USEPA 905/3-84-003,
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP%20QAPP%20v7.pdf

6.  De Vault, D. S., R. Hesselberg, P. W.  Rodgers  and T.  J. Feist. 1996. Contaminant trends in
lake trout and walleye from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22:
884-895.
                                          147

-------
7.  De Vault, D. S., W. A. Willford, R. Hesselberg, E. Nortrupt and E. Rundberg. 1985.
Contaminant trends in lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) from the upper Great Lakes. Archives
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 15: 349-356.

8.  De Vault, D. S., W. A. Willford, R. J. Hesselberg and D. A. Nortrupt. 1986. Contaminant
trends in lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) from the upper Great Lakes. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 15: 349-356.
9.  GLNPO. 1981. A Strategy for Fish Contaminant Monitoring in the Great Lakes. USEPA
Great Lakes National Program Office. .
10. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
11.  Swackhammer, D. L. 2001. "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants. " Unpublished - in
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.
12. Swackhammer, D.L. February 2002.  "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants. "
Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.
13. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. "  Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air in the Great Lakes basin will decline

Performance Database:  Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) integrated
atmospheric deposition network l (see reference #1 below) (IADN) operated jointly with
Environment Canada. Reporting starts with 1992 data and includes concentrations of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
organochlorine pesticides in air and precipitation; however, this Performance Measure addresses
only PCBs. Monitoring results from 2005 will be reported in 2007. Data are reported on a
calendar year basis.

Data Source: GLNPO and Environment Canada are the principal sources of the data. Data also
come through in-kind support and information sharing with other Federal agencies and Canada.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  There are five master IADN stations, one for each
lake, which are supplemented by satellite stations in other locations. The master stations are
located in remote areas and are meant to represent regional background levels.  Concentrations
                                         148

-------
from the master stations are used for the performance measure.  Concentrations from the satellite
stations in Chicago and Cleveland are also sometimes used to demonstrate the importance of
urban areas to atmospheric deposition to the Lakes.

Air samples are collected for 24 hours using high-volume samplers containing an adsorbent.
Precipitation samples are collected as 28-day composites. Laboratory analysis protocols
generally call for solvent extraction of the organic sampling media with addition of surrogate
recovery standards.  Extracts are then concentrated followed by column chromatographic
cleanup, fractionation, nitrogen blow-down to small volume (about 1 mL) and injection
(typically 1 uL) into gas chromatography instruments.

All IADN data are loaded and quality controlled using the Research Database Management
System (RDMQ), a Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program.  RDMQ provides a unified set of
quality assured data, including flags for each data point that can be used to evaluate the usability
of the data. Statistical summaries of annual concentrations are generated by the program and
used as input into an atmospheric loading calculation. The loadings calculation is described in
detail in the Technical Summary referenced below. However, calculating loadings requires
additional data and constants that introduce further error. Therefore, the averaged annual
concentrations rather than the loadings are used in the performance measure. Concentrations can
vary from year to year due to differences in weather (temperature, wind patterns, etc.), so
comparing concentrations from one year to the next is not always appropriate. This performance
measure examines the average percent decline for the long-term trend determined using an
exponential decrease function. Each year the average percent decline is calculated after adding
new data.  A baseline percent decrease was determined using data through 2000, and the aim is
that this rate of decrease will continue.

QA/QC Procedures:  GLNPO has a Quality Management  System in place, which conforms to
the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal
policy for Quality Management (see reference #2 below). Quality Assurance Project Plans are in
place for the laboratory grantee, as well as for the network as a whole. A jointly-funded QA
contractor conducts laboratory and field  audits, tracks QA statistics, and carries out special QA
studies. Data from all contributing agencies are quality-controlled using the SAS-based system.

Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been evaluated as
"outstanding" in previous peer and management reviews3 (see reference #3 below). GLNPO has
implemented all recommendations from  these external audits and complies with Agency Quality
Standards4 (see reference #4 below). The IADN program has a joint Canadian-US quality
system and binational  Steering Committee that meets periodically in person or via conference
calls to make  decisions on network operation and data management and quality.

A regular set of laboratory and field blanks is taken and recorded for comparison to the IADN
field samples. In addition, a suite of chemical surrogates and internal standards is used
extensively in the analyses.  A jointly-funded QA contractor conducts laboratory and field audits,
tracks QA statistics, and carries out special QA studies.  As previously mentioned, data from all
contributing agencies are quality-controlled using a SAS-based system.
                                          149

-------
Data Limitations: The sampling design is dominated by rural sites that under-emphasize urban
contributions to deposition; thus, although the data are very useful for trends information, there is
less assurance of the representativeness of deposition to the whole lake. U.S. and Canadian
laboratories use somewhat different sampling and analytical methods; QA studies have found
that differences in resulting data are attributable mostly to the sampling differences.  There are
gaps in open lake water column organics data, thus limiting our ability to calculate atmospheric
loadings. This gap is being addressed through the recent implementation by GLNPO of the
Great Lakes Aquatic Contaminant Surveillance (GLACS) program, which will collect water
contaminant data in the Lakes.

In the past, there has been a lag in the data from the Canadian sites (Burnt Island on Lake Huron
and Point Petre on Lake Ontario). U.S. data is usually reported two years after it is collected
(i.e., 2002 data was reported in 2004); the Canadian data may not be available on this schedule.

Error estimate: The performance measure examines the long-term trend in concentrations.
Concentrations have an error of+/- 40%, usually less. Differences between laboratories have
been found to be 40% or less.  This is outstanding given the very low levels of these pollutants in
the air and the difficulty in analysis.  Improvements in quality assurance (use of a clean lab for
Canadian precipitation analysis, making calibration standards consistent among agencies, etc.)
are helping to further close this gap.

New/Improved Data or Systems: GLNPO expects to post joint data that has passed quality
review to < http://binational.net/ >, a joint international Web Site,  and to the IADN Web  Site at <
www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/ >. Copies of IADN data are now held in  U.S. and Canadian databases.
Efforts are being made to be able to streamline data requests through the National Atmospheric
Chemistry Database (NAtChem), which includes atmospheric data from many North American
networks. Environment Canada management is working to reduce the data lag from the
Canadian IADN stations.

References:
1.    "Great    Lakes   National   Program   Office   Indicators.      Air   Indicators."
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/air.html

Details of these analyses can be found in the Laboratory Protocol Manuals or the agency project
plans,    which    can    be     found    on    the     IADN    resource    page     at
http ://www. epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/air/iadn/iadn.html

Overall results of the project can be found in  "Technical Summary of Progress under the
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Program 1990-1996" and the  "Technical Summary of
Progress under the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network 1997-2002". Both (as well as
the Atmospheric Loadings reports) can be found on the IADN resource page.

2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
                                          150

-------
3.  "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.

4.  "Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network Quality Assurance Program Plan - Revision 1.1.
Environment Canada and USEPA.  June 29, 2001. Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Cumulative total of Areas of Concern within the Great Lakes Basin that have been
    restored and delisted

Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative total Areas of Concern (AOC) and post that information
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html> Forty-three AOCs have been identified: 26 located
entirely within the United States; 12 located wholly within Canada; and five that are shared by
both countries. Since 1987, GLNPO has tracked the 31 that are within the US or shared;
however, none of these are currently restored  and delisted.  Information is reported on a calendar
year basis, however the system is being designed for semi-annual or more frequent updates.

Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with Great Lakes States, the  US
Department of State and the International Joint Commission (IJC).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office is in
regular communication with the Great Lakes States, the US Department of State and the IJC, and
is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the de-listing of AOCs. Generally speaking, under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, an AOC is an area in the Great Lakes determined to
have significant beneficial use impairments, such as restrictions on fish and wildlife
consumption, fish tumors, eutrophication, beach closings,  added costs to agriculture or industry.
In 1989, the IJC established a review process  and developed AOC listing/deli sting criteria
(http://www.ijc.org/rel/boards/annex2/buis.htmttablel) for existing and future AOCs. In 2001,
the U.S. Policy Committee, led by GLNPO and including  State, Tribal, and Federal agencies
responsible for Great Lakes environmental issues, developed delisting guidelines for domestic
AOCs (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html) and for the binational AOCs  shared by
Michigan and Ontario http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html - appendix 5).

QA/QC Procedures:  GLNPO has  an approved Quality Management System in place1 (see
reference #1 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited
every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.

Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given "outstanding"
evaluations in previous peer and management reviews2 (see reference #2) below. GLNPO has
implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality
standards.
                                         151

-------
Data Limitations: None known.

Error Estimate: None.

New/Improved Data or Systems: NA

References:
GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system once there are any de-listed
U.S. or binational Areas of Concern. Information regarding Areas of Concern is currently
available online at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html

    1.   "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-
       02-009.  October 2002, Approved April 2003.

    2.   "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
       National Program Office files.


FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Cubic yards of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes remediated (cumulative
    from 1997)

Performance Database:  Data tracking sediment remediation are compiled in two different
formats. The first is  a matrix that shows the annual and cumulative totals of contaminated
sediment that was remediated in the Great Lakes basin in the reporting year and from 1997 for
each Area of Concern or other non-Areas of Concern with sediment remediation.  The second
format depicts the yearly totals on a calendar year basis graphically. These databases are
reported approximately one year after the completion of work.

Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data from various State and Federal
project managers across the Great Lakes region that conduct and coordinate contaminated
sediments work. These data are obtained directly from the project manager via an information
fact sheet the project manager completes for any site in the Great Lakes basin that has performed
any remedial work on contaminated sediment. The project manager also indicates whether an
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was used in the collection of data at the site.
GLNPO does not accept unsolicited data without adequate assurance that a QAPP was in place
and the reporters of the data are not likely to be biased.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The data collected to track sediment remediation in
the Great Lakes show the amount of sediment remediated (dredged, capped, other) for that year,
the amount of sediment remediated in prior years, and the amount of sediment remaining to be
addressed for a particular site. This format is suitable for year-to-year comparisons for
individual sites.
                                         152

-------
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO relies on the individual government/agency project managers to
provide information on whether an approved QAPP was in place during remediation of
contaminated sediment. This information is used to decide if the data provided by the project
manager are reliable for GLNPO reporting purposes. If an approved QAPP was not used,
sediment data would not likely be reported by GLNPO, unless GLNPO finds that alternative
information is available that provides sufficient quality documentation for the project and
associated data. This approach allows GLNPO to use best professional judgment and flexibility
in reporting data from any cases where there was not a  QAPP, but (a) the remedial action is
noteworthy and (b) the project was conducted by recognized entities using widely accepted best
practices and operating procedures.

The tracking database houses information on the calculated amount of sediment remediated at
individual sites as provided by the project managers. The individual site project managers are
responsible for completing the data request forms, reviewing draft figures to verify that the
GLNPO project manager transferred the data correctly, and providing any updated or improved
estimates.  It is GLNPO's responsibility to determine if the data are usable based upon the
information sheet provided by the project managers.  GLNPO does not attempt to verify mass
and volume estimates due to the variability in how to calculate them.  GLNPO ensures that the
estimates provided make sense for the site, and that all  estimates are reported in the  same units.
GLNPO management and Sediment Team members review the data, in the graphic and matrix
formats, prior to reporting.  GLNPO's Sediment Team works closely with partners and has
confidence in those who provide data for the summary  statistics. This familiarity with partners
and general knowledge of ongoing projects allows GLNPO management to detect mistakes or
questionable data.
Data Quality Review: The data, in both the graphic and matrix formats, are reviewed by
individual project managers, GLNPO's Sediment Team, and management prior to being
released. Data quality review procedures are outlined in the QAPP referenced below. GLNPO's
Quality Management System has been given "outstanding" evaluations in previous peer and
management reviews. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits
and complies with Agency Quality Standards.

