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;
» 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 ° ' ° 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- ±- ^ j MI ±- 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 *» work with OMB °n
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
-------
:§ 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 -
C£ft 6O -
co 4O -
3l 20 -
O
Restoration Goal (1 SS,OQO acres by 2O1O)
n
n
fl
f^~~ r^- ^D ia^f £Ef <3cl ob 545 cK II> *SS *3C> ^IS iri t« '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
§ §
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. § 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. §
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 ar£ ^^ to imprOving these waters.
Oceans and Coastal Program r °
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 20°6'. 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. § 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 § 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to review and comment on
proposed Federal actions, neither the National Environmental Policy Act nor § 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,
§103
Clean Air Act,
§103
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, §106;
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,
§319(h);TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts
FWPCA, as
amended,
§104(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,
§1443(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, §
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,
§3011;
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
§ 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,
§ 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,
§28(a) and 404
(g); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FIFRA
§ 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, §6605;
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 system® for emissions reductions.
The Integrated Planning Model, used to develop baseline data for carbon emissions, is an
important analytical tool for evaluating emission scenarios affecting the U.S. power sector. The
IPM has an approved quality assurance project plan that is available from EPA's program office.
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 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 (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...®
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 Indicators®- Thomson Scientific. 2003.
Journal Citation Reports®. 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 §1413 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 §319
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.® Permits that have not been renewed within 180 days of expiration are
considered Aexpired® 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
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 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 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:
« 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 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
« 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:
« 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 Aprotection® and Arestoration® 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 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 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 compliance® quantity of pollutants released and the post enforcement action Ain
compliance® 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:
« 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
-------
« 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
-------
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.
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 Indicators®- Thomson Scientific. 2003.
Journal Citation Reports®. 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 §3545 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 Indicators®- Thomson Scientific. 2003.
Journal Citation Reports®. 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 §1413 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 §319
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)
» 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 Indicators®- Thomson Scientific. 2003.
Journal Citation Reports®. 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 §3545 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
------- |