Data Limitations: The data provided in the sediment tracking database should be used as a tool
to track sediment remediation progress at sites across the Great Lakes. Many of the totals for
sediment remediation are estimates provided by project managers. For specific data uses,
individual project managers should be contacted to provide additional information.

Error Estimate: The amount of sediment remediated or yet to be addressed should be viewed as
estimated data. A specific error estimate is not available.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Existing tracking systems are anticipated to remain in place.

References:
1.  Giancarlo Ross, M.B.  Quality Assurance Project Plan for " Great Lakes Sediment
Remediation Project Summary Support." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes  National
                                         153

-------
Program Office files.

2. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Matrix". Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.

3.  Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Pie Charts ". Unpublished - in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.

4. Giancarlo Ross, M.B.  "Compilation of Project Managers Informational Sheets". Unpublished
- in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in the Chesapeake Bay

Performance Database: SAV acres in Chesapeake Bay.  Total acres surveyed and estimated
additional acres from 1978 through 2004, excluding the years  1979-1983  and  1988 when no
surveys were conducted. The FY 2007 Annual Performance Report for this measure will be
based on the results of the survey conducted the previous calendar year (2006). We expect to
receive the preliminary survey results for calendar year 2006 in March 2007.

Data Source: Virginia Institute  of Marine Sciences provides the data (via an  EPA Chesapeake
Bay Program (CBP) grant to Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences). EPA has confidence in the
third party data and believes the data are accurate and reliable  based on QA/QC procedures
described below.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The SAV survey is  a general monitoring program,
conducted to optimize precision and accuracy in characterizing annually the status and trends of
SAV in tidal portions of the Chesapeake Bay. The general plan is to follow fixed flight routes
over shallow water areas of the Bay, to comprehensively survey all tidal shallow water areas of
the Bay and its tidal tributaries. Non-tidal areas are omitted from the survey.  SAV beds less
than 1  square meter are not included due to the limits of the photography  and interpretation.
Annual monitoring began in 1978 and is ongoing. Methods are described in the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) on file for the EPA grant and at the VIMS web site
(http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/).

QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance project plan for the EPA grant to the Virginia Institute
of Marine Sciences describes data collection, analysis, and management methods.  This is on file
at the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office. The VIMS web  site at
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/ provides this information as well.  Metadata are included with the
data set posted at the VIMS web  site (http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/metadata/recent.html).

Data Quality Reviews: This indicator has undergone extensive technical and peer review by
state, Federal and non-government organization partner members of the SAV  workgroup and the
Living Resources subcommittee. Data collection, data analysis and QA/QC are conducted by the
principal investigators/scientists.  The data are peer reviewed  by  scientists on the workgroup.
                                          154

-------
Data selection and interpretation, the presentation of the indicator, along with all supporting
information and conclusions, are arrived at via consensus by the scientists and resource manager
members of the workgroup.  The workgroup presents the indicator to the subcommittee where
extensive peer review by Bay Program managers occurs.

There have been no data deficiencies identified in external reviews

Data Limitations:  Due to funding constraints, there were no surveys in the years 1979-1983
and 1988.  Spatial gaps in 1999 occurred due to hurricane disturbance and subsequent inability to
reliably photograph SAV. Spatial gaps in 2001 occurred due to post-nine-eleven flight
restrictions near Washington D.C. Spatial gaps in 2003 occurred due to adverse weather in the
spring and summer and Hurricane Isabel in the fall.

Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Some technical improvements (e.g., photointerpretation
tools) were made over the 22 years of the annual SAV survey in Chesapeake Bay.

References:
See Chesapeake Bay SAV special reports at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreports.html and
bibliography at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savchespub.html.  The SAV distribution data files
are located at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savdata.html and also at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/88-data-2002.xls. The SAV indicator is
published at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=88.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •   Reduce nitrogen loads entering Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels (2002 Baseline: 51
       million pounds/year reduced)
   •   Reduce phosphorus loads entering Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels (2002
       Baseline: 8 million pounds/year reduced)
   •   Reduce sediment loads entering Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels (2002 Baseline:
       0.8 million tons/year reduced)

Performance Database:  Nutrient and Sediment Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. The
Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls. Data have been collected in
1985, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and are expected on an annual basis after 2003.  There is a two
year data lag. Load data are from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of NY, MD, PA, VA, WV,
DE, and DC.

The FY 2007 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
2005 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2005 in January 2007.

Data Source: State/district data are provided to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for input
into the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model.
                                          155

-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data are of high quality.  Data are consolidated by
watershed boundaries at the state level and provided to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for
input into the watershed model.

What is the Watershed Model?

A lumped parameter Fortran based model (HSPF) that mimics the effects of hydrology, nutrient
inputs, and air deposition on land and outputs runoff, groundwater, nutrients and sediment to
receiving waters.  Ten years of simulation are used and averaged to develop the reduction effects
of a given set of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Using a ten-year average of actual
weather (hydrologic, temperature, wind, etc.) ensures wet, dry and average conditions for each
season are included. The effectiveness of the model is dependent upon the quality of the
assumptions, BMPs and landuse descriptions used. The model is calibrated extensively to real-
time monitoring, outside peer review and continual updates as better information, data collection
and computer processing power become available.

What are the input data?

The model takes meteorological inputs such as precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration,
wind speed, solar radiation, dewpoint, and cloud cover to drive the hydrologic simulation.  The
changes in nutrient outputs are primarily determined by such factors as land use acreage, BMPs,
fertilizer, manure, atmospheric deposition, point sources,  and septic loads.

BMPs:  Watershed Model BMPs include all nutrient reduction activities tracked by the
jurisdictions for which a source has been identified, cataloged and assigned an efficiency.
Efficiencies are based on literature review, recommendations of the appropriate source
workgroup and approved by the Nutrient Subcommittee.  It is the responsibility of the
jurisdictions to track and report all nutrient reduction activities within their borders and maintain
documentation to support submissions.

Land use acreage is determined by combining analyses of satellite imagery and county-based
databases for agricultural activities and human population.  Fertilizer is  determined by estimated
application rates by crops and modified by the application of nutrient management BMPs.
Manure applications are determined by an analysis of animal data from the census of agriculture.

Atmospheric deposition is determined by an analysis of National Atmospheric Deposition
Program (NADP) deposition data and modified by scenarios of the Regional Acid Deposition
Model.  Point Source loads are determined from Discharge Monitoring Reports.  Septic loads are
estimated in a study commissioned by the CBP.

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/1127.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/114.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/112.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
                                           156

-------
What are the model outputs?

The watershed model puts out daily flows and nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads for
input to the water quality model of the Chesapeake Bay.  The daily loads are averaged over a 10-
year hydrologic period (1985-1994) to report an average annual load to the Bay.  The effect of
flow is removed from the load calculations.

What are the model assumptions?

BMPs: Model assumptions are based on three conditions: knowledge, data availability and
computing power. The ability to alter what is used in the watershed model is a function of the
impact the change would have on calibration. In many cases there is new information, data or
methodologies that would improve the model, but changes are not possible because of the impact
on the current calibration.

Changes in manure handling, feed additives, new BMPs and some assumptions could be
incorporated into the model without impacting the calibration. In these cases, the changes were
made.

Other input assumptions, such as multiple manure application levels, increasing the number and
redefining some land uses, defining new nutrient or sediment sources, adjusting for varying
levels of management (range of implementation levels) are items scheduled for incorporation in
the new model update (2005).

Input assumptions are documented in the above publications.  Assumptions of the actual model
code are in the HSPF documentation:
ftp://water.usgs.gov/pub/software/surface_water/hspf/doc/hspfhelp.zip

Data are collected from states and local governments programs. Methods are described at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data/index.htm, (refer to CBP  Watershed Model Scenario Output
Database, Phase 4.3).  For more information contact Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov or
Jeff Sweeney j sweeney@chesapeakebay.net

QA/QC Procedures:  State offices have documentation of the design, construction and
maintenance of the databases used for the performance measures, showing they conform to
existing U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA/NRCS) technical standards and specifications for nonpoint source data and EPA's
Permit Compliance System (PCS) standards for point source data.  State offices also have
documentation of implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) based on USDA NRCS
standards and specification and the Chesapeake Bay Program's protocols and guidance.  BMPs
are traditionally used to reduce pollutant loads coming from nonpoint sources such as
urban/suburban runoff, agriculture, and forestry activities.

References include: the USDA NRCS Technical Guide and Appendix H from the Chesapeake
Bay Program (contact Russ Mader at mader.russ@epa.gov or Kate Hopkins at
hopkins.kate@epa.gov).  Quality assurance program plans are available in each state office.
                                         157

-------
Data Quality Reviews: All data are reviewed and approved by the individual jurisdictions
before input to the watershed model.  QA/QC is also performed on the input data to ensure basic
criteria, such as not applying a BMP at a higher level than allowed. A specific level of input
should yield output within a specified range of values.  Output is reviewed by both the CBPO
staff and the Tributary Strategy Workgroup as an additional level of QA/QC. Any values out of
the expected range is analyzed and understood before approval and public release.  The model
itself is given a quarterly peer review by an outside independent group of experts. There have
been no data deficiencies identified in external reviews.

Data Limitations: Data collected from voluntary collection programs are not included in the
database, even though they may be valid and reliable. The only data submitted by state and local
governments to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office are data that are required for reporting
under the cost share and regulatory programs. State and local governments are aware that
additional data collection efforts are being conducted by non-governmental organizations,
however, they are done independently of the cost share programs and are not reported.

Error Estimate:  There may be errors of omission, misclassification, incorrect georeferencing,
misdocumentation or mistakes in the processing of data.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The next version of the watershed model is currently under
development and will be completed in 2006.  The new version (phase 5) will have increased
spatial resolution and ability to model the effects of management practices. The phase 5
watershed model is a joint project with cooperating state and Federal agencies. Contact Gary
Shenk gshenk@chesapeakebay.net or see the web site at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/phase5.htm

References:
See http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data/index.htm, refer to CBP Watershed Model Scenario
Output Database, Phase 4.3.  Contact Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov or Jeff Sweeney
j sweeney@chesapeakebay.net
The nutrient and sediment loads delivered to the Bay indicator are published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=l86. The nutrient and sediment loads delivered to
the Bay data files used in the indicator are  located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/!86-data-2003.xls.  See "Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model Application and Calculation of Nutrient and Sediment Loadings, Appendix H:
Tracking Best Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in the Chesapeake Bay Program, A
Report of the Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee", USEPA Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD, August 1998, available at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
See    USDA     NRCS     Field     Office     Technical     Guide     available     at
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/
FY 2007 Performance Measures:
                                          158

-------
•  Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems so that overall aquatic system
   health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico is improved on the "good/fair/poor" scale
   of the National Coastal Condition Report

•  Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin to reduce the size
   of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico

Performance Database:  (1) Louisiana Coastal Hypoxia Shelfwide Survey metadata (data
housed at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Data Center, Silver
Spring, Maryland). Funds for this research are provided by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program (NOAA/COP)

(2) Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) - Gulf surveys.

The data used in assessing performance under this measure have been collected annually on a
calendar year basis since 1982.

Data Source:  (1) Hydrographic data are collected during annual surveys of the Louisiana
continental shelf.  Nutrient, pigment and station information data are also acquired.  The
physical, biological and chemical data collected are part of a long-term coastal Louisiana dataset.
The goal is to understand physical and biological processes that contribute to the causes of
hypoxia and use the data to support environmental models for use by  resource managers.

(2) The Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) is a
state/Federal/university program for collection, management and dissemination of fishery-
independent data and information in the southeastern United States.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The distribution of hypoxia on the Louisiana shelf has
been mapped annually in mid-summer (usually late July to early August) over a standard 60- to
80- station grid since 1985.  During the shelfwide cruise, data are collected along transects from
the mouth of the Mississippi River to the Texas border. Information is collected on a wide range
of parameters,  including conductivity/temperature/depth (CTD), light penetration, dissolved
oxygen, suspended solids, nutrients, phytoplankton, and chlorophyll.  Hydrographic, chemical,
and biological  data also are collected from two transects of Terrebonne Bay on a monthly basis,
and bimonthly, off Atchafalaya Bay.  There is a single moored instrument array in 20-m water
depth in the core of the hypoxic zone that collects vertical conductivity/temperature data, as well
as near-surface, mid, and near-bottom oxygen data; an upward directed Acoustic Doppler
Current Profiler (ADCP) on the seabed measures direction and speed  of currents from the seabed
to the surface.  There is also an assortment of nutrient and light meters.

Station depths  on the cruises range from 3.25 to 52.4 meters. Northern end stations of transects
are chosen based on the survey vessel's minimum depth limits for each longitude.

Standard data collections include hydrographic profiles for temperature, salinity, dissolved
oxygen, and optical properties. Water samples for chlorophyll a and phaeopigments, nutrients,
                                          159

-------
salinity, suspended sediment, and phytoplankton community composition are collected from the
surface, near-bottom, and variable middle depths.
The objective is to delimit and describe the area of midsummer bottom dissolved oxygen less
than 2 (mg. L).

Details of data collection and methodology are provided in referenced reports.

QA/QC Procedures: NOAA does not require written QA/QC procedures or a Quality
Management Plan; however, the procedures related to data collection are covered in metadata
files.

The SEAMAP Data Management System (DMS) conforms to the SEAMAP Gulf and South
Atlantic DMS Requirements Document developed through a cooperative effort between National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and other SEAMAP participants.

Data Quality Reviews: (1) Essential components of the environmental monitoring program in
the Gulf of Mexico include efforts to document the temporal and spatial extent of shelf hypoxia,
and to collect basic hydrographic, chemical and biological data related to the development of
hypoxia over seasonal cycles. All data collection protocols and data are presented to and
reviewed by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force (the Task
Force) in support of the adaptive management approach as outlined in the Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (the Action
Plan).

(2) Biological and environmental data from all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys are included in the
SEAMAP Information System, managed in conjunction with National Marine Fisheries Service
- Southeast Fisheries Science Center (NMFS-SEFSC). Raw data are edited by the  collecting
agency and verified by the SEAMAP Data Manager prior to entry into the system. Data from all
SEAMAP-Gulf surveys during  1982-2003 have been entered into the system, and data from
2004 surveys are in the process of being verified, edited, and entered for storage and retrieval.

Data Limitations: Monitoring for shelf-wide conditions are currently performed each year
primarily, but not exclusively, in July.  The spatial boundaries of some monitoring efforts are
limited by resource availability. Experience with the datasets has shown that when data are
plotted or used in further analysis, outlying values may occasionally be discovered.

Error Estimate^ (1) The manufacturers state +/- 0.2mg/L as the error allowance for both
SeaBird and Hydrolab oxygen sensors.

References:
Mississippi  River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient  Task  force.2001.  Action  Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern  Gulf of Mexico. Washington,
DC.

Rabalais N.N., R.E. Turner, Dubravko Justic, Quay Dortch, and WJ. Wiseman.  1999.
Characterization of Hypoxia.  Topic 1 Report for the Integrated assessment on Hypoxia in the
                                          160

-------
Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 15. Silver Spring
Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Hendee, J.C. 1994. Data management for the nutrient enhanced coastal ocean productivity
program. Estuaries 17:900-3

Rabalais, Nancy N., WJ. Wiseman Jr., R.E. Turner ; Comparison of continuous records of near-
bottom dissolved oxygen from the hypoxia zone of Louisiana. Estuaries 19:386-407

SEAMAP Information System http://www.gsmfc.org/sis.html

                               GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 5

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •  Identification and evaluation of  in silico, biochemical and molecular indicators that
      can be used to validate the predictiveness of high through put tools for categorizing
      potential  for toxicity for  a subset of well studied chemicals such as food  use
      pesticides

   •  Improved  risk assessment  tools and  characterization  of   ecological  risks  of
      genetically modified crops

   •  Conduct numerical air quality simulations using as input regional climate modeling,
      emissions modeling, and driver scenarios

   •  Final Air Quality Criteria Document (AQCD) for Lead which serves as the basis for
      the  EPA/OAQPS staff paper for the National Ambient  Air Quality Standard
      (NAAQS)

   •  Complete 16 human health assessments of high priority chemicals for interagency
      review  or  external peer  review, including acrylonitrile, methanol,  methylene
      chloride, trichloroethylene, and dioxin for interagency review

   •  Improved protocols for screening and testing (PART Measure)

   •  Effects and exposure milestones met (PART Measure)

   •  Assessment milestones met (PART Measure)

   •  Risk management milestones met  (PART Measure)

   •  Provide guidance documents, journal articles or  models to support efficient and
      effective outdoor  clean-ups  and safe  disposal of  decontamination wastes after
      chemical, biological, or radiological terrorist attacks. These materials can  be used
      by emergency and remedial response personnel, and building and facility managers
                                        161

-------
   •  Generate emergency/laboratory capacity documents,  guidance or other tools to
      improve the standardization of methods and/or safety of personnel involved with the
      collection or  analysis of environmental  samples generated during  a nationally
      significant

   •  Test and evaluate homeland security-related technologies and produce a technology
      evaluation  report  for each.  The  reports will contain  detailed  performance
      information that can be used by emergency and remedial response personnel, water
      utility operators, and building and facility managers for selecting technologies for
      purchase and for deployment in protecting against or recovering from a chemical,
      biological, or radiological terrorist

   •  Provide products, such as monitoring systems, journal  articles,  analytical methods,
      and detectors, to enhance the security of water systems (through early detection of a
      contamination attack of a water system) and prepare for a terrorist attack on water
      system (through improved  analytical techniques and  response  techniques for
      treatment of the water and decontamination of the infrastructure). Intended for use
      by water utilities, first responders and Local, State and Federal Government

   •  Evaluate relevant health and risk-related information and data and summarize into
      usable tools, such as applied risk assessment methodologies, guidance, and journal
      articles, to support risk assessors and other decision-makers in the rapid assessment
      of  risk and the determination of  cleanup  goals and  procedures following the
      contamination of buildings/facilities, water distribution  systems or outdoor areas
      with chemical, biological or radiological agents as a result of a terrorist

Performance Database: Program outputs.

Data Source: Internal tracking system, the Integrated Management Resources System (IMRS).

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures:  N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate:  N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References:  N/A

FY 2007 Performance Measure:
                                        162

-------
   •   Number of states using a common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to
       determine the  status and trends of ecological resources and the effectiveness of
       national programs and policies (PART measure)

Performance Database: Internal Regional EPA tracking system; Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) database for public access. The internal tracking database is for
partners in twenty-three states.  These data have not undergone QA and are works-in-progress.
The public database, on the other hand, contains all information that has completed QA and has
been made public in the National Coastal Condition Report.

Data  Source:   Survey  responses from coastal states that have adopted a standard protocol for
monitoring the ecological  condition of estuaries;  including, probabilistic sampling  designs,
response designs for indicators, laboratory analyses, statistical analyses and reporting formats.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  EPA has a cooperative agreement with twenty-three
states to conduct the National Coastal Assessment Monitoring survey. As part of the National
Coastal Assessment (NCA) Quality Assurance Program, participating states are trained on the
application of the  probability-based  sampling design  and  standardized methods required for
sample collection.

QA/QC  Procedures:  Each  State  or  Cooperative Agreement recipient participates  in an
extensive, three-level QA  review process outlined in  the  Quality  Assurance Project Plan
coordinated by EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic
Ecology Division (AED).

Data  Quality Reviews:   The NCA Program monitors and assesses the quality of the data
collected.  To ensure a high quality data set,  states  collect a suite of field data for laboratory
analysis. The states may elect to forward the samples  to a national contract laboratory  or conduct
the analytical analyses  themselves. The results of the field and laboratory analyses  are sent to
AED for incorporation into an internal EPA regional database.

Data Limitations:  N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  EPA anticipates by 2007, all states will  have adopted and
implemented the  National Coastal Assessment Monitoring  survey.   Improvements in the
management of contracts, coordination of the shipment of samples, and distribution of resulting
data are now performed by EPA to give states without capability opportunity to partner with the
agency.

References:
                                          163

-------
US EPA. 2000. Coastal 2000 Northeast Component Information Management Plan. Office of
Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI.

US EPA. 2001. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): National Coastal
Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan, 2001-2004. EPA/620/R-01/002. Office of Research
and Development,  National Health and  Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,  Gulf
Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.

US EPA. 2001 National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-620/R-01/005. Office of Research and
Development & Office of Water, Washington, DC.

US EPA. 2005.  National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002.  Office of Research
and Development & Office of Water, Washington, DC.

US EPA. 2005. National Coastal Condition Report II. Appendix A - Quality Assurance, pp. 259-
264. EPA-620/R-03/002.  Office of Research and Development & Office of Water, Washington,
DC.

US EPA. 2005. National Coastal Condition Report II. Appendix B - Three-Level QA Review of
Coastal  2000 Northeast Database, pp. 265-266. EPA-620/R-03/002.  Office of Research and
Development & Office of Water, Washington, DC.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:

   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of public health outcomes long-
      term goal  (PART Measure)

   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of mechanistic data long-term
      goal  (PART Measure)

   •  Percentage of planned outcputs delivered in support of the aggregate and
      cumulative risk long-term goal  (PART Measure)

   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the susceptible
      subpopulations long-term goal  (PART Measure)

   •  Average time (in days) to process research grant proposals from RFA closure to
      submittal to EPA's Grants Administration Division, while maintaining a credible
      and efficient competitive merit review system (as evaluated by external expert
      review)  (PART Measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking systems.
                                        164

-------
Data Source: N/A

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures: N/A

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate:  N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References:  N/A

                              GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 1


VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •  Percentage of concluded enforcement cases (including SEPs) requiring that
      pollution be reduced, treated, or eliminated

   •  Pounds of pollution estimated to  be  reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of
      concluded enforcement actions

   •  Percentage of concluded enforcement cases (including SEPs) requiring
      implementation of improved environmental management practices

   •  Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved
      environmental management practices as a result of concluded enforcement actions
      (i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs)

   •  Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audit agreements

Performance Databases: The Integrated Compliance Information System, (ICIS), which tracks
EPA civil enforcement (e.g., judicial and administrative) actions. The Criminal Case Reporting
System (CCRS), the new enhanced database for tracking criminal enforcement actions, will track
the criminal  enforcement components of the pollution reduction and improved environmental
management measures and,  conjunction  with  ICIS, will  track  the  criminal  enforcement
recidivism measure.

Data Source: Most of the essential data on environmental results in ICIS are collected through
data developed originally through the use  of the Case Conclusion Data Sheet (CCDS), which


                                        165

-------
Agency staff begin preparing after the conclusion of each  civil  (judicial and administrative)
enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS in 1996 to capture relevant information on the
results and environmental benefits of concluded enforcement cases.  The information generated
through the CCDS is used to track progress for several of the performance measures.  The CCDS
form consists of 27 specific questions which, when completed, describe specifics of the case; the
facility involved; information on how the case was concluded; the compliance actions required to
be  taken  by  the  defendant(s); the  costs  involved;  information  on any  Supplemental
Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the settlement; the amounts and types of any
penalties assessed;  and any costs recovered through the action,  if applicable.  The  CCDS
documents whether the facility/defendant, through injunctive relief, must:  (1) reduce pollutants;
and (2) improve management  practices to  curtail, eliminate  or better monitor and  handle
pollutants in the future. The Criminal Enforcement Program also maintains a separate case
conclusion data form  and  system  for compiling and  quantifying  the results  of criminal
enforcement prosecution, including pollution reduction and the percentage of concluded criminal
enforcement  cases  requiring improved environmental management  practices.   The revised
criminal enforcement case conclusion form will be used in FY06.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  For enforcement actions which result  in pollution
reductions, the staff estimate the amounts of pollution reduced for an immediately implemented
improvement, or an average  year once a long-term solution is in  place.   There are established
procedures for the staff to calculate, by statute, (e.g., Clean Water Act), the pollutant reductions
or eliminations.  The procedure first entails the determination of the difference between the
current Aout of compliances  quantity of pollutants released and the post enforcement action Ain
compliances  quantity of pollutants released.  This difference is then converted into standard
units of measure.

QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures [See references] are in
place for both the CCDS and ICIS entry. There are a Case Conclusion Data Sheet Training
Booklet [See references] and a Case Conclusion Data Sheet Quick Guide [See references], both
of which have been distributed throughout Regional and Headquarters= (HQ) offices. The
criminal enforcement program has prepared a companion guide for use by its field agents.
Separate CCDS Calculation and Completion Checklists [See references] are required to be filled
out at the time the CCDS is completed.  Criminal enforcement measures are quality assured by
the program at the end of the fiscal year.

Quality Management Plans (QMPs)  are  prepared for  each  Office  within  The  Office  of
Enforcement  and Compliance  Assurance (OECA). OC=s QMP,  effective  for 5 years, was
approved July 29, 2003 by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) and is required to be
re-approved in 2008. OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual executive certification of
the overall accuracy of ICIS information to satisfy the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA), the Agency's information  quality  guidelines, and other significant enforcement and
compliance policies on performance measurement.  In  addition, in FY 2003, the Office  of
Compliance (OC)  established  extensive  processes for  ensuring timely input,  review and
certification of ICIS information. OC implements this process on a quarterly basis to assure a
high level of quality of the data in the ICIS data system.
                                          166

-------
Data Quality Review: Information contained in the CCDS and ICIS are required by policy to
be reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy. ICIS data is
reviewed quarterly and reviewed and certified at mid-year and end-of-year.

Data Limitations:  The pollutant reductions or eliminations reported on the CCDS are estimates
of what will be achieved if the defendant carries out the requirements of the settlement.
Information on expected outcomes of state enforcement is not available. The estimates are based
on information available at the time a case is settled or an order is issued. In some instances, this
information will be developed and entered after the settlement, during continued discussions
over specific plans for compliance.  Because of the time it takes to agree on the compliance
actions, there may be a delay in completing the CCDS. Additionally, because of unknowns at
the time of settlement, different levels of technical proficiency, or the nature of a case, OECA=s
expectation is that based on information on the CCDS, the overall amounts of pollutant
reductions/eliminations will be prudently underestimated.

Error Estimate: Not available

New & Improved Data  or  Systems:   In November 2000, EPA  completed a comprehensive
guidance package on the preparation  of the Case Conclusion Data Sheet.  This guidance, issued
to headquarters= and regional managers and staff, was made available in print and CD-ROM,
and was supplemented in  FY 2002 [See references].  The guidance contains work examples to
ensure  better calculation of the  amounts of pollutants reduced or eliminated through concluded
enforcement actions.  EPA trained each of its ten  regional offices during FY  2002.  OC=s
Quality Management Plan was approved by OEI July 29, 2003, and is effective for five years.
[See references]. A new criminal enforcement case management, tracking and reporting system
(Criminal  Case Reporting System) will  come  on line  during  FY 2006 that will  replace the
existing criminal docket (CREVIDOC). This new system allows for a more user friendly database
and greater tracking, management, and reporting capabilities.

In FY 2006, a new version of the ICIS data system, ICIS 2.0,  will become operational. The new
data system will have all of the functionality of old ICIS (ICIS 1.0) but will also: a) add some
functionality for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities and b) become the
database of record for the  Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program, including  all federal and state  enforcement, compliance and
permitting data. (States will be migrated in waves over to ICIS 2.0 from the predecessor data
system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS), over a  period of about two years.)

References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life Cycle
Management Guidance, (IRM Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994, reference Chapter
17 for Life Cycle Management). Case Conclusion Data Sheets: Case Conclusion Data Sheet,
Training Booklet, issued November 2000 available:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning/caseconc.pdf: Quick Guide for
Case Conclusion Data Sheet, issued November 2000.  Information Quality Strategy and OC=s
Quality Management Plans: Final Enforcement and Compliance Data Quality Strategy, and
Description of FY 2002 Data  Quality  Strategy Implementation Plan Projects,  signed March 25,
2002. ICIS: U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, ICIS Phase I,
                                         167

-------
implemented June 2002. Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the
public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Criminal Enforcement Division Case
Conclusion

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

    •   Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site
       compliance inspections and evaluations

Performance Databases: ICIS and manual reporting by regions

Data Sources: EPA regional offices and Office of Civil Enforcement (specifically, the Clean
Air Act (CAA)- Mobile Source program) and Office of Compliance - Agriculture Division.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: A new measurement tool, the Inspection Conclusion
Data Sheet, (ICDS) will be used to analyze results from inspections/evaluations conducted under
some of EPA=s major statutes.  EPA will analyze data on the three pieces of information from
the ICDS: on-site actions taken by facilities, deficiencies observed, and compliance assistance
provided. The inspectors complete the Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS) for each
inspection or evaluation subject to ICDS reporting and the information is either entered into ICIS
or reported manually by the Regions and HQ programs.

QA/QC Procedures: ICIS has been developed per Office of Information Management
Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data validation processes, internal  screen audit
checks and verification, system and user documents, data quality audit reports, third party testing
reports, and detailed report specifications for showing how data are calculated.

Data Quality Review: Regional manual reports are reviewed  and checked against the
inspection or evaluation data entered into other Agency databases (Air Facilities Subsystem
(AFS), Permit Compliance System (PCS), Online Tracking Information System (OTIS),
Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA)). Manual reports are also checked against
ICIS if the Region entered the manual reported inspections/evaluations into that system.
Information contained in the CCDS, ICDS and ICIS are required by policy to be reviewed by
regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy.  In FY2003, OECA instituted a
requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of information to
satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant
enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement. ICIS data are reviewed
quarterly and certified at mid-year and end of year.

Data Limitations: Through FY 2005, ICIS is the database of record for only CAA 112(r)
inspections and audits.  Beginning in FY 2006, ICIS becomes the databases  of record for all
inspections that are not reported into one of the other legacy data bases (with the exception of the
reporting by a couple of Regions' Underground Injection Control (UIC) inspections). The legacy
databases into which certain program's inspections will continue to be reported are AFS, PCS,
RCRAInfo, and NCDB/FTTS. Regions  are encouraged to use ICIS specifically for ICDS
                                         168

-------
reporting, for all inspection programs. This may result in redundant, incomplete, or contradictory
data.

New & Improved Data or Systems:  In FY 2006, a new version of the ICIS data system, ICIS
2.0, will become operational. The new data system will have all of the functionality of old ICIS
(ICIS  1.0)  but will   also:  a)  add some  functionality for tracking EPA enforcement and
compliance activities and b) become the database of record for the Clean Water Act (CWA)
national Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) program, including all federal and
state enforcement, compliance and permitting data. (States will be migrating in waves over to
ICIS 2.0 from the predecessor data system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS), over a period
of about two years.)

References: ICIS: U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, ICIS Phase I,
implemented June 2002. Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the
public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

   •   Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA
       reporting that they improved environmental management practices as a result of
       EPA assistance

   •   Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct assistance from EPA reporting that
       they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA  assistance
Performance Database: EPA Headquarters and Regions will manage data on regulated entities
receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA through ICIS.

Data source: Headquarters and EPA=s Regional offices will enter information in ICIS upon
completion and delivery of media and sector-specific compliance assistance including
workshops, training,  on-site visits and distribution of compliance assistance tools.  ICIS is
designed to capture outcome measurement information such as increased
awareness/understanding of environmental laws, changes in behavior and environmental
improvements as a result of the compliance assistance provided.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC: Automated data checks and data entry guidelines are in place for ICIS.

Data Quality Review: Information contained in the ICIS is reviewed by Regional and
Headquarters staff for completeness and accuracy. In FY2003, OECA instituted a requirement
for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of information  to satisfy the
GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and
compliance policies on performance measurement. ICIS data are reviewed quarterly and certified
at mid-year and end of year.

Data Limitations: None
                                         169

-------
Error Estimate: None

New & Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to improve and/or modify elements of the
compliance assistance module in ICIS based on use of the system.

References:  US EPA, Integrated Compliance  Information System  Compliance Assistance
Module,  February 2004;  US  EPA,  Compliance Assistance  in  the  Integrated Compliance
Information  System Guidance, February 20,  2004.  US EPA, 2005 Guidance  Addendum for
Reporting Compliance  Assistance in the Integrated Compliance Information  system, March
2005.
                               GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•   Number of pounds reduced (in millions) in generation of priority list chemicals from
    2001 baseline of 84 million pounds

Performance Database: Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) provides facility/chemical-specific
data quantifying the amount of TRI-listed chemicals entering wastes associated with production
processes in each year. The total amount of each chemical in production-related wastes can be
broken out by the methods employed in managing such wastes, including recycling, energy
recovery, treatment, and disposal/release. Amounts of these wastes that are not recycled are
tracked for this performance measure.  The performance measure uses the Chemical Abstract
System (CAS) numbers for the 23 chemicals identified by EPA as priority chemicals
(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/chemlist.htm).

Data Source: Regulated facilities report facility-specific, chemical-specific release, waste and
recycling data to EPA. For example, in calendar year 2003, 23,811 facilities filed 91,648 TRI
reports.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: TRI data are collected as required by Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and expanded by the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990. (40 CFR Part 13101; www.epa.gov/tri/).  Only certain facilities in
specific Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes  are required to report annually the
quantities of over 650 listed toxic chemicals and chemical categories released to each
environmental medium and otherwise managed as waste (40 CFR Part 13101;
www.epa.gov/tri/).  Regulation requires covered facilities to use monitoring, mass balance,
emission factors and/or engineering approaches to estimate releases and recycling volumes.  For
purposes of the performance measure, data controls are employed to facilitate cross-year
comparisons: a subset of chemicals and sectors are assessed that are  consistently reported in all
years.
                                          170

-------
QA/QC Procedures: Most facilities use EPA-certified automated Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) Form R reporting tools, which contain automated error checking mechanisms. Upon
receipt of the facilities' reports, EPA conducts automated edits, error checks, data scrubs,
corrections and normalization during data entry and subsequent processing. The Agency does
not control the quality of the data submitted by the regulated community.  EPA does, however,
work with the regulated community to improve the quality of their estimates.

Data Quality Review: The quality of the data contained in the TRI chemical reports is
dependent upon the quality of the data that the reporting facility uses to estimate its releases and
other waste management quantities. Use of TRI Form R by submitters and EPA's data reviews
help assure data quality. The GAO Report Environmental Protection: EPA Should Strengthen Its
Efforts to Measure and Encourage Pollution Prevention (GAO - 01 - 283,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01283.pdf), recommends that EPA strengthen the rule on
reporting of source reduction activities. Although EPA agrees that source reduction data are
valuable, the Agency has not finalized regulations to improve reporting of source reduction
activities by TRI-regulated facilities.

Data Limitations: Use of the data should be based on the user's understanding that the Agency
does not have direct assurance of the accuracy of the facilities' measurement and reporting
processes. TRI release data are reported by facilities on a good faith, best-estimate basis.  EPA
does not have the resources to conduct on-site validation of each facility's reporting data, though
on-site investigations do occur each year at a subset of reporting facilities.

Error Estimate: From the various data quality efforts, EPA has learned of several reporting
issues such as incorrect assignment of threshold activities and incorrect assignment of release
and other waste management quantities (EPA-745-F-93-001; EPA-745-R-98-012;
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data_quality_reports/index.htm; www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm.)

       For example, certain facilities incorrectly  assigned a 'processing' (25,000 Ib) threshold
instead of an  'otherwise use' (10,000 Ib) threshold for certain non-persistent, bioaccumulative
and toxic (PBT) chemicals, so they did not have to report if their releases were below 25,000 Ibs.
Also, for example, some facilities incorrectly reported fugitive releases  instead of stack releases
of certain toxic chemicals.

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to develop regulations for improving reporting of
source reduction activities by TRI reporting facilities.

References:   and Bureau of Economic
Analysis  (BEA) indices are available at http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Reduction in overall  pounds of pollution
•   Billions of BTUs of energy conserved
•   Billions of gallons of water saved
•   Millions of dollars saved through reductions in pollution
                                          171

-------
•   Cumulative reduction of hazardous chemical releases to the environment and
    hazardous chemicals in industrial waste, in millions of pounds. (PART measure)

The Agency's  Pollution  Prevention  programs  include  Green  Chemistry,  Design for the
Environment, Green Engineering, and other Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs.  Each of these
programs operates under the principles of the Pollution Prevention Act and works with others to
reduce waste at the source, before it is generated. These programs are designed to facilitate the
incorporation of  pollution prevention  concepts  and principles into the daily  operations of
government agencies, businesses, manufacturers, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.

Performance Database: Green Chemistry (GC): EPA is  developing  an electronic  database
("metrics" database) which will allow organized  storage and retrieval of green chemistry data
submitted to EPA on alternative  feedstocks,  processes, and safer chemicals.  The database is
being designed to store and retrieve, in a systematic fashion, information on the  environmental
benefits  and,  where  available,  economic benefits that  these  alternative  green chemistry
technologies  offer. The database is also being designed to track  the  quantity  of hazardous
chemicals and solvents  eliminated through implementation of these alternative technologies.
Green Chemistry technology nominations are received up to December 31 of the year preceding
the reporting year,  and it normally takes 6-12  months  to enter new technologies  into the
database.  By the  end of FY 2005, EPA expects to achieve its target of having a single instance
of each unique nominated technology for 1996-2003 in the database.

Design for the Environment (DfE): DfE does not have a performance database. Instead, DfE is
populating an evaluation  spreadsheet for  its programs  (i.e.,  Alternatives to  Lead  Solder in
Electronics, Furniture  Flame  Retardants Alternatives,   the  Formulator  Program,  and  a
collaboration with the  Air Office  on DfE  approaches  as implementation mechanisms  for
regulating Local Area Sources, such as Auto Refmishing). Spreadsheet content will vary by
approach, and generally will include measures comparing baseline technologies  or products to
"cleaner"  ones, as well as information on partner adoption  and/or market share of cleaner
alternatives; for example, the DfE formulator  approach tracks chemical improvements (such as
pounds of chemicals of concern no longer used by partners,  and conversely  pounds of safer
ingredients) and resource savings. This information will allow benefit calculations.  Information
is collected on an ongoing basis.

Green Engineering (GE): Similar to the Green Chemistry Program, EPA will be  developing an
electronic database to keep track of environmental benefits  of GE projects including, gallons of
water,  British Thermal Units (BTUs) and  dollars saved and pounds of carbon dioxide  (CCh)
emissions eliminated

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: EPA  has worked closely with state and local P2 programs
to develop a national  system that will  provide data on environmental outcomes (the core P2
metrics included in the above  performance measures). Many EPA Regional offices, state and
local P2 programs are  currently collecting data on P2 program activities,  outputs, and outcomes.
EPA has worked  successfully with these programs to reach consensus on standardized metrics,
including  definitions,  and to reach consensus on an ongoing system to gather  data  on  these
metrics. The core  measures in the National Pollution Prevention Results System were adopted in
                                          172

-------
April 2005.  Over  25  state  and  state-level P2  organizations  have signed Memoranda  of
Agreements to provide data using the metrics. The system will also benefit from new reporting
requirements in EPA P2 grants. The new system has the cooperation of key stakeholder groups,
such as the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, which is currently updating a January
2003 report providing baseline data for the period  1990-2000 to add data from 2001-2003. The
new system also has the cooperation of the regional Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange
(P2RX) centers. As the system is implemented, data collected from the program will be placed in
a new national database, facilitating convenient data storage and retrieval.

Data Source: Green Chemistry (GC): Industry and academia submit nominations annually to the
Office of Pollution  Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in response to the Presidential  Green
Chemistry Challenge Awards. Environmental and economic benefit information is included in
the nomination  packages. The metrics database  pulls  this benefit  information  from  the
nominations.

Design for the Environment (DfE): The source of DfE's evaluation information varies  by the
approach and the partner industry. For example, in  DfE's formulation improvement partnerships,
partners  provide proprietary  information  on both their  original  formulation  and their
environmentally  improved one. Partners sign a memorandum of understanding with EPA/DfE
which includes information on how the company uses cleaner  chemistry to formulate a product,
the environmental and health benefits  of the product, and customer and sales information. For
other partnerships, data sources typically include technical  studies  (e.g., cleaner  technology
substitutes  assessments, life-cycle assessments) and market/sales/adoption  information from
associations.

Green Engineering (GE): Data will come from  profiles of  recognized projects by technical
journals or organizations,  such as the American  Institute of Chemical Engineers, or directly
reported by project leaders on industry projects or joint academia-industry projects.

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: State and local P2 programs will submit data as described
above.

Methods, Assumptions, and  Suitability:  Green Chemistry (GC):  The information will be
tracked directly through internal record-keeping systems. No models or assumptions or statistical
methods are employed.

Design for the Environment  (DfE): Methods and assumptions vary  by approach and partner
industry. Each DfE partnership identifies and focuses on a unique  set of chemicals and industrial
processes. For most DfE approaches, the general method is to 1) develop a model for a "typical"
or "average" facility, 2) assess the differences  between traditional and alternative technologies
on metrics such as toxics use, resource consumption, cost, and  performance, 3) track market
share of alternative technologies over time,  and 4) multiply the  increase  in use of alternative,
cleaner technologies by the environmental, cost, and performance differences identified in Step
2. Through this quantitative process, the Agency is  able to calculate the benefits generated by the
cleaner technology: e.g. how much toxics use reduction is occurring, how much less resources
are consumed. Similarly, for DfE's  formulation improvement approach, the method is to
                                          173

-------
analyze environmental (e.g., toxics use, resource consumption) and cost differences between the
old and improved formulations. Proprietary information, including sales data, are provided by
our partners. For each approach, we will develop a spreadsheet that includes the methods and
assumptions.

Green Engineering (GE): The information will be tracked directly through EPA record keeping
systems. No models or statistical extrapolations are expected to be used.

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: The data will come from state and local P2 programs as
described above. No models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.

QA/QC Procedures: All Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs operate under the
Information Quality Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html
and under the Pollution  Prevention and Toxics Quality Management Plan  (QMP). The Quality
Management Plan is for internal use only.

Green Chemistry:  Data undergo a  technical screening  review by the Agency before being
uploaded to the database to determine if they adequately support the environmental benefits
described in the application. Subsequent to Agency screening, data are reviewed by an external
independent  panel  of  technical  experts  from  academia,  industry,  government,   and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Their comments on potential benefits are incorporated
into the database. The panel  is convened by the Green Chemistry  Institute  of the American
Chemical  Society, primarily  for judging nominations  submitted  to  the  Presidential Green
Chemistry Challenge Awards Program  and selecting winning technologies.

Design for the  Environment (DfE): Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE before
being uploaded to the spreadsheet. DfE determines whether data submitted adequately support
the environmental benefits described.

Green Engineering (GE):  Data collected will be reviewed to ensure it meets  EPA's Quality
Guidelines in terms of transparency, reasonableness and accuracy.

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: Data will undergo technical screening review by EPA and
other  program participants (e.g., National  Pollution Prevention Roundtable) before being placed
in the database.  Additional QA/QC steps to be developed, as appropriate.

Data  Quality Review: All Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) programs operate
under EPA's Information Quality Guidelines as found at
http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html and under the OPPT Quality Management
Plan (QMP).
 Green  Chemistry (GC): Review of industry and academic data as documented in U.S. EPA,
Office  of Pollution  Prevention  and  Toxics,  Green  Chemistry Program Files available at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/

Design for the Environment (DfE): Not applicable.
                                          174

-------
Green Engineering (GE): Data collected will be reviewed to meet data quality requirements.

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: The new metrics and data system were based, in part, on
recommendations in the  February 2001 GAO report, "EPA Should Strengthen Its Efforts to
Measure and Encourage Pollution Prevention" (GAO-01-283). They also incorporate work by
such organizations as the Northeast Waste Management Officials Association, Pacific Northwest
Pollution Prevention Resource Center, and National Pollution Prevention Roundtable

Data Limitations:  Green Chemistry  (GC): Occasionally data  are not available for a given
technology due to confidential business information (the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge
Awards Program does not process CBI). Because the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge is
a voluntary  public  program,  it  cannot  routinely  accept  or process  CBI. If the program
stakeholders cannot verify a technology because of proprietary information, especially during the
final judging stage of the awards program, they can and do ask EPA to conduct the verification
internally. EPA will then ask the company to share confidential information with CBI-cleared
OPPT staff in order for EPA to conduct the verification. It also is occasionally unclear as to what
is the percentage market penetration of implemented alternative green chemistry technology
(potential benefits vs. realized benefits). In these cases, the database is so noted.

Design for the Environment (DfE): Occasionally, data on innovative chemistries or technologies
are  claimed CBI  by the  developing company, thus limiting the implementation of beneficial
pollution prevention practices on a wider scale.

Green Engineering  (GE): There may be instances in which environment benefits are not clearly
quantified. In those instances, the data will be excluded.

Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: Limitations arise from the reliance on individual state and
local  P2 programs  to gather data. These programs vary in attention to data collection from
sources  within their jurisdictions, data verification and other QA/QC procedures. Also,  despite
plans described above to move toward consistent metrics and definitions, some differences exist.
EPA is  attempting to address these concerns by strengthening reporting requirements in its P2
grants (which fund  much of the state  and local P2 work) and focusing those requirements on
outcomes, adding comprehensive new grant reporting forms and databases  which are parallel
with the National P2 Results System, and adding a P2 component to EPA Information Exchange
Network (which provides financial support and  a comprehensive data system to link state data
with EPA).

Error Estimate:  Green Engineering  (GE):  There may be instances in which environmental
benefits are not clearly quantified. In those instances, the data will be excluded.  Not applicable
for other programs contributing data to this measure.

New/Improved Data or  Systems: Green Chemistry (GC), Design for the Environment (DfE),
Green Engineering (GE): The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has initiated an industry self-
monitoring program called Responsible Care.  Beginning in 2003, member companies will collect
and report on a variety of information. Measures tentatively include Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) releases; tons of CO2 equivalent per pound of production; total BTUs consumed per pound
                                          175

-------
of production; systems for assessing or, reassessing potential environmental, health, and safety
risks; percentage of products re-evaluated; percentage of commitments for chemical evaluation
programs; documentation of process for characterizing and  managing product risks; and
documentation of communication of risk characterization results.  Many of these measures are
similar to the EPA program targets identified under Goal 5, Objective 2. These reports may be an
invaluable source of  industry baseline information.  It is important that the EPA programs
identified under Goal 5 evaluate the utility of the reports generated under the ACC's Responsible
Care Program in  support of the EPA's  programs as well  as the goals of Responsible Care.
(CAPRM II, Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures, March 2003 pp. 313).  The Pollution
Prevention (P2) program's  data  collection system is currently under development through a
partnership with the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable and EPA.

References:
Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures II: http://www.pepps.fsu.edu./CAPRM/index.html
Green Chemistry (GC): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/
Design for the Environment (DfE): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/
Green Engineering (GE): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
http: //www. p2. org/workgroup/B ackground. cfm
http ://www. epa.gov/Networkg/

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Percent  reduction  in Toxics Release  Inventory  (TRI)  chemical releases  to the
   environment from the business sector per unit of production ("Clean Index")

•  Percent  reduction in TRI chemicals in production-related  wastes  generated by the
   business sector per unit of production ("Green Index")

•  Percent reduction in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reported toxic chemical releases at
   Federal Facilities.

Performance  Database: TRIM: Toxics Release  Inventory Modernization,  formerly  TRIS
(Toxics Release Inventory System)  provides facility/chemical-specific  data quantifying  the
amount of TRI-listed chemicals entering wastes associated with production process in each year.
The  total amount of  each  chemical  in production-related  wastes can be  broken out by  the
methods  employed in  managing  such wastes, including recycling, energy recovery, treatment,
and  disposal/release. Amounts  of  these wastes that are not  recycled  are  tracked for these
performance measures. The fourth  performance measure uses the Chemical Abstract System
(CAS)  numbers   for  the  23  chemicals   identified  by  EPA  as  priority  chemicals
(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/chemlist.htm).

Data Source:  Regulated facilities report facility-specific, chemical-specific release, waste and
recycling data to EPA on a calendar year basis. For example,  in calendar year 2003, 23,957
facilities  filed 97,251 TRI reports. FY 2007 results will not be available until FY 2009 due to a
two year data lag.
                                          176

-------
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: TRI data are collected as required by sections 313 of
EPCRA and 6607 of Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (40 CFR ' 372; www.epa.gov/tri/).  Only
certain facilities in specific Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes are required to report
annually the quantities of over 650 listed toxic chemicals and chemical categories released to
each environmental medium and otherwise managed as waste (40 CFR ' 372; www.epa.gov/tri/).
Regulation requires covered facilities to use monitoring, mass balance, emission factors and/or
engineering calculations approaches to estimate releases and recycling volumes. For the Clean
and Green Index  measures and priority list  chemicals measure,  data controls are employed to
facilitate cross-year  comparisons: a subset of chemicals and  sectors are assessed that are
consistently reported in all years; data are normalized to control for changes in production using
published U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) gross product indices (chain-type quantity
index for the  manufacturing  sector). [Please note the federal  facility measure  data are not
normalized to control for changes in production.]

QA/QC  Procedures: Most facilities use EPA-certified  automated Toxics Release  Inventory
(TRI) FORM R reporting tools, which contain automated error checking mechanisms. Upon
receipt of the facilities' reports,  EPA  conducts  automated  edits,  error checks, data scrubs,
corrections and normalization during data entry and  subsequent processing to verify that the
information provided by the facilities is correctly entered in TRIM. The Agency does not control
the quality of the data submitted by the regulated community. EPA does, however, work with the
regulated community to improve the quality of their estimates.

Data Quality Review:  The  quality  of the data contained  in the TRI chemical reports  is
dependent upon the quality of the  data that the reporting facility uses to estimate its releases and
other waste management quantities. Use of TRI Form R by submitters  and EPA's performance
data reviews combine to help assure data quality.

Data Limitations: Use of the data should be based on the user's understanding that the Agency
does not have  direct assurance of the accuracy  of the facilities'  measurement  and reporting
processes. TRI release data are reported by facilities on a good faith, best-estimate basis. EPA
does not have the  resources to conduct on-site validation of each facility's reporting data, though
on-site investigations do occur each year at a  subset of reporting facilities.

Error  Estimate:  From  the various data quality  efforts, EPA has learned of several reporting
issues such as incorrect assignment of threshold activities and incorrect assignment of release
and   other  waste  management  quantities   (EPA-745-F-93-001;   EPA-745-R-98-012;
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data_quality_reports/index.htm;     www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm.)
For example, certain  facilities incorrectly assigned a 'processing' (25,000 Ib) threshold instead of
an 'otherwise use' (10,000 Ib) threshold for certain persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT)
chemicals,  so they did not have  to report  if their releases were below 25,000  Ibs.  Also, for
example, some facilities incorrectly reported  fugitive releases instead of stack releases of certain
toxic chemicals.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  To improve reporting efficiency and effectiveness, reduce
burden, and promote data reliability and consistency across Agency programs, EPA simplified
                                           177

-------
the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements. The TRI Form Modification Rule
effective September of 2005, will simplify data elements, reduced the number of reporting codes,
and make two technical  corrections to the regulations by correcting contact information and
removing an outdated description of a pollution prevention data element. The revised TRI form,
will  allow the  EPA  to better target  pollution prevention efforts, improve public access  to
information about source reduction and pollution control activities undertaken by some facilities,
and encourage manufacturers to comply by making it easier to use. Please see the following for
additional information on this rule: http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/modrule/index.htm

References: www.epa.gov/tri/ and additional citations provided above: EPA-745-F-93-
001;EPA-745-R-98-012; http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm;
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data_quality_reports/index.htm; OSWER priority  chemicals  and fact
sheets http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/chemlist.htm;
www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm; Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indices are available at
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/.

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Specific annual reductions in six media/resource areas: water use, energy use, materials
    use, solid waste generated, air releases, and water discharges

•  Reduce 3.7 billion gallons of water use; 16.3 million MMBTUs of energy use;  1,050 tons
    of materials use; 460,000 tons of solid waste;  66,000 tons of air releases; & 12,400 tons
    of water discharges

Performance Databases: Both the Performance Track On-Line (a Domino database) and the
Performance Track Members Database (a Microsoft Access database) store information that
facilities have provided to EPA in applications and  annual performance reports.  Performance
Track members select a set of environmental indicators on which to report performance over a
three-year period of participation. The  externally reported indicators (listed above) may or may
not be included in any particular facility's set of indicators. Performance Track aggregates and
reports only that information that a facility voluntarily reports to the Agency.  A facility may
make progress towards one of the above indicators, but if it is not among its set of
"commitments", then Performance Track's data will not reflect the changes  occurring at the
facility.  Similarly, if a facility's performance declines in any of the above areas and the indicator
is not included among its set of commitments, that decline will not be reflected in the above
results.

Members report on results in a calendar year.   Fiscal year 2007 corresponds most closely with
members' calendar year 2006.  That data will be reported to the Performance Track program by
April 1, 2007. The data will then be reviewed, aggregated, and available for external reporting in
September 2007. (Calendar year 2005  data will become available in September 2006.)

Data Source: All data are self-reported and self-certified by member facilities. As described
below, Performance Track engages in quality control to the extent possible, but it does not
conduct formal auditing. However, a criterion of Performance Track membership is the
                                          178

-------
existence of an environmental management system (EMS) at the facility, a key element of which
is a system of measurement and monitoring. Most Performance Track facilities have had
independent third-party audits of their EMSs, which create a basis for confidence in the
facilities' data. It is clear from submitted reports that some facilities have a tendency to estimate
or round data. Errors are also made in converting units and in calculations.  In general, however,
EPA is confident that the externally reported results are a fair representation of members'
performance.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data collected from members' applications and
annual performance reports are compiled and aggregated across those members that choose to
report on the given indicator. The data reflect the performance results at the facility; any
improvements or declines in performance are due to activities and conditions at the specific
facility as a whole. However, in some cases, facilities report results for specific sections of a
facility and this may not be clear in the reports submitted to  the program. For example, Member
A commits to reducing its VOCs from 1000 tons to 500 tons over a 3-year period. In Year 1, it
reports a reduction of VOCs from 1000 tons to 800 tons. Performance Track aggregates this
reduction of 200 tons with results from other facilities.  But unbeknownst to Performance Track,
the facility made a commitment to reduce its VOCs from Production Line A and is only
reporting on its results from that production line.  The facility is not intentionally hiding
information from EPA, but mistakenly thought that its commitment could focus on
environmental management activities at Production Line A rather than across the entire facility.
Unfortunately, due to increased production and a couple of mishaps by a sloppy technician, VOC
emissions at Production Line B increased by 500 tons in Year 1. Thus, the facility's VOC
emissions actually increased by 300 tons in Year 1.  Performance Track's statement to the public
that the facility reduced its emissions by 200 tons is therefore misleading.

The data can be used to make year-to-year comparisons, but reviewers and analysts should bear
in mind that Performance Track membership is constantly in flux.  Although members should
retain the same set of indicators for their three-year participation period, as new members join
the program and others leave, the baseline constantly changes.

Due to unavoidable issues regarding the timing of the application period, a small subset of
reported data  will represent two years of performance at certain facilities, i.e., the baseline will
be two years prior rather than one year.

QA/QC Procedures:  Data submitted with applications and annual performance reports to the
program are reviewed for completeness and adherence to program formatting requirements.   In
cases where it appears possible that data is miscalculated or  misreported, EPA or contractor  staff
follows up with the facility. If the accuracy of data remains  under question or if a facility has
provided incomplete or non-standard data, the database is coded to ensure that the data is
excluded from aggregated and externally reported results.

Additionally,  Performance Track staff visit up to 20% of Performance Track member facilities
each year.  During those visits, facilities are asked about their data collection systems and about
the sources of the data reported to the program.
                                           179

-------
Performance Track contractors conduct a quality review of data entered manually into the
database. Performance Track staff conduct periodic checks of the entered data.

As described, Performance Track is quality controlled to the extent possible, but is not audited in
a formal way. However, a prerequisite of Performance Track membership is an environmental
management system (EMS) at the facility,  a key element of which is a system of measurement
and monitoring. Most Performance Track facilities have had independent third-party audits of
their EMSs, which create a basis for confidence in the facilities' data.

A Quality Management Plan is under development.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A.

Data Limitations: Potential sources of error include miscalculations, faulty data collection,
misreporting, inconsistent reporting, and nonstandard reporting on the part of the facility.  Where
facilities submit data outside of the Performance Track On-Line system, Performance Track staff
or contractors must enter data manually into the database.  Manually entered data is sometimes
typed incorrectly.

It is clear from submitted reports that some facilities have a tendency to estimate or round data.
Errors are also made in converting units and in calculations.  In general, however, EPA is
confident that the externally reported results are a fair representation of members' performance.

Error Estimate: Not calculated.

New/Improved Performance Data or Systems:  Since spring 2004, all Performance Track
applications and annual performance reports have been submitted electronically (i.e., through the
Performance Track On-Line system), thus  avoiding the need for manual data entry.
Additionally, the program is implementing a new requirement that all members gain third-party
assessments of their EMSs. Also, the program has reduced the chances that data may reflect
process-specific (rather than facility-wide) data by paying additional attention to the issue in the
review process and by instituting "facility-wide data" requirements for all indicators.

References: Members' applications and annual performance reports can be found on the
Performance Track website at https://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/ptrack.nsf/faMembers?readform.
Performance Track On-Line and the Performance Track Members Database are not generally
accessible.  Performance Track staff can grant access to and review of the databases by request.

                                GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2007 Performance Measures:
•  Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs (PART measure)

•  Percent of tribes with EPA-reviewed  monitoring and assessment occurring (PART
   measure)
                                          180

-------
•  Percent of tribes with EPA-approved multimedia work plans (PART measure)

•  Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian country per million dollars
   (PART efficiency measure)

Performance Database:
       EPA's American Indian Environmental  Office  (AIEO)  developed  an information
technology infrastructure, named the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture (TPEA).   The
TPEA is a suite often secure Internet-based applications that track environmental conditions and
program implementation in Indian country as well as other AIEO business functions. One TPEA
application, the Objective 5.3  Reporting System, tracks progress in achieving the performance
targets  under Goal 5 Objective 3 of EPA's National Strategic Plan - "Build Tribal Capacity."
EPA staff use  the Objective  5.3 Reporting  System  to  establish program  performance
commitments for future fiscal  years, to record actual program  performance for overall national
program management.  Therefore, the Objective 5.3 Reporting System serves as the performance
database for all of the annual performance measures.

Data Source:

The performance  measure,  "Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated  programs,"
tracks the  number of: Treatment in  a manner similar to a State (TAS) approvals  or primacies;
implementations of a tribal  program; executions of Direct Implementation  Tribal Cooperative
Agreements (DITCA); and GAP (General Assistance Programs) grants that have provisions for
the implementation of solid waste or hazardous waste programs.

EPA Regional project officers managing Tribes with delegated and non-delegated environmental
programs input data, classified by tribe, into the Objective 5.3 Reporting System  to derive a
national cumulative total.

The performance  measure,  "Percent of Tribes  with EPA approved multi-media workplans,"
tracks  the number of:   Performance  Partnership   Grants  (PPGs); Tribal Environmental
Agreements  (TEAs), Tier I, Tier II, and  Tier III;  Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs); and
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).

EPA Regional tribal program liaisons input data, which are summed annually. It is possible a
tribe will contribute to the measure in more than one way.

The performance measure, "Percent of tribes with EPA-reviewed  monitoring and assessment
occurring (cumulative)," reports the  number of active Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs).
All ongoing  environmental monitoring  programs are required to have  active QAPPs. Regional
tribal program liaisons  obtain  the information from Regional  Quality Assurance Officers and
input it into the Objective 5.3 Reporting System.  The data are updated continuously and summed
at the end of the fiscal year.
                                         181

-------
The performance measure, "Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian Country
per million dollars," is calculated annually by summing the number of tribes receiving GAP
grants, the number of TAS approvals or primacies, the number of DITCAs, and the number of
GAP grants that have provisions for the implementation of solid or hazardous waste programs
and dividing that sum by the annual GAP appropriation (less rescissions and annual set-asides.)

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Objective 5.3 Reporting System  contains all the
information for reporting on performance. The measure that tracks delegated and non-delegated
programs  can  be  cross-referenced and verified  with  records from  the Integrated  Grants
Management  System.  The measure that tracks  monitoring and assessment programs  can  be
verified from databases maintained by the Regional Quality Assurance Officers.  The measure
that tracks multimedia work plans can be verified from official correspondence files between
EPA Regions and Tribes, or from project officer case files.

QA/QC Procedures:  Data used in the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture contains quality
assurance and metadata documentation prepared by the originating agency or program.  Because
the information in the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture is used for budget and strategic
planning purposes, AIEO requires adherence to the Agency's Information Quality Guidelines.


Data  Quality Reviews:   Data correction and improvement is  an ongoing component of the
Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture.  The Objective 5.3  Reporting  System relies on multiple
staff-level reviews.  In addition,  a  special application, the Tribal  Information  Management
System (TIMS) Data Center was developed to support the submission of corrections to boundary
information, narrative tribal profiles, and factual database information - particularly latitude and
longitude coordinates for facilities.  The AIEO  collects  and passes along recommendations
regarding the correction or modification of databases whenever errors are detected or suggestions
for database improvement  are received.  Each database manager retains the responsibility of
addressing the recommended change according to quality assurance protocols. Because the data
submittals are used for budget or strategic planning purposes, AIEO requires that all submittals
comply     with     the     Agency's           Information     Quality     Guidelines.


Data Limitations:  A large part of the data used  by the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture
has not been  coded to particular Tribes  by the recording agency.  AIEO uses new geographic
data mining technologies to extract records based on the geographical coordinates of the data
points. For example, if a regulated facility has latitude and  longitude coordinates that place it in
the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation, then it is assigned to the Arapaho and Shoshone
Tribes of the Wind River Reservation.  This technique is extremely powerful because it Atribally
enables@ large numbers  of information systems which were previously incapable of identifying
Tribes.  This approach will be applied to all EPA databases. There  are limitations, however.
When  database records  are  not  geographically  identified  with latitude and longitude,  the
technique does not work and the record is lost to the system.  For EPA regulated facilities in the
Facility Registry System,  AIEO  estimates that 64% have latitude  and  longitude recorded.
Therefore, the accuracy  of EPA's data concerning environmental conditions in Indian  country
will depend on additional improvements to Agency data systems.
                                          182

-------
Error Estimate:  Analysis of variation  of reservation boundary coverages available to EPA
indicates deviations  of up to 5%.  Another source of error is that some records are not
sufficiently described geographically to be assigned to specific Tribes.  It is estimated that 36%
of the regulated facilities in EPA's regulatory databases are not geographically described. The
TPEA identifies the non-geographically indexed facilities by postal zip code for zip codes that
overlap tribal boundaries.

New/Improved  Data or Systems: The technologies used by the Tribal Program Enterprise
Architecture are new, secure and state-of-the-art.  The geographic interface is a product called
ARC/IMS, which is  a web-based application, with a fully  functional  scalable  Geographic
Information System (GIS).  The Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture uses XML protocols to
attach to and display information  seamlessly and in real-time from cooperating agency data
systems without having to download the  data to an intermediate server. In addition, the TPEA
project has developed web-based, secure data  input systems that allow Regional project officers
and tribal program liaisons to input  programmatic  data  directly into performance reporting
systems, TIMS and other customizable reports.

References:

Objective 5.3 Reporting System: https://oasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TATS/tats_prv/entry_page
EPA's Information Quality Guidelines:  http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines

                                 GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 4

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•  Percent increase in Pollution  Prevention/Sustainability program publications rated as
   highly cited papers

Performance Database: No internal tracking system

Data  Source:   The  source of data will  be a  contractor-produced bibliometric  analysis  of
Pollution Prevention/Sustainability  program publications.

Methods, Assumptions and  Suitability:  The  analysis will  be completed using Thomson's
Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI are a
comprehensive  compilation of essential science performance  statistics and  science trends data
derived from Thomson's databases. The chief indicator of output, or  productivity, is journal
article publication counts. For influence and impact measures, ESI employs both total citation
counts and cites per paper scores.  The former reveals gross  influence while the latter shows
weighted influence, also called impact.  JCR presents  quantifiable statistical data, which provide
a systematic, objective way to evaluate  the world's leading journals and their  impact and
influence in the global research community.
                                          183

-------
QA/QC Procedures: Source data will be used  in comparing  program publications  to field
benchmarks, Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Report (JCR).

Data Quality Reviews:  Additional benchmarks will be used to determine the number of self-
citations of articles by the same author in order to reduce the self-citation rate.

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References:

Essential Science Indicatorsฎ- Thomson Scientific. 2003.

Journal Citation Reportsฎ. Thomson Scientific. 2003.

US EPA.  December 2004. BOSC Program  Review.  Citation  Analysis of ORD's Endocrine
Disrupters (EDCs) Research Program, publication list.

ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   Percent to which competency/skill gaps are reduced (beginner to intermediate) in
    mission-critical occupations (MCO)

•   Percent to which competency/skill gaps are reduced (intermediate to expert) in MCOs

Database:  Database populated with competency/skills of  employees  obtained from a self-
assessment survey, and competency/skills deemed necessary within each occupation.

Methods,  Assumptions and  Suitability:   Survey  data will be  used  to provide  current
competency/skills of the present MCO employees.   These data will be compared to what
competency/skills EPA feels is  necessary for mission accomplishment within each MCO to
arrive at a baseline assessment.

Yearly surveys of the MCO employee base will be completed and compared to the baseline.

QA/QC Procedures:  The Office of Human Resources will  be  conducting a survey of EPA's
MCO workforce to reflect competency/skills possessed within each MCO grouping.

Data Quality Reviews:  N/A
                                         184

-------
Data Limitations:   Employees will self-assess their competency/skills. If they over-inflate or
under-inflate this assessment, analysis of the information may not correctly identify gaps.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: This is a new competency/skills database.

References: This is a new competency/skills database.


FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Number of new hires recruited through EPA's Environmental Intern Program (EIP) in
   Mission Critical Occupations (MCO)

Data Source: The Office of Human Resources (OHR) PeoplePlus system.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on new hires through the EIP is collected by
OHR and maintained by the National EIP Manager. Using the information from the PeoplePlus
New Hire Report and consulting with the headquarters National EIP Manager, a determination
can be made if the new hire in an MCO was recruited through the EIP.

QA/QC Procedures: PeoplePlus contains  nature of action codes (NOAC) designating the type
of personnel action taken and the appointing authority. Efforts are underway to establish an EIP
designation code. The NO AC and an EIP identifier will more readily identify new hires in
MCOs recruited through the EIP.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations:  N/A

Error Estimate: N/A.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The establishment of an EIP designation code in PeoplePlus
will provide an integrated approach to identifying new hires through the EIP.

References: PeoplePlus.


FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Average time to hire non-SES positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is
   extended, expressed in working days

Data Source: The Office of Human Resources (OHR) Ez-Hire System.
                                         185

-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Data on new hires is collected by OHR using the Ez-
Hire system. A data file is obtained from the Ez-hire contractor and downloaded into Excel
spreadsheets, which are formatted into the various components of the Office of Personnel
Management's 45-day Hiring Model. OHR staff review the results and further investigate any
data anomalies prior to finalizing the report and sending it to the servicing Human Resources
Officer (HRO) who views and validates the data.

QA/QC Procedures: Ez-Hire contains new hire data from the time the vacancy is announced
until the selection is made by the Selecting Official from the Referral Certification.

Data Quality Reviews: OHR staff review and analyze the results of the report, investigate any
data anomalies, finalize the report, and send to the HRO. The servicing HRO further reviews
and validates the data. Any discrepancies are reported to OHR's staff for review and remedy.
The results of the OHR staff review is shared with the HRO.

Data Limitations:  N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: The Ez-Hire system provides adequate data for analysis of
the average time to hire for non-Senior Executive Service (SES) applicants.

References: Ez-Hire
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•   For SES positions, the average time from the date vacancy closes to date offer is
    extended, expressed in working days.

Data Source: The Executive Resources Staff (ERS) weekly activity report. This is a text report
that tracks SES personal actions through the various stages of the hiring process.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data from the weekly report is tracked and reported
quarterly. ERS staff review the results and further investigate any data anomalies prior to
finalizing the quarterly report.

QA/QC Procedures: Data are added as vacancy status changes

Data Quality Reviews: The ERS Operations Team Leader reviews data weekly, analyzes the
results and notes instances where goals may not be met.  The Team Leader meets with specialists
to investigate any data anomalies in attempt to meet standards.

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A
                                          186

-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References: Ez-Hire

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•  Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPA's 21 laboratories from
   the 2003 base

Performance Database: The Agency's contractor provides energy consumption information
quarterly and annually.  The Agency keeps the energy consumption data in the "Energy
Reporting System." The contractor is responsible for validating the data.

Data Source: The Agency's contractor collects quarterly energy data from each of EPA's
laboratories. The data are based on metered readings from the laboratory's utility bills for certain
utilities (natural gas, electricity, purchased steam, chilled water, high temperature hot water, and
potable water) and from on-site consumption logs for other utilities (propane and fuel oil). The
data from the on-site consumption logs are compared to invoices to verify that reported
consumption and cost data are correct.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures: EPA's Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch compares reported energy
use at each facility against previous years' data to see if there are any significant and
unexplainable increases or decreases in energy quantities and costs.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: EPA does not have a formal meter verification program to ensure that an  on-
site utility meter reading corresponds to the charges included in the utility bill.

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References: N/A
FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  The Central Data Exchange (CDX) will fully support electronic data exchange
   requirements for major EPA environmental systems, enabling faster receipt,
   processing, and quality checking of data
•  States will be able to exchange data with CDX through state nodes in real time, using
   new web-based data standards that allow for automated data-quality checking
•  States, tribes, laboratories, and others will choose to use CDX to report environmental
   data electronically to EPA, taking advantage of automated data quality checks and on-
                                         187

-------
   line customer support.
•  Customer-help desk calls resolved in a timely fashion.

Performance Database: CDX Customer Registration Subsystem.

Data Source: Data are provided by state, private sector, local, and tribal government CDX users.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: All CDX users must register before they can begin
reporting to the system. The records of registration provide an up-to-date, accurate count of
users. Users identify themselves with several descriptors.

QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC have been performed in accordance with a CDX Quality
Assurance Plan [Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Interim Central Data Exchange System.
Document number: EP005T7.  Sept. 17, 2001] and the CDX Design Document v.3. Appendix K
registration procedures [Central Data Exchange Electronic Reporting Prototype System
Requirements: Version 3; Document number: EP005S3. December 2000]. Specifically, data are
reviewed for authenticity and integrity. The CDX Quality Assurance Plan was updated in FY
2004 [Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Central Data Exchange," 10/8/2004; contact:
Wendy Timm, 202 566 0725] to incorporate new technology and policy requirements. Work is
underway to complete the revision of the Design Document. Automated edit checking routines
are performed in accordance with program specifications and CDX quality assurance guidance
[Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Interim Central Data Exchange System. Document
number: EP005T7. Sept. 17, 2001].

Data Quality Reviews: CDX successfully completed independent security risk assessment in the
summer 2001.  In addition, routine audits of CDX data collection procedures and customer
service operations are provided weekly to  CDX management and staff for review. Included in
these reports are performance measures such as the number of CDX new users, number of
submissions to CDX, number of help desk calls, number of calls resolved, ranking of
errors/problems, and actions taken.  These reports are reviewed and actions discussed at weekly
project meetings.

Data Limitations: The CDX system collects, reports, and tracks performance measures on data
quality and customer service. While its automated routines are sufficient to screen systemic
problems/issues, a more detailed assessment of data errors/problems generally requires a
secondary level of analysis that takes time and human resources.

Error Estimate:  CDX incorporates a number of features to reduce errors, such as pre-
populating data whenever possible, edit checks, etc. The possibility of an error in the number of
states registered for CDX, e.g., double-counting of some sort, is extremely remote (far less than 1
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: CDX coalesces the registration/submission
requirements of many different state-to-EPA, private sector-to-EPA, and local and tribal
governments-to-EPA data exchanges into a single web-based system. The system allows for a
more consistent and comprehensive management and performance tracking of many different
                                          188

-------
external customers. The creation of a centralized registration system, coupled with the use of
web forms and web-based approaches to submitting the data, invite opportunities to introduce
automated quality assurance procedures for the system and reduce human error.

References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).

FY 2007 Performance Measure:

•  Establish an improved suite of environmental indicators for use by EPA's programs
   and partners in the Agency's strategic planning and performance measurement process

Performance Database: Initial collection of indicators compiled during the drafting of EPA's
"Report on the Environment," supplemented by indicators currently used in the Agency's
strategic planning and performance measurement process (e.g., EPA's Strategic Plan, Annual
Performance Plan, Annual Performance Report, Annual Operating Plan, and National
Environmental Performance Partnership Agreements), will comprise an Agency baseline of
indicators (http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm).

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Office of Environmental Information (OEI), the
Office of Research and Development (ORD), and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO) will review the planning documents and establish a baseline of indicators in
consultation with key Agency steering committees.

QA/QC Procedures: As the baseline is established, protocols also will be developed to ensure
that the data supporting the indicators are accurate and complete.

Data Quality Reviews: To be determined and conducted once a baseline has been established.

Data Limitations: The challenge is to develop suitable indicators with sufficient data of known
quality.

Error Estimate: To be determined.

New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The baseline indicators and supporting data are
in development.

References: EPA's "Draft Report on the Environment" and "Technical Support Document"
(EPA pub. no. 260-R-02-006). Draft Report on the Environment Technical Document
(Publication # EPA 600-R-03-050). Both Dated June 2003

Web site:  http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/roePDF.htm
FY 2007 Performance Measure:
                                         189

-------
•  Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB to assess Agency security programs
   reported annually to OMB under the Federal Information Security Management Act
   (FISMA)

Performance Database: Automated Security Self-Evaluation and Remediation Tracking
(ASSERT) database.

Data Source: Information technology (IT) system owners in Agency Program and Regional
offices.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Annual IT security assessments are conducted using
the methodology mandated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the National
Institute of Standards, and Technology (NIST) Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information
Technology Systems. ASSERT has automated and web-enabled this methodology.

QA/QC Procedures: Automated edit checking routines are performed in accordance with
ASSERT design specifications to ensure answers to questions in ASSERT are consistent. The
Office of Inspector General consistent with ง3545 FISMA, and the Chief Information Officer's
information security staff conduct independent evaluations of the assessments. The Agency
certifies results to OMB in the annual FISMA report.

Data Quality Reviews: Program offices are required to develop security action plans composed
of tasks and milestones to address security weaknesses. Program offices self-report progress
toward these milestones. EPA's information security staff review these self-reported data,
conduct independent validation of a sample, and discuss anomalies with the submitting office.

Data Limitations: Resources constrain the security staffs ability to validate all of the self-
reported compliance data submitted by program systems' managers.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References:
Annual Information Security Reports to OMB:  http://intranet.epa.gov/itsecurity/progreviews/:
OMB guidance memorandum: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/2003.html:
ASSERT web site:  https://cfmt.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/; NIST Special Publication 800-26, Security
Self Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems., November 2001:
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html: and, Federal Information Security
Management Act, PL 107-347: http://csrc.nist.gov/policies/FISMA_fmal.pdf

FY 2007 Performance Measures:

•  Number of environmental risks reduced, environmental actions taken, and
   environmental recommendations/risks/best practices identified.
                                         190

-------
•  Number of actions taken for improved business practices and systems,
   criminal/civil/administrative actions, business recommendations/risks/best practices,
   and potential dollar return identified.

Performance Database:  The OIG Performance Measurement and Results System captures and
aggregates information on an array of measures in a logic model format, linking immediate
outputs with long-term intermediate outcomes and results. Because intermediate and long-term
results may not be realized for several years, only verifiable results are reported in the year
completed, while others remain prospective until completed and verified. Database measures
include numbers of: 1) recommendations for environmental and management improvement,
including management of assistance agreements; 2) legislative, regulatory policy, directive, or
process changes; 3) environmental, program, and security and resource integrity risks identified,
reduced, or eliminated; 4) best practices identified and implemented; 5) examples of
environmental and management improvements; 6) monetary value of funds questioned, saved,
fined, or recovered; and 7) public or congressional inquiries resolved.

Data Source:  Designated OIG staff enter data into the system.  Data are from OIG performance
evaluations, audits, research, court records, EPA documents, data systems, and reports that track
environmental and management actions or improvements made and risks reduced or avoided.
OIG also collects independent data from EPA's partners and stakeholders.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  OIG performance results are a chain of linked events,
starting with OIG outputs (e.g.,  recommendations, reports of best practices, and identification of
risks). The subsequent actions taken by EPA or its stakeholders/partners, as a result of OIG's
outputs, to improve operational  efficiency and environmental program delivery are reported as
intermediate outcomes. The resulting improvements in operational efficiency, risks
reduced/eliminated, and conditions of environmental and human health are reported as outcomes.
By using common categories of performance measures, quantitative results can be summed and
reported. Each outcome is also qualitatively described, supported, and linked to an OIG product
or output.  The OIG can only control its outputs, and has no authority, beyond its influence, to
implement its recommendations that lead to environmental and management outcomes.

QA/QC Procedures:  All performance data submitted to the database require at least one
verifiable source assuring data accuracy and reliability. Data quality assurance and control are
performed as an extension of OIG products  and services, subject to rigorous compliance with the
Government Auditing  Standards of the  Comptroller General27, and regularly reviewed by OIG
management, an independent OIG Management Assessment Review Team, and external
independent peer reviews. Each Assistant Inspector General certifies the completeness and
accuracy of performance data.

Data Quality Reviews:  There have not been any previous audit findings or reports by external
groups on data or database weaknesses  in the OIG Performance Measurement and Results
System. All data reported are audited internally for accuracy and consistency.
27
  Government Auditing Standards (2003 Revision), General Accounting Office,
GAO-03-673G, June 2003
                                          191

-------
Data Limitations: All OIG staff are responsible for data accuracy in their products and
services.  However, there is a possibility of incomplete, miscoded, or missing data in the system
due to human error or time lags. Data supporting achievement of results are often from indirect
or external sources, with their own methods or standards for data verification/validation.

Error Estimate:  The error rate for outputs is estimated at +/-2%, while the error rate for
reported long-term outcomes is presumably greater because of the longer period needed for
tracking results. Errors tend to be those of omission.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The OIG developed the Performance Measurement and
Results System as a prototype in FY 2001 and anticipates replacing it in FY 2006 with a more
sophisticated system  designed to integrate data collection and analysis. We also expect the
quality of the data to  improve as staff gain  greater familiarity with the system and measures. This
system is a best practice in government for linking an array of measures from outputs to eventual
results and impacts. With enhanced linkages to customer satisfaction results and resource
investments, it will provide a full-balanced scorecard with return on investment information for
accountability and decision making.

References: All OIG non-restricted performance results are referenced in the OIG Performance
Measurement and Results System with supporting documentation available either through the
                                       	                                    98
OIG Web Site or other Agency databases. The OIG Web Site is www.epa.gov/oig.
  U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Evaluations, and Other Publications,
Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oig, last updated November 30, 2005
                                           192

-------